According to Funk Podcast & Blog

KlarFunk-006 When diagnoses become a weapon – therapy language, peer pressure and YouTube double standards

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	27 MB	Download
AAC m4a	15 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:10 Today it's about therapy language, about psychiatric diagnoses in social media
0:00:10 – 0:00:18 and how a flag in the wind changes his mind during a live stream.
0:00:18 – 0:00:27 Sure, Klarfunkt. Not around it. Not just further. Not just loud. Questioning.
0:00:27 – 0:00:37 Klarfunkt. Let's talk about it.
0:00:37 – 0:00:52 Welcome to Lautfunk, I'm Sascha Markmann and I say hello. Yes, I saw a video today
0:00:52 – 0:01:01 It was from the LeFloid. A content creator who has been doing things on YouTube for ages,
0:01:01 – 0:01:09 has a very eventful past, here and there his problems with alcohol or without alcohol
0:01:09 – 0:01:19 He did and did content all the time. He also has quite incidentally actually psychology
0:01:19 – 0:01:29 studies, which he advises against anyone who does not like to do mathematics, because this field has
0:01:29 – 0:01:39 Surprisingly much to do with statistics and mathematics. Who would have thought? Yes,
0:01:39 – 0:01:49 This video is about the fact that social media is a trend, yes, in short videos,
0:01:49 – 0:01:59 especially like to use on TikTok or on YouTube in shorts, therapy language. And so
0:01:59 – 0:02:06 to impart knowledge, which is not even as real knowledge as in the video of
0:02:06 – 0:02:13 Love Lloyd is shown. Incidentally, this is also linked in the show notes, or in
0:02:13 – 0:02:22 Pinned comments. Not even really relevant is the knowledge of what is conveyed there,
0:02:22 – 0:02:29 because in a maximum of 30 seconds you don't really have such complex topics as the behavior of
0:02:29 – 0:02:37 Break down people. I also found the section on narcissism particularly interesting.
0:02:37 – 0:02:50 LeFloid uses such things as "These three things make narcissists" as a video rip-off
0:02:50 – 0:03:01 And that's where he talks about a few things. Because each of us has narcissistic traits within us.
0:03:01 – 0:03:06 And then the question is only when is it just a personality disorder,
0:03:06 – 0:03:15 a narcissistic personality disorder, or is all this still within the normal framework,
0:03:15 – 0:03:23 It's just a complex personality. If you now look at all these
0:03:23 – 0:03:30 Look at personality parts, then you have a little more, sometimes a little less
0:03:30 – 0:03:37 distinct, different aspects. That's what makes us stand out and that's just a very complex topic.
0:03:37 – 0:03:44 You always have to see it contextually. Now I could go and who knows
0:03:44 – 0:03:50 What a huge talk spread about it and explain things. I don't want that at all. Me
0:03:50 – 0:04:00 just wants to open your eyes that therapy language, i.e. the targeted use
0:04:00 – 0:04:07 from medical terms to stigmatize someone and that happens automatically,
0:04:07 – 0:04:21 If you just do that, that it does not do justice in any way to what these words,
0:04:21 – 0:04:28 This therapy language was originally invented. Because one describes with it human
0:04:28 – 0:04:36 Behavior and you can't do that if you don't have the basics for it and
0:04:36 – 0:04:42 of which I am not talking about education and knowledge and so on, but without having to deal with
0:04:42 – 0:04:48 employed the man. If you don't know someone, just what they're doing.
0:04:48 – 0:04:55 Internet in erects, looks at and then draws conclusions about a complex personality
0:04:55 – 0:05:03 concludes, then this is technically totally wrong. And that just happens here from people,
0:05:03 – 0:05:07 who in no way have an education, but only a lot of content in the
0:05:07 – 0:05:14 Internet is consumed. Which is then even in places really wrong. LeFloid brings
0:05:14 – 0:05:22 This is a meta-study. I don't know if it's linked to you in the video. This is where it goes
0:05:22 – 0:05:29 there that you stop a bunch of content creators that stop this educational content
0:05:29 – 0:05:34 have looked at mental illnesses and there were actually less
0:05:34 – 0:05:42 than 20 percent who have not lambed bullshit, who were technically correct. The rest was either
0:05:42 – 0:05:50 Half or total catastrophe and the total catastrophe was more than half. Yes and
0:05:50 – 0:05:57 That's what I'm experiencing, too. I see in the comment columns people who stop in various
0:05:57 – 0:06:03 Drawers are put in without having really dealt with it, but stop
0:06:03 – 0:06:10 only seen what those of themselves voluntarily show on the Internet. And that is already
0:06:10 – 0:06:18 It's funny and that's a point that makes me think. Clearly I have in the
0:06:18 – 0:06:25 Past also said, this already has racist traits, but racist traits
0:06:25 – 0:06:33 at each of us in itself sometimes more or sometimes less pronounced and this is totally normal,
0:06:33 – 0:06:41 because thinking a little about yourself is already important or if you are just someone,
0:06:41 – 0:06:47 which should have an external effect, then should also have a bit of a hold in itself
0:06:47 – 0:06:54 be in love yourself, so that you also have the appropriate appearance, the self-assurance,
0:06:54 – 0:07:04 to look outward. You don't have to count equally smoothly among the top 10 percent of the prettiest,
0:07:04 – 0:07:14 Just to have narcissistic traits. It starts with a lot of little things. Or if you stop
0:07:14 – 0:07:22 go and derive behaviors based on a psychiatric diagnosis because you
0:07:22 – 0:07:28 would like to transport a certain image to the outside, such as the accusation that you
0:07:28 – 0:07:36 It would be opportunistic if you had a borderline diagnosis. This is also pretty
0:07:36 – 0:07:44 dangerous, but fits right into this pattern by giving someone else a psychiatric
0:07:44 – 0:07:55 Pressing down on a diagnosis and thus presenting it as quasi-valid as mentally ill, then explains itself
0:07:55 – 0:08:04 Yes, a lot of his behaviors and he is not to be taken seriously anyway and is mentally ill anyway.
0:08:04 – 0:08:12 Yes, it is a super remedy, which works great. I mean, some assassins were in the
0:08:12 – 0:08:23 Past also likes to be portrayed as a stranger, as mentally conspicuous or as a communist.
0:08:23 – 0:08:33 Yes, I know this is a blatant comparison now, but it is a means that is gladly used.
0:08:33 – 0:08:39 And why, if that worked over and over again in the big story, why does it work?
0:08:39 – 0:08:48 Not even on a small scale, in a small YouTube, yes, what do you call it now? Bubble? Bubble will be yes
0:08:48 – 0:08:57 Also so gladly no longer seen. Then we just call it YouTube refuge, a small place with
