>>127882069
It's actually the last album ever made

>>127882069
>hold up
define that

>>127882069
It’s a good album but very obviously of its time.

>>127882152
There is no album less of its time than Nevermind; it is eternal

>>127882172
Tell that to the heavily compressed "band in a room" style guitar tone

File: ljf.jpg (89 KB, 625x329)

89 KB JPG

A MULATTO
A ALBINO
A MOSUITO
A LIBIDO

>Gen X kids

In Utero is better. So is Bleach for that matter. Yet again proving that whatever band's album the masses like the most is the one with poppiest songs and not necessarily the best.

>>127882069
Blue album.

>>127882261
This, but unironically. And I usually like pop stuff, but c'mon, In Utero is obviously superior.

>>127882069
never bought it.
know 2 songs from the radio - one of them sounds like a lazy bastard version of Godzilla

>>127882942
they got it from the pumpkins cover of godzilla https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozs-KJS-7QQ&list=RDozs-KJS-7QQ&start_radio=1

>>127882069
Why did they put CP on the album cover?

>>127883595
nudity =/= pornography

>>127883608
So it should be legal to have terabytes of images of naked children on one's computer? It's just nudity, not porn, right?

>>127883629
depends on the intent. it's extremely unlikely that anyone with that much content of naked children isn't a pedo, but it always depends on intent.

>>127882069
Was it really necessary to show the baby’s prick?

>>127883695
So the quantity of the images of naked children makes it child porn? What if someone just has terabytes of images of the Nevermind cover art?

>>127882240
Huh, one of the things that later pissed Cobain off was that both Vig and Wallace arranged the guitar sound in layers and added a slight reverb which made the riffs sound almost symphonic.
It was In Utero that has that band in a room sound, due to Albini's 'just put more mics and record like it's live bro' method

>>127882240
name an album with less dated production from the early 90s

>>127883629
yes

>>127882069
Traded it for Throwing Copper.
I got the best of that trade.

>>127884822
I don't think the authorities would buy that explanation.

>>127883762
>controversial
>brings about pedophile conversations
>better representation of rebirth, and going for money since birth

A pool was an easier way to represent amniotic fluid.

>>127883977
how do you read
>it always depends on the intent
and think I'm saying it's about quantity? just because something is *unlikely* - e.g. having terabytes of images of naked children and not being a pedo - doesn't mean it's false.

>>127886492
So if somebody jacks off to the Nevermind cover art, then it's porn?

>>127882069
It’s not a pee pee it’s the baby’s big toe

>>127886526
you're making a category error. there's a distinction between person A *making* something with a certain intent, and person B *using* something with another intent. there've been experiments where people are conditioned to experience sexual arousal when looking at mundane inanimate objects like pennies. this is similar to certain niche fetishes: a female celebrity might wear an outfit at some red carpet just to look nice or because she's being sponsored by a clothing company, but someone might then take those photos - focusing on the feet, say - and jerk off to them. you need to make a distinction between the creator(s) and the user(s).

>>127886663
These people are morons.

>>127886663
So you're telling me, that you know the intent of the person who made the cover art? Is it their stated intent that matters, or their actual intent, which might be private and unknown? If I make a movie where people are hard fucking, but then say that it isn't intended to be porn, is that not porn using your definition?

I have this stimming ritual where I play polly on acoustic for 10 minutes

>>127886754
>So you're telling me, that you know the intent of the person who made the cover art?
I've never claimed to know, I've only ever critiqued the idea that nudity = pornography. now you're changing the goalpost.
>Is it their stated intent that matters, or their actual intent
yes, as long as you say something, you cannot lie about it! -- my actual answer's pretty obvious here. when I use 'intent' without qualification, it obviously implies authenticity. if something is made with the intent to produce sexual arousal, it's porn. for instance, in Mulholland Dr. there's a scene that *involves* sex between Betty and Camilla. now, if you're being pedantic, sure we don't know what was in David Lynch's head - though you can make that charge against anything - but assuming it was only included because it made sense in the broader context of the story, and was not included, even in part, to get people horned up, it's not porn.

>>127886891
If knowing the genuine intent behind a work is required to ascertain whether it's porn, then nothing is porn, because you can't read people's minds. They can tell you what they mean, but they might be lying. For example I don't trust Tarantino when he says all those gratuitous foot scenes in his movies have nothing to do with him fetishising them. Hence in my view your genuine intent as the creator cannot matter when determining whether something is porn or not. I wholly reject that element of your definition.

