>> ^CreamK:

What a load of bull... All thou he is right on one thing: we would see only carly-rae-rihanna-gaga-shit on that channel that we already are been forcefed. The reason they went for reality route is money, specifically advertisement value of "original programming" is way higher than any bunch of short 3-5 minute video clips, cost of doing one minute of reality show is hundreds of times cheaper than one minute of a music video.
It certainly is not because we steal music, it ain't about us wanting to hear Nirvana, that all is just pure lying. It's cost per minute vs revenue per minute.
Music videos are more important than ever, when you go to youtube and search for that one song you want to hear, you expect to see a music video. Even if it's one of the "b-side" songs you still expect it to have a visual part of the story..
The problem isn't our generation but the 14 year old girls, they get all the attention since they are most willing to spend money on fabricated dreams. Our generation, the 80-90s kids grew up seeing really ground breaking good music and wish to see more real art from the next generation. i would love to scream at MTV "too much dubstep", "kids these days are crazy, i don't understand this"... Now the music i see from youngsters is "this is incredibly stupid, monotonous, no substance crap" as we undertand very well what that Nicki Minaj crap is about.


It's not "pure lying". There's been a massive drop in what was a lucrative CD market. It made sense to push music videos when the tv screen was the only one you had access to.

With both those changes you can hardly expect to attract advertisers with music programming. Piracy has been a factor and while it serves certain interests to overstate it, the switch from physical media to downloads meant huge revenue drops.

Are videos still important? Yes but as he says the budget for these things has plummeted. And probably for the better. The more memorable videos of recent years have probably not suffered for the lack of speedboats and explosions.

upvote for Pavement, REM & Nirvana!!

What a load of bull... All thou he is right on one thing: we would see only carly-rae-rihanna-gaga-shit on that channel that we already are been forcefed. The reason they went for reality route is money, specifically advertisement value of "original programming" is way higher than any bunch of short 3-5 minute video clips, cost of doing one minute of reality show is hundreds of times cheaper than one minute of a music video.

It certainly is not because we steal music, it ain't about us wanting to hear Nirvana, that all is just pure lying. It's cost per minute vs revenue per minute.

Music videos are more important than ever, when you go to youtube and search for that one song you want to hear, you expect to see a music video. Even if it's one of the "b-side" songs you still expect it to have a visual part of the story..

The problem isn't our generation but the 14 year old girls, they get all the attention since they are most willing to spend money on fabricated dreams. Our generation, the 80-90s kids grew up seeing really ground breaking good music and wish to see more real art from the next generation. i would love to scream at MTV "too much dubstep", "kids these days are crazy, i don't understand this"... Now the music i see from youngsters is "this is incredibly stupid, monotonous, no substance crap" as we undertand very well what that Nicki Minaj crap is about.

@shinyblurry

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve … to maintain order in His kingdom.

I can't tell if you're disagreeing or off topic. I'll state again what I think I have heard you say or suggest: God gave us humans free will. He loves us, and knew what would be the best way for us to live, so, out of love, he gave us a set of laws to follow for our own good. In order to encourage us to follow those laws, he established hell as punishment for choosing to violate those laws: the worst possible eternal torture.

Have I made any mistakes in there?

[me:]What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

[you:]God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love.

I said and I meant "want" (not "need"). You've said many times that God wanted/desired us to exist and behave in certain ways, and you used words like "(un)satisfactory" to describe God's opinion of us/robots, and so forth. Any understanding of those words necessarily implies a lack of something. You cannot want/desire/be unsatisfied unless that thing addresses your lack of something that would make you better off in some way. Every single human action can be attributed to a lack or want (or need). But a perfect all-powerful God would have none of these. He would be at Nirvana, a persistent state of satisfaction with nothing but the self. So "want" and "perfect" make a contradiction. Can you address either my founding statements or my logic?

[me:]You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

[you:]Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Again, you didn't answer. Why did it have to be Jesus? God is all-powerful, so he could have sent a puppy or a bamboo plant or a paramecium to bear our sins and be killed. Or he could have decided it required 40 children of his to be sacrificed. Why just one man?

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

Cool. Is there Biblical reason to assert that this is the correct interpretation of "in his image"?

[me:]What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences … forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin?

