I know how you feel about the passing of both Lisa Lopes and Amy Winehouse, Lindsey. My dad was a bit of an alcoholic until March 2007 when he was hospitalized for over a week due to what I think was alchohol poisoning. It was a tough time for my entire family, even for my mom. My mom and dad have been divorced since late 2001, but they still talk to eachother, and are good friends now. Anyway, my dad has been sober since his stay in the hospital, he's lost some weight, and he feels as better as ever.

I agree that "No Scrubs" is an insult to every male, be it human, manimal, feline, canine, whatever on Earth.

I never knew until now that TLC did the theme to "All That."

The video Left-Eye shot of her trip to Honduras is one of the most depressing and disturbing things I have ever seen. I was in Middle School when TLC was at the peak of their fame and we loved them. They were the 'Supremes' to our generation...one of the best groups ever. Touching video, NChick.

I loved your review Lindsey, it was both honest, funny, and really made you think. Now I will be honest, I didn't grow up listening to alot of TLC's music, sure I heard of them from other girls at school and I have sang along to "No Scrubs" but as far as being a huge fan was concerned I really wasn't, I was more into the hard rock music/alternative music of the nineties, so I really never heard of Lisa "Left Eyes" death until recently. Nor was it days later did I find out about Amy Winehouse because it was just one of those things I didn't pay that much attention to.

It happens.

But I applaud you for being honest and sincere about your feelings on the death of your friend, the death of Lisa as a fan of TLC, and the death of Amy Winehouse and how you were willing to open your heart to us most of all to people on the internet. It took guts and made people think and discuss things most would be too scared to talk about to others online. For that my respect for you has tripled.

drawing a parallel between alcoholism and a random disease? Screw you, Lindsay. We've all got our demons and I can empathize with that, but don't you dare try and put a self-inflicted disorder on the same level as a an arbitrarily acquired disease. My mother died of breast cancer, and she was brave till the end. Even when she KNEW she was dying, she didn't fall back on drugs or alcohol to ease her pain. So don't you DARE try and compare her to Amy Winehouse, indirectly or otherwise.

I don't believe in speaking ill of the dead, but Amy Winehouse threw her life away. That's simply the way it is. Or are you really going to try and tell me that a smoker getting lung cancer is somehow an unexpected and entirely undeserved tragedy? Again, I'm sure she had her demons and her reasons. I always thought of that song "Rehab" as more of a cry for help, but no one forced her to stick a needle in her arm every time she did it.

TLC was an important band to me though, and their music along with a few other things got me through some tough shit as a kid. Lopez dying hit me pretty hard too. I figured that was also worth mentioning.

Fighting an addiction means to stay off the things you crave, the things that makes life bearable for whatever reason. The abstinence could be compared to, say, undergoing chemotherapy. Addicts don't "fall back" on drugs or alcohol, that's beside the point. The substances are part of the problem (but not it's entirety).

you have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, addictions start because of a choice, cancer usually doesn't. Secondly, Addictions only progress to the point of being out of control due to the consent of the person indulging that addiction. Diseases progress regardless of self-control. Thirdly, stop insulting all the cancer victims of the world by trying to say that their near-mandatory treatment is the same as just choosing not to shoot up. Aside from the physical stress it puts on the body, they're damn near opposite. Even if someone did die from withdrawals symptoms, they still should have never gotten to that point in the first place. They literally had to spend a large amount of money over a long period of time to slowly kill themselves. Not only are they making a conscious choice, but they're making a monetary sacrifice for that choice. So while my family was donating money to build wells in Africa, Amy was spending money on booze and blow. Plus, not dying from withdrawal can be easily avoided if cautionary measures are taken (that's what f-ing rehab is for), not so much that way for cancer. What's more, not one of these people mentioned were actually confirmed to die from withdrawals symptoms, so it's a moot point for now anyway.

Lastly, of course addicts "fall back" on drugs and alchohol in times of stress, have you ever even been addicted to something? while it's true that your body develops a physiological dependency, the psychological mechanisms still play a large role, especially after one has already quit. Any halfway decent human being I know that's addicted to cigarettes or alcohol simply does it to cope because their life is hard as shit, plain old shit or they're completely alone. The rest are irresponsible, selfish assholes. Jesus, you act like someone physically forced her to stick a needle in her arm or poor liquor down her throat. Please just shut up and stop trying to sound like you somehow have some kind of insight that you just don't have.

i agree that cancer isn't exactly comparable to alcoholism, but it isn't fair to make the blanket statement that all "addictions start because of a choice". people who are susceptible to addiction are rarely in control of all the conditions which bring it about, be they societal pressures, abusive childhoods, etc.

what i mean to say, is that we shouldn't paint with a broad brush. there is a vast spectrum onto which people fall, from personal choice to uncontrollable.

Genetic predisposition has a bearing on nearly everything we do. However, that doesn't mean that people with bad tempers are destined to be abusive or that those of weaker constitutions are destined to have a nervous breakdown. Hell even sociopaths can choose to observe societal boundaries (not that they have a reason to). Addiction simply starts because of a choice (with some extremely rare exceptions that are uncommon enough that I don't think they would normally be considered when casually comparing an addiction to something else) whether that choice was conscious or not is also another matter, but with alcohol is almost always is. I have an extremely addictive personality, but that's why I never chose to start smoking during the hundreds of times I was offered, because I KNEW I would get addicted. So don't try and feed me this they're "rarely in control" talk. Even if safeguards must be put in place to protect one from oneself, anyone with an iota of sense should be able to do just that.

still, thank you for at least agreeing that the comparison wasn't the best, that's all I really was hoping to hear.

axlryder, I understand your p.o.v. I really do. I understand that comparing alcoholism to something like cancer to most people is offensive. As most people don't choose to go and do something to cause cancer to happen. However, some people who suffer from addiction, be alcoholism, drugs, hoarding, eating, etc... most of the time they didn't ask to bring it on themselves either. Most people who suffer from addiction have deep rooted mental form of psychology that sub consciously forces them to do certain things. That psychology is hard to break, and can be caused by many different reasons. I'm not trying to tell you how you feel is wrong, as what your family went through was tough and horrible. Also a tragedy. However, try and understand that people who suffer from addiction have an illness too just not in the physical form.