File: ngmi.png (480 KB, 636x632)

480 KB PNG

>>127882069
HODL

>>127886973
>If knowing the genuine intent behind a work is required to ascertain whether it's porn
again, you're shifting the goalpost. I'm not talking about - nor have I ever talked about - our capacity to know whether a specific piece of material is porn or not. I'm specifically talking about the definition and what would qualify. I already said you could say about anything that we ultimately don't know what's in a person's head, but *if* it were made with the purpose of producing sexual arousal in an individual, then its creation is, at least in part, pornographic.
>I wholly reject that element of your definition
the part that's not in it, yeah

>>127887029
You can't just say "you're moving the goalpost", when what I'm actually doing is engaging with what you're putting down. Quit being disingenuous. Turns out that you're not really saying anything, because you're now trying to tell me that the genuine intent is somehow irrelevant when it comes to determining what is or isn't pornography, after just arguing that it is somehow relevant, and then going on to again tell me that it's somehow relevant to the definition. Give me a break, dude. You're flip-flopping harder than fish.

>>127887113
NTA, but you can jerk your gerk to anything.
Does that mean everything is porn?

>>127887113
>the genuine intent is somehow irrelevant when it comes to determining what is or isn't pornography
again, you're making a category error. I'm talking about porn abstractly, saying that if your argument is that the cover contains a naked child then it's necessarily cp is faulty, because it depends on the intent. I've already said I don't know what was in the head of the person who took the photo or those who decided to make it the cover (or anyone for that matter), but, abstractly, if it were made for the purpose of producing sexual arousal in those who saw it, it would be porn.

here what you're failing to make a distinction between is defining porn per se and categorizing individual things and porn or not porn. I've never said I know with 100% certainty that the cover is not porn, just that if your argument is "nudity, therefore porn", then that's wrong.

TRONT

>>127887174
>and porn or not porn
*as porn or not porn

>>127882069
I have the RSD 34th anniversary blue splatter vinyl on the way.

TRONT demolisher gay ess.
New game.

>>127887174
You're just saying words at that point. "Category error"! Then you don't explain how it's a category error. "You're moving the goal post!" Suddenly the claim vanishes once you're called out for using it vacuously. What's next? Maybe a bit of "ad hominem"?
>saying that if your argument is that the cover contains a naked child then it's necessarily cp is faulty
More or less. My argument is this:
1. Whatever naked pictures are taken of a person and then distributed to the public, if that's done without the person's consent, it's necessarily pornographic in a predatory sense in its nature.
2. An infant cannot consent to having naked photos of them taken and then distributed to the public. Nor can their legal guardian consent for them.
3. Therefore taking and distributing naked pics of an infant constitutes predatory pornographic material.
There. It doesn't matter what the intent is, you're violating the child's rights. Similarly it doesn't matter that your intent when e.g. distributing images of your naked ex was just to get back at her, not for people to masturbate to them, it's still revenge porn: a form of predatory pornographic material. If you disagree, tell me with what, and we can talk about it.

>>127887568
Are you the kid?
The kids parents were paid, the kid got a tattoo, the kid used the "fame" to get money.
Legal defense is zero.

The tattoo and the money and clout are retroactive consent, dipshit.

Someone gave that kid bad legal advice.

>>127887568
>You're just saying words at that point. "Category error"! Then you don't explain how it's a category error
I explicitly said the distinction you're failing to make - that's the category error.
>here what you're failing to make a distinction between is defining porn per se and categorizing individual things as porn or not porn
>"You're moving the goal post!"
yes. my argument from the start has been about the abstract definition of porn, which doesn't contain claims about what we can or can't know about individual intent about created material (like an album cover photo). so you're moving the goalpost by rejecting an epistemology I never argued for. you don't need to know what was in an individual's head when making a specific object to be able to define porn broadly.
>1. Whatever naked pictures are taken of a person and then distributed to the public, if that's done without the person's consent, it's necessarily pornographic in a predatory sense in its nature.
define pornographic. you mention the production and distribution being without someone's consent, but presumably you also think stuff on pornhub, say, where people agree to be there, is also porn, right? so what you're getting at is something deeper -- what is that?

>>127887603
I'm not talking about legality here. We could live in a lawless state and my argument wold be the same. It's immoral. If a person doesn't mind that their rights (in a moral, not legal sense) were violated in retrospect, it still doesn't justify the act. Plus I'm pretty sure that guy filed a lawsuit for this album cover, so he had some objections to it, so it's not like this line of argumentation is even relevant.