[you:]I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

I'm asking you all this to see if there's ever going to be an end or a logic to the trail of dots without having to presuppose the conclusion that gave rise to the dots in the first place. Every dot seems to give rise to another dot. Like you say about secular morality, it's a recursive chain of dots off to infinity, each dot raising more questions than it answers. Such a system would, by literal definition, not be rational: if it goes on to infinity, then it can never be rationalized.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

Are humans satisfying to God in whatever capacity we were created?

When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai … What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice.

So humanity had no laws from God for all that time (hundreds or thousands of years) until Mt. Sinai? We were allowed to do anything at all we wanted without fear of any punishment from God?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'macaulay culkin, the nirvana baby, aaliyah, vanilla ice' to 'macaulay culkin, the nirvana baby, aaliyah, vanilla ice, 2010' - edited by lucky760

I started off with MJ and the Beach Boys at age 5. Then around 2nd grade it was Vanilla Ice & MC Hammer. Then 3rd it became Ice-T, NWA, Ice Cube. 4th grade it became Morbid Angel, Cannibal Corpse. 5th Grade it was Kyuss, Jesus Lizard, Melvins, Nirvana. 6th grade it was local punk bands, Lookout! Records, Minor Threat, Rancid... 7th grade I delved into the heart of Legendary DIY underground punk music. Ebullition records (Econochrist, Born against, Downcast, Spitboy, Iconoclast, Los Crudos), , Gravity Records (Heroin, Angel Hair, Antioch Arrow, Clikatat Ikatowi), Dischord (Fugazi, Hoover, Rites of Spring). The list goes on and on. The next ten years were all about underground hardcore/punk/noise/power-violence/sludge/grind/doom.

Then I moved to San Francisco. LOL. I'm an Aquarius. AQUARIUS RECORDS!!!!! I still listen to some of that stuff from time to time. A LOT of it was way ahead of it's time. These kids these days can't hold a candle to genuine, innovative, raw DIY music.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Moist Vagina - Nirvana. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

@shinyblurry

What spirit do you believe in if you don't believe in anything supernatural?

These don't form my "faith", per se, but my best educated guesses or hunches at the moment. I rarely verbalize my beliefs on these matters, so it probably won't come out too coherently, but heregoes:

All the experiences that humans have are part of the natural condition of being human, and are ultimately caused by something in nature and in our natures, not by anything supernatural. I don't believe there are any higher powers necessarily, though our knowledge of what happened more than 14 billion years ago is nil, and there is so much yet undiscovered, so really, anything could be there. I don't think we had a conscious creator. I don't believe there are any superior entities that interfere with the universe at all, and none have a personal interest in us.

Any spirituality I have, therefore, stems from experiences as a human only. I believe conditions like nirvana probably exist and are achievable with great concentration and effort. I believe that faith in something helps it become real, and lack of faith hinders it. This includes health and psychological matters, as well as attracting success or failure in your endeavours.

I think that humans probably don't actually have free will, but considering how complex a question that is (the sum of all laws that govern everything in the universe), it's better for me to interact with the world as if we do. I believe that the the closest thing a person has to a "calling" or a "true path" is to be true to themselves, find their own person, and let it express itself perfectly in the world. This can be done by achieving mental calmness and following your heart and what feels right [edited]. In a state of mental calmness, your heart will never misguide you. There is no single correct expression of a person, just as there is no single correct "good" thing to do at every given moment. It can be suppressed by the self or others, and this suppression always causes unhappiness, which causes people to do bad things to others and themselves. True happiness and fulfilment can only come from feeling free to express who you really are. That to me is the human spirit.

Words do have meaning, and I would suggest, considering the content of our previous conversations, that your conclusion is based on the many misconceptions and misunderstandings you have about scripture.

You're quoting the Bible at me as if I already accept that it's true. I don't. If I were to interpret that passage's spirit into my spiritual framework, it would say that humans usually cannot have numinous experiences unless they are very much in tune with their true selves, and let that spirit flow through them and guide their actions, and leave the ego out.

I will also note that these objections are always concerning the Old Testament, a lot of which applied only to Israel and not to Christianity.

I'm not talking about the laws. I now understand that they no longer apply. I'm talking about the historical account of events. I don't understand how the OT could have been accurate and the word of God before Jesus, but then suddenly ceased to be after. Either a book is God's word and it's true, or it's not. And a god's word should not be something ephemeral. Its truth value cannot change ever. So, either God did all those horrible things in the OT that are ascribed to him, or he didn't. If he didn't, then the OT is wrong.