0:08:57 – 0:09:07 a few thousand inhabitants. An enclave, to put it another way. And there it is and
0:09:07 – 0:09:14 Up and down there diagnoses are distributed and woe to the one talking publicly about that
0:09:14 – 0:09:20 he has this and that then you immediately skin with the baseball bat on it but no this
0:09:20 – 0:09:26 Baseball bat who also has five to six ten inches of nails in it so that at least the
0:09:26 – 0:09:34 It leaves a real lasting impression when you've hit it. Is already weird
0:09:34 – 0:09:43 Maybe you should just think about the fact that there are really people who
0:09:43 – 0:09:49 Have a psychiatric diagnosis and maybe have a lot of problems. Gladly will be yes at the moment
0:09:49 – 0:09:58 Yes, the torch of depression held up and there are also people who content about it
0:09:58 – 0:10:04 and then do not really react to the chat, which is full of any
0:10:04 – 0:10:14 Half-truths, because commenter X or commenter Y has a positive with that or that drug
0:10:14 – 0:10:20 or negative experience. One thing may have led to you holding weight
0:10:20 – 0:10:26 The other has caused you to lose weight. And so you can stop
0:10:26 – 0:10:33 gloriously in the comments throw any medication tips at your head without
0:10:33 – 0:10:44 There is somehow a well-founded basis. Well, half-knowledge, half-truths, yes that's such a thing.
0:10:44 – 0:10:53 Things that are really big right now. Or you wrap an untruth with a little bit of truth
0:10:53 – 0:11:04 and you can build wonderful diagnoses and other constructs. This is really fantastic
0:11:04 – 0:11:12 and I think the video of LeFloid is a great example of this and he explains it really well
0:11:12 – 0:11:20 and sometimes also with a lot of technical language, but even that he explains how it is so
0:11:20 – 0:11:27 It works and what is highly problematic about it. And I think if someone better that
0:11:27 – 0:11:32 can explain like me, then it should also be the one. Watch the video. It
0:11:32 – 0:11:39 is linked in the shownotes or in the pinned comment. Well, let's get here now
0:11:39 – 0:11:48 on the next topic. So flags in the wind. The days are something really interesting for me
0:11:48 – 0:11:57 noticed. The good Bernie from Bernis Nachtcafé somehow had a livestream at 5 o'clock in the morning
0:11:57 – 0:12:05 It was done that was very emotional. I think most people know what it's about. It was about the
0:12:05 – 0:12:12 The fact that he had found comments under a post by a loyal viewer,
0:12:12 – 0:12:20 They have shaken his worldview, let's say so. Because there were things of
0:12:20 – 0:12:25 former spectators or current spectators dropped, which is not positive
0:12:25 – 0:12:34 were. The stone of offense had been a phone call with someone who didn't stop particularly
0:12:34 – 0:12:42 This small enclave of YouTube's internet, namely Frank Battermann, is doing well. And although
0:12:42 – 0:12:48 the two do not like each other somehow, the two have actually managed to get there and
0:12:48 – 0:12:53 Write an e-mail again or maybe even talk on the phone. What I believe as
0:12:53 – 0:12:59 Adult man really is a great thing that you can also deal with people you are dealing with.
0:12:59 – 0:13:06 can't understand, still exchange somehow. That's a really good thing because you
0:13:06 – 0:13:13 then one can clarify misunderstandings and not only always react to higher legends. But this
0:13:13 – 0:13:19 It's a topic for another podcast or another video. In any case, this is
0:13:19 – 0:13:29 Displeased in the community really displeased and then a few have turned away
0:13:29 – 0:13:38 And they really let out their frustration in this community post by the viewer.
0:13:38 – 0:13:41 And Bernie didn't like that.
0:13:41 – 0:13:46 It has met with total displeasure because how can it be that the great Bernie
0:13:46 – 0:13:51 ring out on his balcony at once with such a headwind, where he had thought,
0:13:51 – 0:13:57 It is the closest confidants that leave such comments.
0:13:57 – 0:14:02 And so he did a podcast at 5 o'clock or was it a video?
0:14:02 – 0:14:07 I think that was even a video and talked about it, also has a few comments
0:14:07 – 0:14:14 read aloud and mentioned, among other things, that I wrote him an e-mail,
0:14:14 – 0:14:18 I asked for a conversation because I noticed a few things.
0:14:18 – 0:14:25 Of course, this immediately met with some kind of rejection, because the Sascha of Lautfunk, the
0:14:25 – 0:14:32 He can only act on behalf of Frank Butterman. He's supposed to obey you, he's supposed to manipulate you
0:14:32 – 0:14:38 and what you have spoken there possibly record and this immediately the Frank Butterman
0:14:38 – 0:14:51 play. So I'm really a fucking fucking scarf, a scarf.
0:14:51 – 0:15:03 But such wickedness, no, is far from me. So, you actually noticed,
0:15:03 – 0:15:13 how the chat went off and had really taken that more than negatively, that you now over
0:15:13 – 0:15:25 the commentators under this community post with the former viewers that you stop there
0:15:25 – 0:15:31 It had reacted negatively to the fact that this was also perceived very strongly negatively.
0:15:31 – 0:15:42 And you noticed that at some point this has penetrated to Bernie and he then calms down
0:15:42 – 0:15:48 had. This also led to three phone calls, where each time a woman had called and which then each
0:15:48 – 0:15:55 Sometimes very emotional and the one more, the other less factually addressed the matter,
0:15:55 – 0:16:03 how he slowly turned around and the idea of establishing contact with sound radio, with me, with Sascha,
0:16:03 – 0:16:11 did not even find it so good and above all that he might be a little too hard
0:16:11 – 0:16:17 and would have reacted beforehand to what the comments were about. Of course I have myself the
0:16:17 – 0:16:23 Comments viewed and which were, as usual, by the usual commenters under all
0:16:23 – 0:16:29 Sow. I mean, these people are so under all the sow that they're hidden on the canal with us
0:16:29 – 0:16:36 are because I myself, although we have to release every comment manually, I deal with such a
0:16:36 – 0:16:44 Shit does not want to deal with, because there comes sometimes hard tobak. And what some a
0:16:44 – 0:16:54 Comment writer so leaves is already, yes sometimes I would even say legal.
0:16:54 – 0:17:03 So the doxing, the insulting is the order of the day and there will be hard, yes there
0:17:03 – 0:17:09 Shot at small sparrows with atomic bombs. But here not such tactical warheads.
0:17:09 – 0:17:19 No, they are like worlds, planets, destroyers. This is so exaggerated.
0:17:19 – 0:17:28 And I can understand that Bernie was a bit indignant there. But I mean,
