Past Correspondents dinner roasts had much more bite than Wolf's and nary got 1/10th of the "controversy."

If I understand the situation correctly, the MOST "divisive" joke Wolf told was the "Smoky Eye" joke. The Right claims it's divisive & disgusting because it's a physical attack on Sanders? What the hell? In what context it's physical? The punchline is all political/fake-news rebuttal, not physical to me. It's not a comment of Sanders' physique/appearance. Wolf's not that cheap. IMO that joke was brilliantly delivered, unique and all hers. Most of the rest are not Wolf's best though. I've seen her jokes that are far more biting, I honestly think she toned it down already for the dinner.

Wolf made fun of her own body ALL THE TIME at Trevor Noah's Show and other comedy venues. That's a sign of self-confidence.

Besides, past Presidents (Dem AND Rep) also got chances to roast many people (themselves, others and a bit of self-loathing too) at these dinners too.

Comedy roasts ARE suppose to be non-PC. Taking the punches well actually humanizes the POTUS.

From: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/media/sinclair-broadcasting-promos-media-bashing/index.html

The instructions for producing and airing the localized versions went into great detail about how the promos "should look and sound," according to another document obtained by CNN.

"Talent should dress in jewel tones -- however they should not look political in their dress or attire," one of the documents says. "Avoid total red, blue and purples dresses and suits. Avoid totally red, blue and purple ties, the goal is to look apolitical, neutral, nonpartisan yet professional. Black or charcoal suits for men...females should wear yellow, gold, magenta, cyan, but avoid red, blue or purple."

At the end of the promo, viewers are encouraged to send in feedback "if you believe our coverage is unfair."

The instructions say that "corporate will monitor the comments and send replies to your audience on your behalf."

In other words, local stations are cut out of the interactions with viewers. Management will handle it instead.

I'm glad they went this route.

There's a certain attitude that says that only cute, indie games about children with big heads lost in a scary world can be art (shamelessly stole that from Zero Punctuation), but big-budget action games are disposable nonsense.

And there certainly ARE plenty of good, clever, indie games and insanely dumb, tone-deaf, "press f to pay respects" AAA games.

But you can have violence be a part of your story and still be a good story. Hell, your story can be about violence and what it does to you. Spec Ops: The Line is a great example of this.

It's disingenuous to say that video games are nothing but sadistic murder simulators, but it would be equally disingenuous to pretend they're all sweetness and light.

The first God of War is as brutal and sadistic as they come and it's a great game. "Hatred" sets out to be the most brutal and sadistic game ever but it's terrible.

Not sure why they edited Alex Jones. Guess they had to tone him down.

Looses out on the tone of the different string instruments, but still good.

the dustin hoffman story to tickling transition was a bit tone deaf but hilarious regardless.

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this. I hope they take the opportunity to change the tone of the show a bit. I really like Peter Capaldi but half his episodes were just badly written.

A couple of months in the gym and a reasonably strict diet and she'd probably be a solid 8. Amazing what low body-fat and a bit of muscle tone can do to just about anyone.

"You're supposed to be funny!!"
"You know what, Norm, you're a dick."
Pretty much how I've felt about his whole career. I've never understood the appeal, and I've never found him to be funny or even of average intelligence.

It is surprising to see that his misogynistic, drug addled, idiotic real life views are even worse than the misogynistic, drug addled, idiotic characters he plays. I guess the writers decided no one would believe full strength Norm was believable, and didn't want to spoil the illusion of a talking super douchbag pigeon, so they toned him down.

I upvoted your video because I appreciate the fact you're trying to present a cognizant backing for a lot of the things you say and believe.

I don't know if this was your strongest card, 'tho. He's well-spoken, with impressive CV and an interesting argument. The problem is he's cherry-picking the entire video and sometimes even resorting to rank hypocrisy (it's anti-American to campaign to minorities with a grievance, yet pulling the same stunt got Trump elected when he did it with white people).

I notice he falls back on the Coastal Elite trope, as if being successful and having ideals is somehow an antithesis to all that's good and pure about corn farmers in Kansas. Somehow, it's all those darned people living in that magical wonderland of those who can smell sea salt from the front porch of their homes that fucked middle America.

No. Sorry. Wrong answer.

40 years of Republican-dominated rule, 40 years of a sick social experiment being run by the disciples of Any Rand, is what fucked those people. 40 years of tax cuts for the rich and excess taxation on the poor; 40 years of stealing from schools to pay for subs; 40 years of setting the wolves among the sheep in the form of stripping consumer protections; 40 years of historical revisionism; 40 years of the kind of government that should have landed the perpetrators 12 steps from 6 hooded men with 5 loaded rifles.

Republicans have been calling the shots since Reagan, but yet 8 years of the black dude somehow set the country on a frenzy of self-destructive idiocy unseen since the French Revolution?

Look, I appreciate that you're trying to raise the tone with videos like this. But if you're trying to intellectually shore up the dike, I've got bad news for you: the facts will rarely be on your side.

*WARNING* first few seconds of the video have a test tone that will fuck your ears if you are wearing headphone, like I was... damn that hurt.

In all seriousness though, here's my thoughts on the matter: I believe the n-word is used by most black people ironically. It's an attempt to reclaim power over the word that was used for so long--including today--to oppress them.

The thing is, there is precedent for this ironic use. Many in the gay community use the word "bitch" in an affection and jesting way to other members, but it takes on a completely different tone when a heterosexual person--even one who has a large circle of gay friends--tries to use it in a similar manner towards a gay person.

The thing is that this kind of ironic language usage is self-deprecating. As a member of the black or gay community, you're using a derogatory term that could just as easily be applied to you by somebody else.

Self-deprecating humor of this kind doesn't work so well when you're not a member of the group. It just comes across as punching down, especially in the case of privileged group members like middle-class white kids who will likely never know what it is like to be an "other" in their country of citizenship no matter how much they may sympathize (although as "minority" groups continue to eclipse the Caucasian population maybe within my lifetime they might actually start to experience it).

I mean, how hard is it for non-black people to not call someone an n-word? Very few black people are okay with it. The whiny " b-b-but they use the word all the time" excuse just reeks of entitlement to me.

But what do I know. I'm just some dumb white kid living in a foreign country where I can be pulled over by cops because I look different from the rest of the population and jailed for not immediately providing ID (unlike Japanese people who are legally not required to carry ID at all).

There's such a stark contrast between the tone of the early coverage on that day vs what we see with any incident now. While a few of the presenters made mention of the previous bombing at the WTC, there seemed to be a very strong resistance to suggesting it might have been terrorism. I watched another video recently that was a somewhat similar concept, but was longer and bounced from source to source. In that video as in this one it felt like the various people speaking badly wanted the first impact to have been an accident or an explosion from within the tower, rather than a purposeful attack.

Given that the only footage of that first collision didn't come to light until much later and eyewitness reports are frequently unreliable, "we just don't know" was the best they seemed willing to offer. Until the 2nd plane hit, at which point I think the facts spoke for themselves.

I would have be seen as tone-deaf and insensitive. I think they made the right choice, given the timing.