I meant no disrespect to anyone. Maybe cancer is a bad example, but let's consider any serious illness. I admire anyone who fights their illness, whether it's substance abuse or other, by accepting treatment and maybe change their lifestyle. How their illness started is less relevant to me as I don't know the circumstances. My dad is an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink for ten years. Sure, his health never got to the point to be an issue, but it impacted his life in other ways. I don't admire addiction, I admire those who fight it.

Alcoholism IS a disease. It's a genetic disorder not a self inflicted one. Someone close to you died of breast cancer and I understand that you may think alcoholism is bad comparison. Also she wasn't comparing your mother to Amy Winehouse she was merely making a point about how debilitating alcoholism is especially when coupled with drug abuse.

This video was obviously important to the one who made it so, rather than getting upset at Lindsay for a comparison she didn't make, look at this video for what it is, a simple tribute.

I never said alcoholism wasn't a disease. It is self inflicted, though. Genetic predisposition != mystic forces shoving a bottle down your throat. I also don't "think alcoholism is a bad comparison", it just is.

What you don't get is that by saying "alcoholism is just like cancer, it eats away at you", Lindsay was indirectly comparing boozing assholes to people that never deserved what they got, whether she meant it that way or not. Again, people who are alcoholics generally must actively choose to drink and continue to drink. They may physiologically grow dependent on it, but they're still choosing to ingest a substance that is slowly killing them. As long as they have free will, they can physically choose to stop (however impossible it might seem). With cancer, choice almost never enters the equation, and when it does it's almost never a simple choice of right or wrong (such as treatment options). Even if she didn't mean it that way, she should have never even brought up cancer in the first place.

Also, if I'm making a tribute video to Paula Abdul and try to say that "bulimics are just like victims necrotizing fasciitis, since it eats away at you", it's still offensive, regardless of how important the video was to the maker or its purpose. That's honestly kind of a silly thing to say as a defense. So don't try and sweep it under the rug or negate the possible offensiveness of that statement because "she didn't mean it like that". She made a thoughtless or at least uninformed comment and the implication was hurtful.

Hey axlryder, listen, Lindsey is completely right. Alcoholism DOES eat you up from the inside like cancer, because its a physiological conditioned. This is true whether you like it or not. She did not say "Alcoholism is like cancer as in it eats you up inside and you have absolutely no control over it whatsoever, you know like cancer". No she just said that it eats you up, and it does. That alcoholics suffer like cancer patients, and they do. She also equates alcoholism with suicide, but apparently you decided to ignore this.

My mother also has cancer and most of my family are either alcoholic bums who I do not care for, or have died of cancer themselves. None of this however means that I should go on a rant based on emotional bias rather than actual critical thinking. Its forgivable however seeing as having a loved one afflicted with this disease is not easy, but I'm just saying that there's actually nothing here to be offended at though I do not blame you for feeling this way.

(How do I upvote on this site I do not see anything of the sort?)

Stop trying to claim objectivity or infallibility in your opinion when you're not even acknowledging the power of choice in an alcoholic person or reading my comments thoroughly enough to realize I've already recognized the physiological aspects of alcoholism. there are a lot of things that eat away at something else, like acid or guilt. Depression eats away at you too, and it's also a physiological condition, but that still doesn't make it cancer or mean that one should try to compare the two. It's not that she explicitly compared the two, but there's implications that go along with comparisons to cancer along with an appeal to pathos that happens regardless of the comment's intention. Even if she didn't mean it that way, the analogy never should have been made in the first place. I also feel that suicide is a better comparison, but I've never lost anyone to suicide so it's really not my place to judge (though have have lost a couple of distant relatives to alcoholism, and always viewed it as them killing themselves slowly, so it just seemed more logical to me, I suppose).

What's more, the pain alcoholics and cancer victims feel is also very different and it's insulting to try and say they're practically the same. Also, I see Lindsay as the one being emotionally biased here, but it's nice to see how easily one can try and twist things around based on who they're siding with. Also, don't patronize me by saying it's "forgivable", it sounds pompous, a trait that instantly makes me ignore whoever is speaking.

I think you are confusing the words psychological with physiological unless the use of the word physiological when you addressed depression is a typo. Physiologically speaking alcoholism is comparable to cancer in many ways especially when medication gets involved. Psychologically speaking its more comparable to suicide. Lindsey said it eats you up like cancer as in you suffer(physiological). Ive seen both cancer and sever alcoholism in my family often with the same family member having both problems. The pains are comparable although I cannot say for when it goes terminal. All of my alcoholic family members either died violently or died of cancer themselves so I do not know how much pain they go through once alcoholism itself goes terminal. I am also a licensed EMT who have cared for both cancer patients as well as severe alcoholics although in all honesty its hard to gauge pain levels when most of my patients are heavily medicated. Lindsey may be wrong to compare the physical suffering with the two, but I will say that it may not be that far of a leap. Anyways immediately before she says the cancer line she also compares it to suicide (psychological) acknowledging that its a choice. In my previous comment I did address the choice of the matter with the suicide comment. I felt that pointing out what Lindsey said was enough to address it, but I guess I was wrong.

I'm not being pompous when I say your mistakes are forgivable because they actually are. You heard something and misinterpreted it. You did not address her comparison to suicide either because you choose to ignore it or it slipped your mind. These things happens especially given your sensitivity about the subject which is very clear. If you want to ignore me for thinking this then fine go ahead. Maybe you're right in that she shouldn't have made any comparison whatsoever, or perhaps she should have chosen her words more carefully. None of this however changed the fact that you did misinterpreted her which is what I was getting at. I agree that she is being emotionally biased though, but I never said she wasn't nor would admitting this automatically clear you from doing the same.