0:17:28 – 0:17:34 Criticism of him is criticism of humanity anyway. What I noticed,
0:17:34 – 0:17:41 simply over time, criticism is now not one of the particular strengths of
0:17:41 – 0:17:50 by Bernie on the balcony. I mean, who likes to hear that you stop here and there a mistake
0:17:50 – 0:17:56 Did and can deal with it? There are people who can do that. In some ways,
0:17:56 – 0:18:04 I also do this when a critique is factual and based on a basis and not only
0:18:04 – 0:18:11 It is a blunt insult. But what stood there was, in addition to the blunt insult,
0:18:11 – 0:18:16 Criticism, but it just went down in the blunt insult and thereupon
0:18:16 – 0:18:24 Bernie reacts very emotionally, which I find totally understandable. That which I did not understand
0:18:24 – 0:18:28 I have, as the chat and above all the callers have made him,
0:18:28 – 0:18:38 Yes, even apologizing that he was too researchy, too impulsive. And there you can just see,
0:18:38 – 0:18:49 What a flag in the wind Bernhard actually is. And there is no reasonable explanation
0:18:49 – 0:18:57 Or a reasonable inference as to why this happened.
0:18:57 – 0:19:03 But just like that, he's given a few thoughts, because he's a few hours
0:19:03 – 0:19:09 later went live again and then just shared his findings with us all.
0:19:09 – 0:19:19 But I also find it simply interesting from the point of view that this is then, because one supposedly
0:19:19 – 0:19:25 is on the good side that then it is perfectly fine if you put forward your argument,
0:19:25 – 0:19:33 throws his values overboard so easily and then holds a completely different opinion.
0:19:33 – 0:19:47 But for others, this is a massive, reprehensible mistake, a life mistake, and the
0:19:47 – 0:19:52 You have to be punished as much as possible and you have to be reminded again and again that you
0:19:52 – 0:19:59 It is morally flexible. I find really very interesting and I think that depends on it
0:19:59 – 0:20:05 Which side of the bubble you're on? Whether you are in the now or not in the, so in
0:20:05 – 0:20:12 Group, out Group, we against the and bla bla bla. That could be hugely disintegrating now.
0:20:12 – 0:20:22 Every now and then I do this on my blog, then I write very detailed and long texts, where I try to explain it as simply as possible.
0:20:22 – 0:20:34 But I also believe that it simply does not arrive at the addressees, because that should not arrive at all, because the mindset is already so.
0:20:34 – 0:20:42 is. Then when I look at actors like, let's take a look at Victoria, the V-perspective,
0:20:42 – 0:20:49 There is no interest in somehow expanding the point of view or anything. The
0:20:49 – 0:20:58 The only effort is to confirm their opinion. And I know what I'm talking about. We were
0:20:58 – 0:21:06 finally several months extremely active in a group, in our group and also privately
0:21:06 – 0:21:12 We were extreme in an exchange. And you get along with how someone like that a little
0:21:12 – 0:21:16 ticking. Of course not the whole picture, where we would be at the first topic block,
0:21:16 – 0:21:23 but only what he wants to present to the outside world. But the feeling,
0:21:23 – 0:21:30 what I had there was already so that it was extremely authentic and that shows a person,
0:21:30 – 0:21:39 which is so devoured by hatred that no other image can permit,
0:21:39 – 0:21:46 except for the confirmation that everything and everyone who has a positive relationship with Frank Butterman,
0:21:46 – 0:21:57 is the most negative and boshafste in the world. Only such things are attributed.
0:21:57 – 0:22:02 It's even that stop in endless podcast formats where we don't even have to be topic
0:22:02 – 0:22:09 should, radio is an issue. And you just notice how full of hatred this person is.
0:22:09 – 0:22:20 Not disappointment, it's sheer hatred. And I believe that because of my
0:22:20 – 0:22:29 Life experience that is now 49 years, I have learned one thing. Hate is by no means
0:22:29 – 0:22:41 a good companion. Hate is something that is destructive. If I don't care about anyone,
0:22:41 – 0:22:49 Indifference, then maybe this is not always empathetic, so compassionate,
0:22:49 – 0:23:01 But hatred is so destructive and so destructive that the one who does this hatred is not good.
0:23:01 – 0:23:10 feels and the one who gets the hatred and all who stand there. I would really be there
0:23:10 – 0:23:17 I wonder if my mindset is okay when I'm so full of hate. One person,
0:23:17 – 0:23:25 who shouldn't really give you shit and if there's something wrong and that's now
0:23:25 – 0:23:33 No professional classification, this is simply human intuitive. Oh God, now I have this
0:23:33 – 0:23:40 wrongly pronounced. Now they make fun of it again. Stupid stroke,
0:23:40 – 0:23:49 Stupid stroke! Stupid stroke! This is something that people feel is wrong.
0:23:49 – 0:23:55 But I think Victoria just doesn't notice that anymore. And there are other forms,
0:23:55 – 0:24:03 Other people with whom it is the same. Here, me, windowsill and what they're all called. The
0:24:03 – 0:24:11 These are the same people who are consumed by hatred. And if this continues,
0:24:11 – 0:24:18 Remains apart from a halfway sizable envelope of humanity, of what they consider to be
0:24:18 – 0:24:26 Specially pointed out, nothing more about, except sheer, sheer hatred. Well,
0:24:26 – 0:24:36 That's just my modest two cents on it. Thank God, not all of us are like that.
0:24:36 – 0:24:41 Thank God, each of us can do a bit of mental hygiene and just do that.
0:24:41 – 0:24:50 Filling life with beautiful things and when Mr. Wagner likes to stand or sit on the balcony
0:24:50 – 0:24:58 and philosophizes about what he just bought and the things full of joy in the camera
0:24:58 – 0:25:06 holds. Everyone can keep what they want from it, but that's by far positive content,
0:25:06 – 0:25:14 Like what other people are saying in the comments section. Sorry, I just had one
0:25:14 – 0:25:20 Frog in the neck. The comment column, definitely. That some people roar in there, that's
0:25:20 – 0:25:33 rather abysmally eaten up by hatred. Well, what's left for us now? Actually not much,
0:25:33 – 0:25:42 Except, say 27 minutes, any waste of time. At best, working time fraud,
0:25:42 – 0:25:50 In the worst case, lifetime that was simply wasted. I thank you for that,
0:25:50 – 0:25:54 I want you to listen and wish you were there next time.
0:25:54 – 0:26:05 And give us permission to publish the content of the butter beer group.
0:26:05 – 0:26:09 Thank you, bye, until next time, your Sasha.
0:26:09 – 0:26:20 Thoughts remain, questions too. Think further, ask further, talk further.
0:26:20 – 0:26:31 That was KlarFunk. Clear, clear, radio, clear radio. Let's talk about it.
0:26:31 – 0:26:37 [Music]