>>127887673
I'm telling you the kids parents consented at the time, and the kid later consented by accepting the image.
I.e retroactive.

>>127887662
to add, you can compare what I'm doing to defining murder: just because you might not know 100% the intentions of an individual who killed someone else, doesn't mean you can give a general definition of murder as the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being. just because we don't know with 100% what all are instances of porn doesn't mean the definition itself is incoherent; the problem, if anything is with our limited knowledge, not the coherency of the definition.

>>127882069
Eternal. It aged like a fine vintage

>>127887662
>I explicitly said the distinction you're failing to make - that's the category error.
You didn't. Your attempt at clarification was incoherent.
>yes. my argument from the start has been about the abstract definition of porn, which doesn't contain claims about what we can or can't know about individual intent about created material
If by using your definition of a term it turns out we can't use it to describe anything, then it's not a useful definition for the purpose of this discussion, where we're arguing whether a specific thing falls under some umbrella of pornography. Seems like you're the one committing category error here, since the claim you're trying to make is tangential to the subject of the discussion.
>define pornographic
I can't, really. It's a know problem, and I don't have an answer to it. But I can define what predatory pornography is, which is not the same thing, and that's what I'm using for the purpose of my argument. I can also offer critiques of what others attempt to define broadly as pornography, as that's not contingent on me having a broad definition.
>you mention the production and distribution being without someone's consent, but presumably you also think stuff on pornhub, say, where people agree to be there, is also porn, right?
Whether I do is really immaterial for the purpose of this discussion. Again, I'm arguing about the cover art being predatory pornography, not pornography.
>so what you're getting at is something deeper -- what is that?
I've already laid out my argument.

>>127887682
And my point is that a legal guardian doesn't have the right to consent for an infant to have naked pictures of it taken and distributed to the public. There is a certain area of *things* that a legal guardian shouldn't be allowed to consent to on behalf of their young child, and that's one of them.

>>127887821
Legal grey area for that, anon.
I'm saying the kid retroactively consented.

Not to mention there's supposed to be a sticker on every album.
And you can't control what everyone does.

>>127887780
>You didn't. Your attempt at clarification was incoherent.
that's not an argument
>then it's not a useful definition for the purpose of this discussion
it is. because we can say *if* the cover was made with x intent, then it's porn; otherwise it's not. it may not have the epistemic depth *you specifically* want, but that by itself doesn't render it useless - just depends on your goals.
>I can't, really. It's a know problem
it's not. you don't need to know whether a specific instance of something is porn or not to define the concept. regardless of which definition you like, you would agree that people can and have made things for the purpose of producing sexual arousal in others. so regardless of whether we can point all of those out with 100% certainty, we can define the concept and say what would hypothetically qualify.
>I'm arguing about the cover art being predatory pornography, not pornography
if it's a subset of pornography, then it would include the general definition with particular qualifications. so if you know someone's general definition, it's easier to get more particular; it's perfectly germane.
>I've already laid out my argument.
which is contradictory. if you would define at least some portion of content on pornhub, say, which involves people who know they are being recorded and agree to be there, then your arguing about a lack of consent is irrelevant and quite techincially does not matter. so either your definition is incoherent or you simply misunderstand what you yourself are defining as porn.

>>127882069
>does it still hold up?
no. it wasnt any good then it was only liked by preteen boys. adults didnt run out to buy this slop. having lived through this album in real time many of the songs were inescapable so for me i never wanted to hear any of this music ever again and was relieved when he killed himself knowing he could no longer make any music ever again

>>127887903
>that's not an argument
It's a critique. Which
>because we can say *if* the cover was made with x intent, then it's porn
Okay, but I wholly rejected that definition, because it's inapplicable to anything in the real world, as you'll never know the actual intent behind the creation of a thing. I can even grant you that you can use that as some abstract inapplicable idea, and classify things simply as being in the "spirit" of that idea, but then it becomes arbitrary as a broad category distinction and frankly too subjective for me to find it convincing.
>you don't need to know whether a specific instance of something is porn or not to define the concept
Okay, I'll concede that. But again, it's not really relevant in a discussion about whether a specific instance falls under porn, if the definition you're using is inapplicable for that purpose.
>you would agree that people can and have made things for the purpose of producing sexual arousal in others
People have, sure. But if Bob the film maker makes a static video of a wall, and his purpose behind it is to arouse the audience, my intuition is that it isn't pornographic. If he instead makes a video featuring hardcore fucking, but genuinely not for the purpose of arousing the audience, to me this still seems pornographic. The intent of the creator doesnt really seem to matter
>if it's a subset of pornography, then it would include the general definition with particular qualifications.
You could say that. But I can not know the broader definition. It might indeed be very broad and abstract. I can simply say, if *anything* falls under porn, then it's definitely taking naked pictures of a person and distributing them to the public without their consent. Predatory porn, specifically.
>(...) so either your definition is incoherent or you simply misunderstand what you yourself are defining as porn.
Your critique is completely irrelevant to my argument. I didn't define porn, I defined predatory porn. Pay attention.