If you want to hate her for trying to compare one disease with another then go ahead and feel free. All I'm saying is that the whole "alcoholism is a choice, cancer is not" is not a good argument against her because she did address it in the video (however you can argue that she did so poorly).

I literally stopped reading after you revealed that you don't even know that depression can be just as influenced by chemical imbalance (thus make it physiological) as it can by purely psychological factors. I'm sorry but your opinion is no longer worth anything to me when you can actually try to correct me without even checking to see if you're right. Also, I should have clarified in my previous post after rereading it that alcoholism being a choice directly influences the pain and viewpoint of the victim, making it intrinsic to the very nature of the way the disease progresses. Which is why I said "you never even considered, etc. etc."

I beg your pardon?

People who are addicted to alcohol are PHYSICALLY DEPENDENT on it, it's not something they choose. Calling alcoholism, or any other drug addiction, a "self-inflicted disorder" is reductive and perpetuates all kinds of negative stereotypes. It's exactly that kind of thinking that makes the rest of the world not take drug addiction as seriously as they should despite the number of lives it's ruined.

What happened to your mother is a tragedy, but really, aren't all untimely deaths? You don't believe in speaking ill of the dead, then don't do it. Really.

I have read all of your comments axlryder and its odd, Lindsey did not set out to offend anyone and yet here you are blatantly attacking her. Who are you to say what people can and can not compare. Just because Alcoholism can be a choice for the Alcoholic does not mean that the pain it inflicts on the victim and their family is any less real. You have more offensive statements in your comments to other members of this website than anything stated in Lindsey's video. Your a wounded animal attacking anyone near by. Everyone has gone through a tragedy you are not the only one. We have all lost loved ones. So before you go off on a tangent and start criticizing people consider the fact they may have had a harder life than you. As for Choice when a 6 year old is offered drugs and alcohol from their own family member how much choice is there really? I dont think anyone would choose to have an alcoholic family member or friend. Watching someone you love knowingly kill them selves and struggling day to day to stop. Always keeping an eye on them to make sure they wont slip back into their addiction. You belittle those people in your statements your the one who is pompous. The fact is whether losing someone to Cancer or Alcohol the pain felt by those left behind is the same.

So respect that.

i think you took her commment on comparing cancer and addiction alittle to much to heart. iknow what it is to lose your mom to cancer, i lost mine just over a year ago to liver cancer.ive also dealt with someone with addiction actually at the sametime as my mom dying. i see the point she was making that they both are illnesses (yes one granted does involve controll of some sort). Cancer is not by choice and really you have no control over what it will do to you regardless if you seek treatment or not.but im pretty sure she was trying to say that addiction needs to be taken as seriously as cancer. losing someone to either illness hurts just as much because their gone no matter what it was that took them they are gone.so maybe you need to think about seeking someone to talk to about your anger because if a slight comparission set you off like that your still in anger.

Screw you? Real mature...

Anyway, it's completely ignorant of you to believe that these things are so simple. Addictions are more than most people believe them to be, and they can't always be controlled. There are other factors, namely genes, environment, and experience, which is completely out of one's control.

That is not to say that Amy Winehouse couldn't have made a better choice, she definitely could have handled it better, but it's also not fair for you, a random internet user who doesn't know Lindsay or Amy Winehouse to make judgements on them. That is incredibly childish.

Alcoholism is, in fact, a disease, which often comes from other mental illnesses such as depression. And believe it or not, it cannot be turned on and off like a light switch. I don't think that Lindsay was saying that alcoholism and cancer were the same thing. I think that she just meant that both illnesses are either somewhat or completely out of one's control. Of course cancer is an awful disease, but that doesn't mean that other illnesses, ones we cannot see, are not. Diseases inside the mind are still diseases, and, statistically speaking, deadlier than most fatal diseases.

And lastly, you say that you don't talk ill of the dead, and yet you do it anyway. Incredibly rude to people who actually knew Amy Winehouse, especially because you don't.

Wow, I read your comments before I watched the video...and I am interested to hear N.Chick talk about 90s and hiphop, because I grew up with this music as a kid. I am also interested in what she says about Amy Winehouse. I heard what she said, and I had a mother who wasnt an alcoholic but suffered from the use of drugs, crack. I have a lot of family members that drink, but I dont have any suffering from alcoholism. But I understand her pain of seeing a person you love suffer through a drug abuse...I will pray that this never happens to Lindsey. I love this to NEVER happen to you Lindsey.

You've once again proven why you're my favorite.

And anybody who downvotes this has no soul.

I don't have a soul, but I upvoted it anyway.

Had to join the site just to say what an excellent video this was. Keep up the excellent work.

Your conspicuous songs were awesome, NChick! Only you could pull off putting something so hilarious in there, and transition so perfectly into the properly somber parts at the end.

I feel like your honesty and willingness to share this part of you with us in this video was really touching. I felt like I finally saw the real Lindsay, beyond the Nchick character. And I know this may be a cheesy or awkward statement but I'm going to say it anyway. For what it's worth, your work inspires me too. :)

WHITE AND SURBANITE , BLACK AND URBAN AREN"T ALWAYS SYNONYMOUS. THERE ARE BLACK MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE AND POOR WHITE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN RURAL OR THE INNER CITY! GEEEEZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise, good review!

are you trolling or did you just not read the disclamer? GEEEEEEZZZZZ

It's true, I was actually thinking about that a couple of weeks ago.

HEY THE SONG SAYS DON'T CHASE WATERFALLS!
also NChick I ain't too proud to beg ;)

The black community was also all over TLC in the 90s so it was kinda 50/50(take it from a black man)
also the black friend joke wasn't all that funny to me, except the "Not unusual" part because I'm black and I like that song a little.

Also Amy's cause of death is still unknown.

I think it's just that there are simply more white people in the US than black people. 64-72% is white, only about 13% is black so... yeah. The white just get a majority really easily.

As I said before on your Facebook, and I don't mind repeating myself, great review and thank you for opening up and sharing that memory with us. I for one am very grateful for it.