Instead of considering the words of Jesus on their own merit, skeptics try to do an end run around Him and undermine the OT so they can dismiss Him entirely. [edit: didn't insert this quote in the first draft]

I don't know everything that Jesus preached, but I consider him to be probably the best moral philosopher I've ever heard of, at least in broad strokes.

Actually, statistically, it would be the people who are unaware that there is a supernatural reality who would be considered defective.

Statistics don't determine fact. I thought you told me you were a scientist before your conversion.

There is no evidence that your scenerio is true, it is actually only your confirmation bias at work; you had an issue where you believed something was going on which wasn't true, and then you unjustifiably extrapolated that to everyone elses spiritual experience. That just doesn't follow.

Are you going "lalala" with your hands over your ears? That's not what I said at all. Fact: there are lots of people besides me and you around the world who have transcendental experiences. Fact: they often identify the entity in their experience as a divinity from a particular religion. Fact: they are just as fervent about what they believe as you are about what you believe. If you agree that those are facts, then I don't see how you can tell me that your interpretation of your experience must be the correct one and all those other people's are false ones. Logically, this is strong evidence that your interpretation is not necessarily accurate, and may in fact represent something in the human condition caused naturally.

What I know and you don't know is that most everyone who claims to be speaking to a real entity actually is speaking to one.

How could you know this? Are you in their minds? Did God give you some statistical data?

There are superior beings, fallen angels, whose only purpose is to convince people, usually with supernatural signs and evidence, that anything but Jesus Christ is the truth. They have invented uncounted false religions, cults, spiritual systems, philosophies, etc, to blind human beings to the light of Christ. The people who believe in them are not just deluded, they are deceived.

How can you say that your revelation is the truth, and that all these other people's revelations are false? They would tell me with equal fervency that theirs is real and all the others are false. Saying yours is necessarily right is illogical. I mean, what separates you from these other people that got fooled by what you think are false visions? How do you know you haven't been fooled too? I mean, if they can get fooled, why can't you? Are you smarter? Stronger? What?

Is it possible we're all plugged into the matrix? Sure. Is it possible the Universe started five seconds ago and all of our memories are false? Sure.

We agreed back at Qualiasoup vs. Craig not to introduce solipsistic arguments.

I presuppose that God created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Do you have other evidence besides your relationship with Jesus? What is it?

Now I'm paraphrasing the Imam: "I presuppose that Allah created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Allah through the teachings of his prophet Mohammed (PBUH)."

What's the difference between the two of you? How can you say you're right and he's wrong?

Now me: "I presuppose that reality is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. My presupposition is not justified in any way. It just makes my experience of life more meaningful."

Definitely Nirvana inspired. ^Upvoted^

Wait, they weren't Nirvana!? Fucking scalper charged me $400 for that ticket D:

>> ^videosiftbannedme:

The moves that cheerleader makes at 2:05....mmmm-mmmm. Can't get enough.


Funny that you mention them:

8. The cheerleaders in the "Teen Spirit" video were recruited from an LA strip joint. Nirvana really wanted their friend in the band L7 for the part. They were overruled. (Bonus fact: Dave was dating L7's Jennifer Finch at the time.)

9. The janitor was the actual janitor from director Sam Bayer's apartment complex in Venice Beach.

10. Kurt was worried "Teen Spirit" sounded too much like a Pixies song. He was also worried it had too much of the same feeling as Boston's "More Than a Feeling."

11. Nevermind's original recording budget was $65,000. They ended up spending twice that.

http://www.alancross.ca/a-journal-of-musical-things/2011/9/24/20-things-about-nirvanas-nevermind-on-its-20th-anniversary.html

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Humppa, smells, like, teen, spirit, Elakelaiset, finland' to 'Humppa, smells, like, teen, spirit, Elakelaiset, finland, nirvana' - edited by DerHasisttot

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*isdupe>> ^ant:

>> ^EmptyFriend:
http://videosift.com/video/Nirvana-vs-Rick-Astley-Never-
Gonna-Give-Your-Teen-Spirit-Up
?

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Nirvana-vs-Rick-Astley-Never-Gonna-Give-Your-Teen-Spirit-Up