When did psychological education become a tool for publicly stamping other people? And why do some YouTube communities appear to have different moral standards, depending on who is currently affected?

In this episode of KlarFunk Sascha Markmann deals with two developments that at first glance have little to do with each other, but on closer inspection show astonishing parallels.

Psychological terms as a social weapon

Terms such as narcissism, manipulation, trauma or personality disorder have long been part of everyday language on TikTok, YouTube and other social networks. What was originally intended to serve the differentiated description of human experience and behavior is increasingly used as a supposed explanation for every unpleasant encounter.

Based on a video by YouTuber LeFloid, Sascha questions how much well-founded knowledge actually lies behind such statements, why short social media videos often distort complex psychological relationships and what consequences it can have if psychiatric diagnoses are used to publicly devalue people.

It is also about the boundary between normal personality traits and a mental disorder in need of treatment as well as the dangers of supposedly well-intentioned advice on mental illnesses and medications.

When out of conviction suddenly becomes adaptation

The second part focuses on a live stream of Bernie's night café. Critical comments, emotional responses, calls from the community, and a notable change in public position raise questions.

How strongly do viewers and their own social environment influence the opinion of a content creator? When is a change of opinion an expression of honest self-reflection – and when does the impression arise that group pressure sets the direction?

In connection with the reactions to contacts with Frank Battermann, Sascha also highlights how quickly people are attributed to certain camps and why an objective conversation between different positions can already be understood as a supposed breach of loyalty.

Double standards, enemy images and the power of one's own community

Finally, it deals with the mechanisms of ingroup and outgroup, selective perception, lack of critical capacity and the destructive effect of persistent hostility.

Why is comparable behavior excused for some, while for others it is permanently considered a moral failure? And what happens to a community when it is no longer arguments but affiliation that determines which opinion is accepted?

A sequence about psychological half-knowledge, public attributions, group dynamics, and the need to look at people in a more nuanced way.

KlarFunk – Not just loud. Questioning. Let's talk about it.

Person with smartphone, from whose glowing display a brain, puzzle pieces, hearts and medical symbols rise

Topics of this episode

Therapy language on social media: Why psychological terms on TikTok, YouTube and in comment columns are increasingly used to evaluate and devalue other people.
Psychological enlightenment or dangerous half-knowledge? How greatly simplified short videos can distort complex relationships and why a self-confident appearance does not yet mean professional competence.
Narcissism between personality trait and disorder: Why individual behaviors do not justify a psychiatric diagnosis and why a differentiated view of the human being is necessary.
When psychiatric diagnoses become a weapon: How people are stigmatized by attributions and supposed remote diagnoses and why this is particularly problematic for those actually affected.
Mental illnesses and medications in comment columns: What risks arise when personal experiences are passed on as universal medical recommendations.
Bernie's night café and an emotional livestream: How critical viewer comments, conflicts within a community and contact with Frank Battermann trigger a public discussion.
The influence of chat and callers: How the reactions of the audience can affect a content creator and which questions arise from a conspicuous change of opinion.
Change of opinion or double standards? Why comparable behavior is evaluated differently within different YouTube camps and what role personal loyalties play in this.
If conversations are considered treason: Why communication with people from a supposedly opposing camp can already provoke mistrust, insinuation and rejection.
Ingroup, Outgroup and the We-against-the-Think: How digital communities develop enemy images, confirm their own point of view and increasingly hide critical perspectives.
Criticism and escalation in comment columns: Where factual criticism ends, personal attacks begin and why insults, intimidation and public devaluations do not replace constructive discussion.
Hatred as a permanent companion: What effects persistent hostility can have on one's own thinking, interpersonal relationships and the entire climate of discussion.
More differentiation instead of rash judgments: Why it can be useful to endure contradictions, to allow other perspectives and not to judge people exclusively by their group affiliation.

Links to the issue:

Advertising:

Related episodes:

Leave feedback on the issue? ✍️ Then write a comment Audio feedback on the show? ☎️ 0231 53075818

Trustpilot

Contributors to this episode

Sascha

Number of downloads: 105
Duration: 0:26:38
Date of admission: 08.10.26
This episode is from season 4, there are a total of 4 seasons.

One According to Funk Publication Cartel Production - Where stories are transmitted unmistakably.

Podcast license:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Note: This post contains affiliate links. If you shop through these links, I'll get a small commission at no extra cost to you.

Caught in the Drama Triangle: How YouTube Conflicts Feed the Psyche and Algorithms

‘From dispute to content machine: How psychology and algorithms keep the YouTube drama alive.”

Anyone who moves in the YouTube ecosystem for a long time knows a strange phenomenon: A channel starts with technology, true crime, politics, entertainment, lifestyle or social issues – and at some point everything seems to revolve around other creators.