Started as a great review but then it nosedived when you started talking about Lopez's death. Yeah no... stick to your reviews

It's not a review, she's not reviewing anything, she's just reflecting on her past and if you noticed the very opening it said it was gonna be very serene man. Also, the death of Lopez was a very traumatic event for the fan base, and obviously Lindsey was a fan.

Also it's not really your place to say what she should stick to, as she may talk about something that hit you emotionally deep next time she does a video like this and somone might say the same thing there, you'd be mildly offended but I'd be there to say "YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW NIGGA!".

Who the hell do you think you are saying her review "nosedived"?
1. It was said very clearly this was going to be an especially sincere video
2. It's not a review, it's a look back at her childhood
3. She can talk about whatever she wants it's her video
4. What? Did her wanting to talk about losing her idol and friend put you off. Hm? Did it upset you? Kill the mood? How do you think she felt talking about it?
5. Yeah no...think before you comment.

You obviously don't know how she feels.

Clearly you paid no attention to her words at the beginning of the review.

I really don't know what to say. To put your emotions on the cutting room floor where trolls and morons could bash at it just to get a powerful point across really took balls, Lindsy. You've definitely earned brownie points on my end. As always, great review and keep up the good work.

PS: My grandad and my first dog both died in the same year with very little warning. I can't say I know exactly what you went through, but I know that it isn't always easy to talk about it. Thanks for sharing and caring.

-Spazz Attack

I love TLC I was tottaly a nineties kid.

Totally though that this would be about the channel TLC during the 90s. Back when they had good shows. I expected this to be about how the channel has been completely ruined. Or so I have heard, I am still crushed and coming to terms with how the History Channel of the past was INFINITELY better and dealt with History as opposed to the new shows about aliens, crap hoarders rednecks driving trucks/hanging out in swamps/cutting down trees and god damn Larry the Cable guy.

Anyway, this video brought back vague memories of really good songs. I always thought that Miss Independent was about a woman who was a leader and acted LIKE A BOSS as opposed to others who just kinds worked lazily.

Lay off the 90's slang "-izzle" slang unless you literally got someone who can do it with class and slickness that makes Snoop Dogg sound whack. it's face palmingly bad to see someone try to act "black"(but truly it's just acting ghetto which anyone they can't) when they obviously can't.

Heh, that's kind of the joke.

I know it was the joke but still it was cringe worthly badly excited with the "izzle" part to the point I feel bad for neela even saying it, the "its Not unusual" part was lmao though, and it should have been more a polarizing view on how "white" a black person could be like instead of having rap critic be like "That is for sure my friend"

I think that was the joke. It's like the fighter pilot's sketches from Armstrong and Miller. If you like I can send you a link. Nella was supposed to sound completely ridiculous. If it had been someone who could actually pull off talking like that, You mentioned Snoop Dogg, I'd say Jay-Z could pull it off and sound good. It was based on juxtaposition. Here you have this white nerdy girl, and she's trying to sound like a gangsta. It might not be to your taste, but if she did it the way you suggested, it wouldn't be funny at all.

I get it's the joke, but to me it was like a giant skip in a cd or like someone in real life getting caught watching porn by their mom, You feel sorry for them more than anything.I've seen white girls do it the way I suggested and it's almost shockingly funny and with Neela's apperance no one would expect her to speak like that, basically different kinda humor in that it's not making fun to "I have a black friend" type thing but proving she has the talk of a sterotypical black person, but then follow it up with it's not unusual.

The black friend jokes are approved because it's Nella. And Nella makes everything okay.

yep

Beautiful, heartfelt vid. Mad respect, Lindsay.

This was great. I loved TLC. I was a child of the 90's so I very much appreciated this. I, like many other people, was incredibly saddened by the death of Lisa "Lefteye" Lopes. It hit home for me even more when I watched the truly depressing documentary "The Last Days of Lefteye." It is so tragic and infuriating that she survived alcoholism and abuse and died in a car accident. The whole group was a huge influence on many artists you see today. They will have incredible longevity. I don't know about anyone else, but this review made me play some TLC. When I did this, it brightened my day with nostalgia, good music, and inspiration to celebrate life.

You lost me when you said cancer and alcoholism were the same thing (or at the least, similar). They are absolutely not.
Cancer is a disease that is unpreventable.
Alcoholism is a condition that people create themselves. The circumstances that drive them into it are often to do with negative emotions such as loneliness, fear and despair, but the point is that people can stop themselves from falling into it.
I've lost friends and family to both. Comparing the two pisses me off.

Alcoholism and any kind of addiction is actually hard to stop some times because some people's brains work in a way that means they can become addicted to substances easily. Also, addictions like alcoholism have been found to be partially hereditary. This is why it can be considered a disease. And Ms. Ellis, I believe stated that she believed alcoholism to be a disease, so in her mind, and in the mind of many people I know, it is comparable to cancer.

I know that addiction is hard to stop, I've seen it first hand. That wasn't my argument.
I said that alcoholism is created. It's a trap that's easy to fall into (by the end of the seven months I was unemployed I found myself wanting a bottle every night) and as I said, it can happen to people who are in terrible circumstances.
People can lack willpower and they can find it hard to get the help they need, but at the end of the day alcoholism is not a disease. It is a state of mind induced by chemical dependency. It can't kill you on its own - only you can do that, by drinking too much.
Cancer is a disease. If it's untreated, it will kill you. And sometimes it comes straight out of nowhere.

Alcoholism is a disease, the vast majority of the scientific and medical community agree on this. It's definitely comparable to other mental disorders. It's not as easy as "just avoid alcohol". It's not like you know whether or not you're a potential alcoholic before you try and drinking is such a widely accepted social past time in our culture that you sometimes get an immediate social stigma if you don't drink. Just because it's a social problem it doesn't mean it's not a disease.

Let's just say that no, it's not the same as cancer but it's definitely a disease.

Scientist do not say alcolism is a disease.
They may say: If you are addicted the withdral causes real physical symptoms as you would see in diseases and therefore, you cannot simply stop the abuse from one day to another.
That does not translate: addiction = disease.