>>127888387
>But I can not know the broader definition
if you don't know the broader definition then you can't know whether a more particular definition actually fits within it. if you don't know what vegetables are broadly, you can't know that what you're specifically pointing to is a subset, because by definition that implies the comparison between the particulars of what you're considering and the general phenomenon. you can *call* it a type of porn if you wish, but you have no coherent justification, just whim. your whole categorization falls apart.

>>127882069
Nirvana is more popular today thanks to Zoomers than it actually was in the 1990s.

>>127888491
so zoomers have better taste than millennials?

>>127888472
>if you don't know the broader definition then you can't know whether a more particular definition actually fits within it.
Of course I can. We do it all the time. I don't know the theory of everything (might not even exist), but I do know the theory of general relativity. I don't know the full extent of the human experience, but I know *my* human experience. You don't need to know what a rectangle is to be able to define a square. When talking about morality, what we test our general theories against is at the end of the day specific cases that we have clear moral intuitions about. It's simple really.

>>127888592
>>127888472
Y’all having a long ass argument on 4chan lol

>>127888592
>You don't need to know what a rectangle is to be able to define a square
that's a false equivalence. we're talking about broad categories and sub-categories. squares and rectangles are sub-categories of shapes; predatory porn is a sub-category of porn. you can define a square or rectangle, but if you don't know what a shape is you can't call them shapes; if you don't know what porn is, you can't call the cover of Nevermind predatory porn. well, you *can* in the literal sense, but again, by logical necessity you can't justify putting it under that sub-category because you don't know the broad category, the categorization of which implies knowledge of the broad category. all you would have is whim.

>>127888714
The issue with porn specifically is that despite the definition of it being quite nebulous, everybody has a sense of what it "kind of" is. It's more similar in that sense to morality than shapes. We can look at particular examples of video or photographic materials, and for some of them we can say with certainty whether they are or aren't porn, while for others it's less clear. Similarly, people have certain moral intuitions regarding what is right or wrong for particular cases. But it becomes controversial if we try to propose a system to describe what right and wrong are in general. By that token, regarding pornography, there is a certain quality which to my mind falls squarely within the domain of pornography. Something that's sufficient to call something porn, but not necessarily necessary, as it might be too specific, and the actual necessary condition is a broader category that that quality belongs to. Similarly to how saying "having no money" is a sufficient condition to being poor, but not a necessary one, as "having little money" still falls under being poor. I simply identified the analogue and defined it as predatory porn in the first statement of my argument.

>>127882857
>>127882261
I actually think have them like this:
Bleach > Nevermind > In Utero

>>127889625
Insane that you guys are having an argument about porn over a picture of a baby dick

>>127889625
the more appropriate approach to my mind is just to say we're not talking about the same concepts, the language used to describe it is arbitrary ultimately. I agree that not everyone is going to agree on every single instance of what constitutes pornography and what doesn't, but, if we're going to be prescriptive about it, it involves an element of intent. if we were to look in most dictionaries, ask most grammarians, ask most people, this is what we'd find. plenty of people have naked photos of their infant children or toddlers, and no serious court, say, would prosecute them for CSAM by that fact alone, and most other people don't consider it child porn either.

File: so they say.jpg (18 KB, 300x100)

18 KB JPG

>>127889866
>you guys
it's just a dumb bot arguing with itself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcyFv0AnX6M

>>127882261
>>127889792

Nirvana is my favorite band of all time but the Bleach love is just literal contrarianism. It is far and away the worst of the 3 albums. I would argue for 0 skips on either Nevermind or In Utero but Bleach has 3-4 tracks that are just straight bad.

>>127890323
>3-4 tracks that are just straight bad
name them. I make fun of Nirvana all the time for being overrated and even I find pretty much everything there at least somewhat tolerable.

File: 1614878364484.jpg (201 KB, 976x850)

201 KB JPG

>>127882069
It’s an album

>>127891744
nevermind