KlarFunk-005 Echo chambers, Dunning pitchers and the double standard on the balcony

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	28 MB	Download
AAC m4a	15 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:08 Klarfunkt. Not around it. Not just further. Not just loud. Questioning.
0:00:08 – 0:00:12 It's clear.
0:00:12 – 0:00:15 It's clear.
0:00:15 – 0:00:18 Let's talk about it.
0:00:18 – 0:00:25 Let's talk about it.
0:00:25 – 0:00:34 Wow, who would have thought that. So quickly another edition of Klarfunk. Yes, I am
0:00:34 – 0:00:41 Sascha Markmann and say hello to Klarfunk. What happened yesterday in Berlin in a one-room apartment
0:00:41 – 0:00:53 happened in a Spandauer district, I would like to talk about it. I find it
0:00:53 – 0:01:03 really amazing, with what precision someone shows what kind of spirit child he is.
0:01:03 – 0:01:10 I don't just mean that you can watch live two to three times every night,
0:01:10 – 0:01:20 what is educationally behind it, namely that you can even without the AI mode of Google Search
0:01:20 – 0:01:29 is no longer able to evaluate any everyday issues. No, it was simply shown,
0:01:29 – 0:01:36 If you take my puppy from me, I'll hit you on the head with my puppies.
0:01:36 – 0:01:49 So in Art. Frank had let himself be carried away to mention somehow that if on
0:01:49 – 0:01:57 Monday in a live stream with the men with the pumade in their hair once again any topics on
0:01:57 – 0:02:04 the table that he will then simply report on it once in the course of the week. And what does
0:02:04 – 0:02:14 The man on the balcony out of it? If you talk about Stefan on Monday, I'll take you away
0:02:14 – 0:02:27 I'll have every video with the footage of you swiped away. Frank was told to you and
0:02:27 – 0:02:34 Point point point point point. I found this really horny, because as I had to experience today again, has
0:02:34 – 0:02:39 A very witty cuddly kitten said yes again.
0:02:39 – 0:02:46 "What are you doing, eh? This is blackmail."
0:02:46 – 0:02:51 What the old bitter man is doing on the balcony is blackmail.
0:02:51 – 0:02:57 But that's all so double standards again and I don't feel like it anymore
0:02:57 – 0:03:10 think about it and ponder and the good Martina from the YouTube channel "Face is watching" has
0:03:10 – 0:03:18 Recognised correctly. Somehow I'm tired of this thing, but if everyone shuts up and even
0:03:18 – 0:03:24 say nothing more about it, then this is like the silent majority and you just leave such,
0:03:24 – 0:03:35 partial injustices simply to what certain actors in this game, in this game,
0:03:35 – 0:03:45 drift like this in this small, fine, dirty bubble, then it remains uncommented.
0:03:45 – 0:03:54 Yes, I am fully aware of this double standard and yes, Sarah and I have
0:03:54 – 0:03:58 the many videos we've done together so far, or podcasts we've done on the subject
0:03:58 – 0:04:09 Frank Butterman, later Berni's night café and Da Vinci Talk have made, had repeatedly said,
0:04:09 – 0:04:18 We are part of the problem. We do the same thing, just like that. We are no better,
0:04:18 – 0:04:25 But of course we are accused of this double standard, while the others...
0:04:25 – 0:04:32 So when I think about who's on our side,
0:04:32 – 0:04:40 We are already on the right side.
0:04:40 – 0:04:43 "Listen, I just want to."
0:04:43 – 0:04:51 Such considerations are bubble-typical somehow normal.
0:04:51 – 0:04:55 Because the In-Group and Out-Group, we against them.
0:04:55 – 0:05:02 We can only be the right ones, the good ones, because everyone in the group says the same thing.
0:05:02 – 0:05:07 No, this is self-affirmation in an echo chamber.
0:05:07 – 0:05:13 This is a totally normal process. If you put a bunch of monkeys in there,
0:05:13 – 0:05:19 in Bubble A, in Bubble B, in Bubble C, each of this group will think,
0:05:19 – 0:05:26 that they are right and that the others are evil. But alone these
0:05:26 – 0:05:35 Not everyone can spend cognitive transfer power. As I said, we have
0:05:35 – 0:05:43 It is often pointed out that we are part of the problem. And so, and in the
0:05:43 – 0:05:51 A clear awareness that we are part of the problem, we also take out the right to talk about it.
0:05:51 – 0:06:02 Discuss, debate and prepare the whole thing. I know objectivity remains
0:06:02 – 0:06:15 are stuck in subjectivity and it frightens commercially in some viscous perspectives.
0:06:15 – 0:06:22 I know, grammatically totally shitty. I was also made aware of this. boy,
0:06:22 – 0:06:29 Work into your grammar. Unlike others, here I speak completely freely,
0:06:29 – 0:06:39 Because witty kittens have to read their statements. And you don't hear that at all,
0:06:39 – 0:06:48 I just read my statement. As I said, I found today the video of
0:06:48 – 0:06:54 Martina is really good. And I've said it x times before, I like their content.
0:06:54 – 0:06:59 But that was such a small thing where I had to criticize them.
0:06:59 – 0:07:03 But I think Martina can handle it quite well.
0:07:03 – 0:07:09 She's a resolute woman, and I think if she thinks so,
0:07:09 – 0:07:14 that I talk her nonsense, then she can handle it just totally easy easy
0:07:14 – 0:07:20 It does not have to be like someone else who considers himself infallible and moral.
0:07:20 – 0:07:29 Instance on the balcony so fart into the shirt. I hope, Bernhard, you have pen again
0:07:29 – 0:07:36 and Block, because there could be some legal issues here. Maybe you'll take the
0:07:36 – 0:07:46 next thousands in your hand, then you can warn me again. Sorry, I just
0:07:46 – 0:07:51 Have a sip. If you talk like this for almost eight minutes at a time, the neck will
0:07:51 – 0:08:00 A little dry. Where had we stood? Yes, big blackmail speech of my
0:08:00 – 0:08:05 Feeling, in my opinion, on the balcony. I'm sitting there last night doing the preparation
0:08:05 – 0:08:15 for today's Schmackofatz and think to me like that, oh yes, that's about to come, the live. What do we have
0:08:15 – 0:08:22 And what I heard there, my toenails rolled up. But not in a good sense,
0:08:22 – 0:08:32 But in a bad sense. And I just find it frightening that we are now on
0:08:32 – 0:08:39 have arrived at a point where you have another content creator, not because he somehow went
0:08:39 – 0:08:50 is and Schindluder has driven with the material, but out of sheer wickedness.
0:08:50 – 0:08:55 And yes, Bernhard, you are an old, bitter, wicked person in my eyes.
0:08:55 – 0:08:59 And that is my opinion.
0:08:59 – 0:09:05 Because everything I've seen from you in the last few months always strengthens me
0:09:05 – 0:09:14 more in the feeling that in my opinion you are an old, bitter, malicious man,