Colds, cancer, MS, herpes, osteoporosis, anemia etc are seldom self-inflicted.
For one troubled alcoholic/ addict you can find a much larger number of people with the same troubles - and no addiction. The greater part of the population would be addicted if it would be a disease that cannot be helped.

People with addiction need help and should be helped.
But pretending that they have no responsibility for "catching" their addiction in the first place is ridiculous and an insult to the millions of people that deal with their problems everyday without substance abuse.

And a really, really bad message for kids:
Addiction - That shit just happens and you can't help it.

I wasn't planning on commenting, but I can't let that last comment slip by.

There was NOTHING Lindsey said to suggest that addiction was not self-inclicted and that you should just get over. That's you reading something into it that wasn't there! The only point she was trying to make it that whether someones sickness is self-inflected or forced upon them we have no right to talk like they can just get better or that they deserved what did got if they don't survive there addiction. That was what a lot of people were saying in the wake of Amy Winehouse's death, I saw it two and wasn't even really a fan.

The fact of the matter is most of us can't assume to know why some people are in the start they're in physically of mentally. We see someone pregant at 16 and we call that person a slut never imagining that she was raped. Most of the early casualties of Aids did from a rare from of cancer related to diminished immunity. It later got to the point that anyone was showing similar weight loss was assumed to be a carrier.

We assume to have some sort of right to pre-judge other peoples alliments because we like to believe there a right and wrong way to suffer. That only certain kind of suffering deserves sympothy, while the other merits score. It's like were only afraid of the deaths that seem unprevenatble because we know they could happen to us. So we can think we stronger by looking down at does who die of something that "would never happen to me."

I think that was what Lindsey was trying to articulate as based she could in a topic that very difficult for her to even talk about at all. When someone tries to encourage compass or understanding it's not our place to judge them for 'possibly' sending "a bad message to kids". That's not what she made this video for.

Where did I critizise Lindsay?
It is a reply to Vismuti's commentary - as the first sentence should clearly show.

Further:
Who did extent the discussion to teen pregnancy and weight loss? Where does it say in the previous comments we should look down on people with ailments?
You assume quite a lot yourself...

If the intent was not to critizes Lindsay argument than good, I welcome that, but I still think the real intention of her argument has been lost on too many here. If you take a look at here blog post for this video you'll see what see meant to express (and it certainly could of been expressed better) is the believe that most addicts do have some sort of emotional problems or maybe even a genetic history that leads to this path. Even if that is true that doesn't neccesary make it ineventable, but I think thats really beside the point.

Frankly I don't know whether to believe anyone is more likely to become an alcoholic because of inborn trats or social upbringing (though I don't that most addicts have hade a history of emotional problems) anymore than I can believe that other so-called social diseases like heart disease, AIDS, or obescity seem from family history. More importantly, I don't see what this even matters. Some people do become drugs addicts because of what they been giving by doctors to treat other aliments. Knowing that one can avoid the odds of a getting certain sickness by ceartain lifestyle choices doesn't not mean does not mean that does sicknessess are easy to avoid for every of us. Nor does this mean anyones background makes that sickness unavoidble.

So I understand that it would be a tragedy upon tragedy to assume addiction is unavoidable, I just don't believe anyone ever became an addict simple because it's regarded as an unfouronate fact of life and the score upon people who are assumed to have maid themselves sick (even if the truely did) doesn't help any. That's all.

"For one troubled alcoholic/ addict you can find a much larger number of people with the same troubles - and no addiction."

I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. Why can some people need alcohol to cope when someone else in their exact same pickle doesn't? Because one of them suffers from addiction, a psychological disease, and the other doesn't.

It's no good blaming someone for not intuiting in advance that they'd be the kind of people who can't have a healthy relationship with drugs or alcohol, when plenty of us serve as examples that many CAN. You can't know before you start whether or not you'll be able to stop.

"Why can some people need alcohol to cope when someone else in their exact same pickle doesn't? Because one of them suffers from addiction, a psychological disease, and the other doesn't."
That you are more likely to cope with problems by using drugs when you are addict - of course.
But where did addiction come from in the first place? At one point you decided on alcohol to cope with your problems. Not because you like beer or wine - but simple and purely you want to drown your sorrows. This happens before you are an addict and it is a concious decision.

How horrible would it be if some people are just doomed for addiction? Does it mean kindness, understanding and help on the part of their friends is futile from the beginning? Then there would be no point in helping them at all - and I cannot follow that line of thought.

Well, I agree with you on that last part. I do think it is possible to completely get over an addiction, despite popular belief of the contrary. I've seen it happen.

thats what i thought...
ALthough you can minimize your risk/probability of getting cancer (thats why i stopped smoking after the eleventh relative getting cancer)

really good review. I was 8 when TLC released "waterfalls" and loved it and the group. I also was shocked when Amy Winehouse died. Some of my friends weren't surprised but I was. Any death whether it looked like it was coming a mile away or not is a loss that should be given respect because especially for Winehouse,like you said was a disease. Thanks for opening up to your fans!

A serious and teary eyed talk about death? Here? Not sure if want.

But i did enjoy the review. You're the best, Lindsay.

I never remember hearing about the group; TLC was just "The Learning Channel" for me. Then again, my early childhood was dominated by Disney tunes and Fred Penner tapes, and by the time I lost interest in those, it was all Spice Girls and Britney Spears. No offence, but I'll stick to Disney tunes and Fred Penner. =P

Personally, I felt rather ambivalent to Amy Winehouse's death because, well, I didn't listen to her music. It's easy to, as TV Tropes puts it, "complain about shows you don't watch", and I will be honest, I didn't exactly treat her death respectfully. Given what you said... I often forget about it, but my father's side of the family has been plagued with alcohol abuse. It's why I've chose to abstain from drinking. Having realized that, I apologize for my hypocrisy.

Just want to say first of all that it was brave of you to leave that much real emotion out there on the internet, of all places, filled as it is with hateful people hiding behind anonymity, and that that gets a lot of respect from me.

And now for the cancer/alcoholism comparison you made. Yeah. To swing into my own personal story there, last year, I went to visit my Grandad, who was dying of stomach cancer. Also there at the time was my Aunt, who is an alcoholic. My grandad had never drank, smoked, done anything unhealthy all his life, and he was lying there in agony, unable to do anything, just stuck with this thing that was going to slowly and painfully kill him, no matter what he did. My aunt, his daughter, who should have been there for him was instead fucking wasted the whole time, and demanding everyone's attention to paid to her instead. I actually find it deeply ignorant to say those two are the same thing.

Lindsay, this may be your best work to date. The genuine emotion you showed throughout the video: the nostalgia, the child happiness, to the somber and tasteful closing. It's great to learn so much about your inspirations and what shaped you as a creator. And now you get to do the same to a new generation. Keep up the good work, please!

I remember when Lisa Lopes died. It was tragic. I also remember that it was 10 years ago this month that Aaliyah died in a plane crash 17 days before 9/11.

I also knew people who died young. In middle school, a kid committed suicide. my Sophomore year, the same. I knew him better. I also had two friends from Elementary school die in high school in accidents. Junior year was cliff diving at Lake Mead, Senior year was after several days in the hospital following a motorcycle accident near my house. In sixth grade, an eighth grader (who was the kid brother of an ex-boyfriend of my sister) was in a bike accident near my house as well. The only two I know of. It is always sad to hear.

The good news is, they can be with their families once again.

Lisa may have died before her time, but she won, she beat something that grinds up and destroys many.

This was as beautifully done as The Tree of Life. Your composure and poise and control were perfect, letting enough raw emotion through without breaking down, and allowing us to see how it has affected you and allowing us to empathize. Also, I want to thank you for being so vulnerable for us, I'm sure it was tough to do for the whole of the thousands of people who come to this site. Keep up the good work.

I don't think TLC were ever the most popular girl group of the world? En Vogue (to stay in the r&b, hip-hop genre) were definitely bigger, at least in continental Europe.

But I really liked the video, except the end with the cancer/alcoholism comparison.

Respect.

Here in Sweden TLC didn't really brake through until the No Scrubs song. I was really offended by that song and judged them by it and never payed them anymore attention. Thank you for broadening my understanding of the band and its popularity. Thank you for opening up to us about a very personal subject that clearly affected you a lot. Thank you for not succombing to the idea that everything on this site has to be clever and funny.
In short: thank you for doing what you do.

I ... I have nothing to say, except that I hear you, and I understand the magnitude of what you've shared. It must've been hard to say this, so I appreciate what you've said.
You're a strong person, Lindsey.

Addiction isn't a disease. Diseases can be cured by medicine, the psyche of human only by choice.

If you starting calling it a disease it's something that a person has no control and hasn't any responsibility over. That way it's also patronizing towards the person who is addicted.

I've seen in it in my family and have a friend who has worked with addicted persons. And the most frustrating thing about it is that you are powerless. That is because the addicted chooses for this lifestyle.

Take for a more lighter less destructive addiction; food. The obese are beginning to claim that is a disease they have. That's kind of insult to themselves and such low selfesteem. The claim is only to justify their life-style.

I have an addiction for coffee. If I would tell you that's a disease you would punch me in the face. Better, i would totally let me beat me up by a hundred men because that's such a stupid remark.
The point is, that I have the luck that it won't do other ones any harm (socially nor physical). Or that it will do my body that much harm. So I don't have any means to lay off of it. But if it was, I did. With any tool I could get.

I acknowledge that being addicted to something is really hard to get off, but you will succeed if you really want to. It's just a matter of choice.

Not all diseases can be cured by medicine. Cancer? Aids? Psychological disease? Tell me the medicines that can CURE that.

Well, I guess we should stop putting money in research for finding a medicine for that. Since it can't be cured by a medicine as you stated.

Give medical researchers time and money, and they will. They've made enormous strides with all three already. It's not that they can't be. It's just that they haven't yet.

I suppose schizophrenics should just clear themselves up too, huh? If the psyche of a human can only be cured by choice? And the depressed should definitely just get over it, right? And anorexia is totally a choice too.

Okay, sorry for my bitchiness, that just hits a nerve for me. There are so many people who think that the problems me and many of my friends go through are just made up because obviously it's all in our head. Things just... aren't so simple. Something that's easy for some people isn't as easy for others.

"suppose schizophrenics should just clear themselves up too, huh? If the psyche of a human can only be cured by choice?"

By your standards, when a baby cries it is ill. And when a woman cries (like in the video you just saw) she needs some medicine. Or is it perhaps the psyche of the human brain that they are in? The baby just wants some milk, and that woman (as we see here above) is recapturing and evaluating her past.
Is that a bad thing? Why not call that a disease since you are calling schizophrenics people with illness.


"And the depressed should definitely just get over it, right? And anorexia is totally a choice too."
It's a state of mind. And its the people choice to stay in that state of mind.
I totally not saying that it's easy, because it is not. I'm saying that it all comes down to this.

"By your standards, when a baby cries it is ill. And when a woman cries (like in the video you just saw) she needs some medicine."

Ok, I'm going to try and not get to hard about this, as I know a lot of high emotions are riding with this subject: but I really don't see how you can compare those to things to addiction and mental illness. Yes there are people that are just depressed and need to "get over it" but there are also those who are "clinicaly depressed" and need help from therapy, and in some cases medicinal help. It's a disease (one of the mind rather than the body, but a disease none the less) and these people do need help and compassion. And the same goes for addiction. Yes, they need to want help, and have will power, but simply saying the need to "get over it" just doesn't hold water.

As for those who don't know why they should care about dead musicians. Look, I really don't care about TLC or Amy Whinehouse. (My screen name should tell you that it's not my kind of music) but I do feel for any human being who dies, unless it's someone horrible, like Charles Manson (I'll probably work up a smile when he hits the floor) regardless of how you felt about them personaly, millions of people (like Lindsay) lost someone who touched there lives, and more importat, a famliy lost a loved one. Of coarse it's not suprising that some people feel the need to make nasty comments about it when someone dies and for no other reason than to piss people off (that's the net for you) but I don't think a little respect for other human being is to much to ask. So yes, my priorities are just fine.