0:09:14 – 0:09:24 He absolutely believes that he has eaten wisdom and justice with spoons. You know,
0:09:24 – 0:09:28 What is the difference between you and me? Not only am I a little younger than you,
0:09:28 – 0:09:37 that maybe I can't move as well as you, is I'm by far with the fact
0:09:37 – 0:09:47 I know that what I know is a fraction of what I don't know. And even from that,
0:09:47 – 0:09:54 What I know is in some areas so much that I would really like to know,
0:09:54 – 0:09:59 but for various reasons it is not possible to acquire the knowledge for me,
0:09:59 – 0:10:08 Because my life is not enough. I am fully aware of this and I also know
0:10:08 – 0:10:17 that in many areas I am 99.9999 period, percent, I am not an expert and
0:10:17 – 0:10:22 I can't judge because I don't know about it.
0:10:22 – 0:10:26 But now let's get to another interesting thing.
0:10:26 – 0:10:28 Do you know the downing pitcher effect?
0:10:28 – 0:10:36 That's when you know so little about something that you understand the significance of
0:10:36 – 0:10:41 not knowing so much, so misjudging that you think you know everything about it
0:10:41 – 0:10:42 white.
0:10:42 – 0:10:52 I think you're the perfect example, that's my firm opinion that you're the absolute proof of the downing pitcher effect.
0:10:52 – 0:11:00 I know you all make fun of it. "Haha, the amateur psychologist, hihihihi."
0:11:00 – 0:11:07 I believe, although I am aware of the fact that I have no idea of
0:11:07 – 0:11:11 And a lot of people don't know that I know more about psychology,
0:11:11 – 0:11:14 like you in your little finger
0:11:14 – 0:11:17 Have any kind of education.
0:11:17 – 0:11:20 Because otherwise you wouldn't constantly be your
0:11:20 – 0:11:23 Yes, your Google strive
0:11:23 – 0:11:26 and your AI summary,
0:11:26 – 0:11:29 Which you read regularly in the evening.
0:11:29 – 0:11:32 So much for the point,
0:11:32 – 0:11:34 I don't use AI.
0:11:34 – 0:11:42 And then we come to the absolute star. I thought I didn't see right. Here comes of course
0:11:42 – 0:11:53 sometime the woman from Cologne, this loud voice suppled into the chat and then stopped
0:11:53 – 0:12:01 Wisdom is given of itself. The particularly beautiful wisdom had been, so Bernie,
0:12:01 – 0:12:10 If you need any tips to strike, we'll do it privately and so on and so forth.
0:12:10 – 0:12:20 I mean, there's always talk about XY interfering in Conflict Z,
0:12:20 – 0:12:33 that Alpha and Beta and Gamma Kevin take care of Omega Chantal, even though he
0:12:33 – 0:12:45 He has nothing on his hat. And when I think about it this way, it's all about having a common
0:12:45 – 0:12:53 Enemy has. And then of course also here script aka the witty kitten comes in there
0:12:53 – 0:12:59 and cleanse there also his wisdom. It's just interesting how these group dynamics
0:12:59 – 0:13:07 and how they try to break down the outgroup in this group. I mean,
0:13:07 – 0:13:15 with the Cosenames and so on. Why are these cose names introduced in the first place? So,
0:13:15 – 0:13:21 If I call my opponent Sasha, let's take Sasha and I say Sasha is stupid,
0:13:21 – 0:13:29 I have to do this with a human being. But if I go there and say professor,
0:13:29 – 0:13:40 Doctor, doctor, radio or silent radio, sound radio, suppositories, suppositories, what else had been?
0:13:40 – 0:13:48 Oh, various combinations of a swear word, a devaluation and radio or
0:13:48 – 0:13:50 Loud and then something behind it.
0:13:50 – 0:13:51 Various possibilities.
0:13:51 – 0:13:56 Now I don't want to list all the variations there.
0:13:56 – 0:14:04 Did this, did that say, did that, and why do you do that?
0:14:04 – 0:14:16 Because it dehumanizes some of the opponents. And you can make yourself much funnier and easier
0:14:16 – 0:14:22 Making fun of someone you've dehumanized as if you're aware of the fact
0:14:22 – 0:14:28 or if you are aware of the fact that the other person is a human being. Because an
0:14:28 – 0:14:40 A dehuman counterpart is worth less and there you also have to respond less to feelings and laws.
0:14:40 – 0:14:45 And there's a whole bunch of other things that I don't feel like explaining now.
0:14:45 – 0:14:52 In any case, it is easier to respond to someone you provide with funny little nicknames,
0:14:52 – 0:14:56 As someone you call by his clear name.
0:14:56 – 0:15:07 I know that we also do that with Impulsiva and file flutterman, the butter pear and so on.
0:15:07 – 0:15:11 Because the principle works so well.
0:15:11 – 0:15:15 Now I've lost the thread. Oh, shit!
0:15:15 – 0:15:19 It's just like that.
0:15:19 – 0:15:34 I make fun of you by devaluing you, you react and then the in-group and the out-group and that's a back and forth and up and down.
0:15:34 – 0:15:45 And I just notice that these limits have been shifting further and further for months and that you are now almost also going to existence.
0:15:45 – 0:15:52 because you, I don't know if you had seen it yourself or because you just stop
0:15:52 – 0:15:58 information that has been passed on to someone who has interpolated
0:15:58 – 0:16:08 means for itself has summed up that there will come a malicious attack
0:16:08 – 0:16:13 Someone who is supposed to be a victim.
0:16:13 – 0:16:16 Let's put it that way.
0:16:16 – 0:16:25 There are statements against statements, various statements from different areas.
0:16:25 – 0:16:35 And I don't know why the old man on the balcony feels compelled to
0:16:35 – 0:16:42 throw in the breach for someone he doesn't even know personally. What is it,
0:16:42 – 0:16:49 If it succeeds? What if it succeeds? Let's say you have to be Frank.
0:16:49 – 0:16:56 Channel scattered away, its revenues, its existence destroyed. Dear Bernhard, you have in this moment
0:16:56 – 0:17:02 Didn't do the same thing you accused Frank of? Oh, this is so biblical,
0:17:02 – 0:17:07 So stone after stone, tooth after tooth, Aug after Aug and so on here.
0:17:07 – 0:17:08 Okay.
0:17:08 – 0:17:11 Who is the next victim?
0:17:11 – 0:17:16 I mean, I guess I can ask that question.
0:17:16 – 0:17:21 Who is the next person worth defending?
0:17:21 – 0:17:26 Who is next to be destroyed?
0:17:26 – 0:17:30 How often do I read "He has to go" in the chats?
0:17:30 – 0:17:38 How often I hear from you, Bernhard, such sentences as "Before the Butterman was there,
0:17:38 – 0:17:45 It was very different here". Funny when I look at such old videos,
0:17:45 – 0:17:52 so from KuchenTV and so on, Da Vinci was already a topic over six years ago and has
0:17:52 – 0:17:59 you make fun of him as much as you do today as a laziest opinion blogger and so on and so forth