"Ok, I'm going to try and not get to hard about this, as I know a lot of high emotions are riding with this subject: but I really don't see how you can compare those two things to addiction and mental illness. "

Because addiction is an urge for a form of satisfaction that goes on and on. A baby that cries has the same properties of one that is addicted. It needs his food continious but it has no way to control it's emotions. Lindsey has no control over her emotions when she recalls a certain part of her childhood. In the last two cases it is socially accepted that these kinds emotions occur.
One with the mental illness is only defined as an mental illness because society doesn't know how to treat these kinds human behaviour.

Just like you can't say that a person with .e.g. Asperger is mentally ill.

It all lies behind what is socially acceptable and what not.


"Yes there are people that are just depressed and need to "get over it" but there are also those who are "clinicaly depressed" and need help from therapy, and in some cases medicinal help. "
For sure, people who are depressed will never come over it just by putting a pill up their arse. They definately can't be helped by other people. They can only help themselves. For some that takes months, for other years. But it still is a choice that someone has to make themselves. Other people simply can't help them. It would be totally arrogant of them who think they do.



"It's a disease (one of the mind rather than the body, but a disease none the less) and these people do need help and compassion. And the same goes for addiction. Yes, they need to want help, and have will power, but simply saying the need to "get over it" just doesn't hold water."
It just does.

"A baby that cries has the same properties of one that is addicted. It needs his food continious but it has no way to control it's emotions. Lindsey has no control over her emotions when she recalls a certain part of her childhood. In the last two cases it is socially accepted that these kinds emotions occur."

Not the same. At all.

A baby's desire for food represents a need for something beneficial to its well-being. A person shedding tears upon remembrance of tragedy represents a relief of stress, which again is beneficial to that person's well-being.

Alcoholics persistently desire something which certainly IS NOT beneficial to their survival.

As far as where I stand on considering addiction a disease: I don't consider it a disease, but I'm more than willing to be swayed by the medical community's growing adoption of classifying certain forms of addiction as disease. Also, if considering it as such or similar assists in the successful treatment of an individual through helping frame the severity of their situation, then I'd rather not harm that individual's chance for recovery by telling them they're wrong.

Basically, I only take issue with addicts who demonstratively give away their power against their addiction through associating it with disease (as depicted in the infamous South Park episode "Bloody Mary").

""And the depressed should definitely just get over it, right? And anorexia is totally a choice too."
It's a state of mind. And its the people choice to stay in that state of mind.
I totally not saying that it's easy, because it is not. I'm saying that it all comes down to this."

It's not as simple as that. There is a difference between being depressed, and having clinical depression. And anorexia is nucking futs. If you're a skeleton, and you think you're fat, it's not because you're stupid; it's because something is wrong with you.

Ooookay..... I'm not going to even try to talk sense into you.

uhh Four lights, addiction is a disease. People who go through withdrawal have to be watched, hospitalized, taken care of so that they don't die.

i have never heard someone say that Addiction is not a disease. Its ludicrous to argue that its not.

A car accident is a disease by that same definition. Nice to know.

"A car accident is a disease by that same definition. Nice to know."

Wow! Really? That's what you're going with? I was actually willing to overlook the ridiculas crying baby analogy, but wow! That's right up there with Paul Revere warning the British that they won't be taking are guns. Bravo sir, Bravo!

Tell me, what is wrong with that? Rzeiler made a definition about what a disease is like. I just point out there are some holes in that kind of definition.

What's wrong with it? Uh, well for starters they're not even close to the same thing. A disease or disorder is something you're either born with, or get later in life, and a car crash is...well, a car crash. It's an accident, and unless you're injured by it (which is not a guarantee) it doesn't really apply to this argument at all. As far as the baby thing, come on, babies cry because they're hungry, it's a normal reaction which tells them to eat and stay alive. addiction it a strong overpowering need that tells them to use even though it is killing them. No comparison. Also, when you have to reach that far to make an argument, you've already lost.

"disease or disorder is something you're either born with, or get later in life, and a car crash is...well, a car crash. It's an accident, and unless you're injured by it (which is not a guarantee) it doesn't really apply to this argument at all."

I'm just pointing out that the definition rZeizer was working with, doesn't hold up to much. If it illness just takes to land in a hospital than a car accident is quite fitting.

"As far as the baby thing, come on, babies cry because they're hungry, it's a normal reaction which tells them to eat and stay alive. addiction it a strong overpowering need that tells them to use even though it is killing them. No comparison. "

Too much of anything can kill you, even food or water. Everybody needs the same kind of chemicals you will find in drugs. What I'm talking about is that man has needs and that there is choice about filling the emptiness between the needs.

Randy Marsh: "Don't you see, Stan? I can't help myself. I have a DISEASE."
OK, I got fed up of this argument and went to an online dictionary, where I found:
"A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful."
So fine, alcoholism can be defined as a disease.
I still have massive problems with her comparing it to cancer. It's insulting to compare alcoholics to people who may be terminally ill through no fault of their own.

Well, if cancer victims refused to get help they'll die. But they're sick reguardless. Same idea, an addict can get help and recover, but they'll always be an addict, that's why the can't ever take one drink.

To be fair, some people can get help of another sort and develop a healthy relationship with whatever they were addicted to. I have seen evidence that it is possible to fully recover- but one should always remember that they have that tendency and be careful.

Is that what they tell you?

Very Much Agree. Cancer is a Disease aalcoholism is an addiction.



btw ... Amy Winehouse didn't die of alcoholism. Unless they had an open bar at the local crack house.

I find this video rather uninteresting. First an analysis about mildly competent musicians I don't care about, then an "Isn't it sad she died?" segment about the same musician that also goes into the territory of another midly competent musician I don't care about. Call me a monster but I don't go to a website that sets its tone by using the looney tunes logo to hear stories about a sad 9 year old girl.