0:17:59 – 0:18:06 There are a lot of videos, tons of them. You had to watch here KuchenTV Da Vinci,
0:18:06 – 0:18:13 Alpha Kevin Da Vinci and so on. All these bigger opinion bloggers in connection with Da
0:18:13 – 0:18:20 Vinci. Everyone has done something about it and the things are three years, six years old. That is,
0:18:20 – 0:18:28 There was a problem with Da Vinci at least three years ago. Are these then now the
0:18:28 – 0:18:36 Next people who have an opinion against Da Vinci. Is that us then? Will then
0:18:36 – 0:18:48 Sound radio ready? Yes, this YouTube existence here, which is unfortunately not important for us. Unfortunately.
0:18:48 – 0:18:55 When the channel is gone, it is gone. Doesn't do anything. There is still the website, there is still
0:18:55 – 0:19:05 the podcast. Doesn't do anything. You know, before I slipped into this game with Sarah
0:19:05 – 0:19:16 I am, so digital, rectal, we have done everything possible. Many years before that, we have
0:19:16 – 0:19:26 made. I even spent a few years longer like Sarah. And range didn't give a shit. This is a
0:19:26 – 0:19:37 Hobby project. This is not about making money or anything. This is just about the opinion
0:19:37 – 0:19:43 or to carry out a certain other opinion a bit further and maybe
0:19:43 – 0:19:50 one or the other with a nice little story or a nice little interview
0:19:50 – 0:20:01 Just sweeten the moment. This beef thing here that clicks amazingly,
0:20:01 – 0:20:11 but is something that is a small percentage of what was before and what still exists,
0:20:11 – 0:20:21 is. Because when I play the other formats, there is no beef. This is only in
0:20:21 – 0:20:30 Klarfunk and in rectal digital. Who will be the next victim? Can we do such a thing now
0:20:30 – 0:20:44 Making sacrificial roulette? Oh, well, that's the killer and that's the victim. Or how is that going? How
0:20:44 – 0:20:53 Is it being elevoted? Are dice rolled? Is a triage made? Is there a three-headed
0:20:53 – 0:21:01 Court, the YouTube court, Sabrina, the supreme Bernardo and perhaps still
0:21:01 – 0:21:08 Scribe Da Vinci and then you look at who it is, the culprit, who it is, the next victim.
0:21:08 – 0:21:14 I find it frightening how this has developed. I find it frightening,
0:21:14 – 0:21:22 that you have to write ads because the opinion already turns so that it
0:21:22 – 0:21:30 It becomes an insult. I find it scary that some people, and that's where I'm talking now
0:21:30 – 0:21:36 from our spiritual cuddly kittens, so beats over the strands with everything,
0:21:36 – 0:21:44 What she does is that there are regular police visits there. That it is a
0:21:44 – 0:21:56 Dangerous speech is said to have given, no idea if this is true, that's all so unnecessary.
0:21:56 – 0:22:06 I mean, you always hear these phrases, we're all adults, people, then behave
0:22:06 – 0:22:11 finally like that, too. LaVaN had the days, a few weeks ago, yes a few weeks ago,
0:22:11 – 0:22:22 Something smart said. If it actually happens, it happens. They all have an email address.
0:22:22 – 0:22:30 I have an email address. Why doesn't anyone write to me when there's a problem? And yes,
0:22:30 – 0:22:37 I think the old man on the balcony once had the idea to write to everyone.
0:22:37 – 0:22:44 So far nothing has happened in my mailbox and believe me one of this mailbox
0:22:44 – 0:22:51 It's huge because it's on my server that I run myself and there's no email.
0:22:51 – 0:22:56 I've come in and talked to everyone I've talked to about it, and they don't have an email yet.
0:22:56 – 0:22:58 receive about it.
0:22:58 – 0:23:10 So why is that? Because maybe there was no email, because maybe there was
0:23:10 – 0:23:18 there is no interest in a clarification of this matter, because perhaps, that is
0:23:18 – 0:23:23 now my personal opinion is that even in Berlin on a balcony at
0:23:23 – 0:23:31 An old man who is bitter. This YouTube beef thing just clicks wonderfully.
0:23:31 – 0:23:40 And yes, it also clicks wonderfully on Frank. And yes, it clicks wonderfully here too. But it will be yes
0:23:40 – 0:23:47 Always talk about wanting to do other things. Far from the beef. Only
0:23:47 – 0:23:52 I can say from my own experience that none of these viewers are interested in this.
0:23:52 – 0:24:01 And finding new viewers takes a long time. And if you are dependent on it and Bernhard,
0:24:01 – 0:24:12 even if you care again and again, I am not dependent on the 1000, 1200, 1500 euros,
0:24:12 – 0:24:18 which you certainly deserve every month, you also taste damn good on your bread.
0:24:18 – 0:24:29 Do you already make one dependent? God, how great if you're not dependent on YouTube. Lord God,
0:24:29 – 0:24:34 great that is great if you have all the expenses you have for your Internet presence,
0:24:34 – 0:24:40 could reduce it to such an extent that it is only a few euros a month. Yeah, great.
0:24:40 – 0:24:49 A high on the freedom not to have to depend on what you do. Yes,
0:24:49 – 0:24:58 and now the Martina will surely ask himself again, why did you do that,
0:24:58 – 0:25:04 How did you do it? And I think I explained that relatively well in the beginning.
0:25:04 – 0:25:12 When the majority begins to remain silent, you leave the playing field to the people,
0:25:12 – 0:25:21 which are extreme. And I have no desire that the loud, the shrill, the
0:25:21 – 0:25:31 who hold strong opinions because they are so shrill and loud and sometimes extremely offensive,
0:25:31 – 0:25:44 Those who are the ones who have the last word. Because also like a Bernhard
0:25:44 – 0:25:54 said on the balcony that he stands up for the weak, I say, such techniques,
0:25:54 – 0:26:04 Such measures, such threats are the absolute no-go for freedom of speech.
0:26:04 – 0:26:11 I mean, they say you don't do what I want, then I do that.
0:26:11 – 0:26:18 To me, this sounds like blackmail, which we are accused of, among other things,
0:26:18 – 0:26:25 because we said, give us that okay, then we publish the content of the chat group
0:26:25 – 0:26:35 the Butterbeer Ultras. And here again my demand, give us that okay that we have the content
0:26:35 – 0:26:42 be allowed to publish this group. There are only four women who say no. Thank you very much.
0:26:42 – 0:26:52 Yes, then I wish you another evening, good night, good morning, good noon,
0:26:52 – 0:26:59 Have a nice afternoon if we don't hear each other anymore and say goodbye, your Sasha.
0:26:59 – 0:27:10 Thoughts remain, questions smoke, think on, ask on, talk on.
0:27:10 – 0:27:21 That was Klar Funk. Clear, clear, radio, clear radio. Let's talk about it.
0:27:21 – 0:27:27 [Music]