By the way, if you don't understand why many people don't care about the deah of Amy Winehouse, it's not only because it was obvious. It's not only because the only thing they can think when they hear her name is "They tried to make me go to rehab but I said 'no, no, no'". It's not only because she has not been relevant in years. It's also because at the same time, things happened that you should actually care about. In fact, more things than you would know, because they didn't make the news. They didn't make the news because a mildly competent musician died the death she choose herself and that everyone saw coming. And if someone is upset about my resufal to care about dead musicians, you should get your priorities checked.

Damn straight.

[quote]I find this video rather uninteresting. First an analysis about mildly competent musicians I don't care about,[/quote]
Than you totally missing the point and have not yet seen any videos of the nostalgia chick, do you?


[quote]Call me a monster but I don't go to a website that sets its tone by using the looney tunes logo to hear stories about a sad 9 year old girl. [/quote]
Nostalgia Chick is a series that always been more of an analyzing series of pop(culture) and their place in society. So it's far more fitting what the motives were for making something like this. I still don't know if the last few minutes was the best way to show it. But not for the reasons you are pointing out.
It's a good thing that there is also a more serious touch/tone on this site.

Typically like how boys and girls were. Boys were for getting any experience/adventure whilst girls were more talking/analyzing about it.

please tell me your a troll

Well, if he's a troll, then I must be one, too, because I agree with him on quite a few levels.

To call Amy Winehouse mildly competent is insulting to musicians who are mildly competent. IMO, Kurt Cobain was mildly competent. In fact, I submit that if he had lived a full life, we'd be looking back on Nirvana and saying, "I can't believe we listened to this garbage!" instead of it getting radio airplay on contemporary rock stations 20 years after its time.

When Lisa Lopes died, it was sudden and tragic for her friends, family, and colleagues. But Amy Winehouse? Anyone who had been paying attention saw her death coming a mile away. It may be a tragedy to those who knew her personally, but at the end of the day, it isn't really worth anyone beyond that's time. My wish that Amy Winehouse had lived a long and full life is for exactly the same reason I wish Kurt Cobain had: So that people who listened to their music would look back and laugh at themselves for listening to what they had produced, instead of feeling some sort of misplaced reverence for it.

Now, I guess I might as well talk about TLC while I'm on my soapbox. I can tell you exactly why TLC were as big as they were: TIMING. When they came out, the heavy-metal resurgence and subsequent transition to alternative and grunge rock was becoming glutted. There were a flood of crappy bands with marginal talents that would end up fading away and being forgotten. People were getting sick of it, so they turned to R&B as an alternative. That's when TLC came in, and they weren't any better or worse than any other R&B band. Their social messages didn't, either (Arrested Development's "Tennessee" was more powerful than anything TLC ever put out). Say what you want about it, but it was their goofy costumes that set them apart from all of the other R&B groups. It was juvenile and stupid, but that was what MTV and record execs looked for. Hell, they still do. How do you think Lady Gaga got so famous? It certainly wasn't by being the second coming of Tori Amos and going by the moniker Stephanie Germanotta.

Gotta agree with Austincovello here on many points. Good post.

Especially this part:

". How do you think Lady Gaga got so famous? It certainly wasn't by being the second coming of Tori Amos and going by the moniker Stephanie Germanotta."

It's funny, cause it's true...

I am 20, I grew up in the 90s, but I have to say I have no memory of this TLC thing at all. Guess they were never big in Finland. And I suppose my older sisters, whose music I listened to at the time, didn't care about R&B or hip hop much at all (and I have never learned to love it either).

Amy Winehouse dying is of course a personal tragedy, but I can't bring myself to care much with musicians worth more praise dying all the time without getting the attention Winehouse gets by joining the 27 club. Ronnie James Dio anyone?

If you dislike any kind of music that doesn't necessary mean it's good or bad. That just means it doesn't resinate with you personally. You could still make the argument that certain acts are better the others by comparison, but it's unfair to assume that love for any one act is a sign of poor musical test.

Different people like the same type of music for many different reason, so there is no way of knowing anyone reason why someone is hugely popular. Only time will tell is certain works of arts still resonate with a large percent of the population several generations down the line. There were people in the 1950s who said no one would care about Elvis Presley in ten year or even two! Some people still don't like his music for various reasons, that doesn't mean it doesn't still have reasonance for others.

One thing I believe no media critic should ever do as assume to know the mindset of an audience. That's the mistake Lindsey admitted to making in her Dune review. While I may agree with the Nostalgia Critic that Full House was a very insipid show, I disaproved of him talking as if no ever laughed at the jokes in all the years it was air and they were brainwashed into liking (even if he meant it as a joke). I watched PBS Kids shows growing and appriciated classic literature in junoir high and I'm not ashamed to say that even I laughed at Full House occassionaly.

I personally love Amy Winehouse's music. It's got an old R&B/Soul sound to it. Without Amy Winehouse we wouldn't have singers like Adele or Duffy, who I think are both fabulous. Maybe it's not your style, and maybe they're too mainstream or something, but I love this genre of music. I think it will be easy to listen to this music in 20 or 30 years because it's inspired by classic jazz/soul music.

Amy Winehouse's death IS A tragedy because yes, people saw it coming a mile away. If people saw it coming, why weren't greater measures taken to prevent it? She must have seen it coming too, why didn't she take the right steps? It forces us to question the lifestyle of people with addiction and how the people closest to them can help.

We did lose an AWESOME musician because unlike other artists on the radio, she knew where true music comes from. True music comes from love, passion, and sometimes misery. It's a shame that many creative minds tend to be self-destructive and hopefully it's a trend that will reverse.

Um, I'm a fan of Nirvana's music because I like how it sounds. I don't like it out of sympathy or reverence for Kurt Cobain.

I'm thinking you weren't a young girl in the 90's.

It's OK to not care because you're busy caring about other stuff and you're all out of care. Fine. But is it really ok to judge her, and others like her, as unworthy of the sympathy of ANYONE?