In this edition of KlarFunk we dedicate ourselves to the dynamic and sometimes frightening chasms of the current YouTube bubble. Trigger is a live stream from a Spandauer one-room apartment, in which video strikes and censorship are openly threatened.

We analyse the psychology behind these conflicts: How In-Group and Out-Group Dynamics Work? Why is the dehumanization of the opponent by absurd pet names (on both sides) so effective?? And when does the self-proclaimed moral authority become a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect??

We are aware of our own subjectivity and know that we are part of the problem.. But that doesn't mean we're silently watching the borders shifted by threats and attempted blackmail..

A lighthouse of stacked screens over a glowing roulette cauldron in dark, stormy sea

Thematic breakdown:

The Eklat on the balcony: When criticism becomes a threat

Classification of the latest live stream from the Spandauer one-room apartment.
The open threat of video strikes against Frank and the attempt to destroy existences.
The question of extortion: Who is putting pressure on whom?

Self-reflection and the silence of the majority

Thoughts on Martina’s video (‘Face is watching’) and why you should not leave injustices in the bubble uncommented.
The open admission of our own double standards and why we ourselves are part of the problem.

The Psychology of YouTube Bubble

In-Group vs. Out-Group: The typical behavior in echo chambers.
The Dunning-Kruger effect on the living example and the paradoxical handling of AI summaries.
Dehumanisation as a weapon: Why the allocation of absurd pet names (on both sides) works so dangerously well.

Dependencies and the ‘victim roulette’

The search for the next target and memories of old campaigns (example: Da Vinci).
Hobby project vs. source of income: Why LautFunk, unlike others, is not dependent on YouTube revenue.

Conclusion & Open claims

Why you should not leave the playing field to the extreme and loud voices.
The renewed request for the release of the ‘Butterbieren Ultras’ chat group.

Advertising:

Related episodes:

Leave feedback on the issue? ✍️ Then write a comment Audio feedback on the show? ☎️ 0231 53075818

Trustpilot

Contributors to this episode

Sascha

Anzahl der Downloads: 109
Duration: 0:27:27
Date of admission: 03.10.26
This episode is from season 4, there are a total of 4 seasons.

One According to Funk Publication Cartel Production - Where stories are transmitted unmistakably.

Podcast license:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Note: This post contains affiliate links. If you shop through these links, I'll get a small commission at no extra cost to you.

Borderline as a parent: The Balance Between Intense Emotions and Education

“Afraid of failure as a mother or father with BPS? Specific strategies for emotion regulation and healthy boundaries.”

Can I be a good mother or father with borderline personality disorder?

Many people with borderline (BPS) will ask themselves this question at some point, especially if they already have children or are thinking about starting a family. The fear of one's own failure is often overpowering.

KlarFunk-001 How hate connects us

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	25 MB	Download
AAC m4a	11 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:07 Yes, welcome to "Klarfunk", a new format. Some issues are too important for the
0:00:07 – 0:00:16 quick response. Some questions only start where others stop looking. "Klarfunk",
0:00:16 – 0:00:27 We're talking about it. How do I get to the topic of today's podcast for the beginner sequence?
0:00:27 – 0:00:40 Ha! That's super easy. I saw last Sunday how hatred connects.
0:00:40 – 0:00:48 And I've always thought all my life, love connects people. But no,
0:00:48 – 0:00:52 I was taught better. I've seen how hate connects.
0:00:52 – 0:01:01 Sure, clear sparks. Not around it. Don't just go on. Not just loud. questioning.
0:01:01 – 0:01:11 Clearly sparks. Let's talk about it.
0:01:11 – 0:01:24 One or the other will notice this if he also follows the blog. I have one
0:01:24 – 0:01:33 I wrote this blog post a month ago where it was posted.
0:01:33 – 0:01:46 It's about love and hate and whether hate is the opposite of love. And that's what I tried
0:01:46 – 0:01:54 to be broken down into philosophical senses or even psychological senses and also have a
0:01:54 – 0:02:02 A bit of society as it is seen from a social point of view. This
0:02:02 – 0:02:08 What's interesting about this is whether you're talking about social media or social media.
0:02:08 – 0:02:20 YouTube, where my entry just comes from, what have the biggest fans and the
0:02:20 – 0:02:28 The biggest hater of a social media account or a YouTube channel together. White
0:02:28 – 0:02:40 Does anyone know? Biola? Biola? Okay. Both watch each video to the end, subscribe to the
0:02:40 – 0:02:50 Notifications and comments very diligently. That's the way it is. And that's also somehow
0:02:50 – 0:03:00 Such an everyday paradox. As I said earlier, many believe hatred is the opposite of love or love.
0:03:00 – 0:03:10 affection. If we don't like someone, we should avoid them. This is the real
0:03:10 – 0:03:24 It's a matter. Some are so smart and avoid these people or on social media, YouTube and have
0:03:24 – 0:03:31 If you don't see them, then you avoid this channel or this account and then you also have
0:03:31 – 0:03:41 A little more calm. But somehow it's different on the internet. On social media, on YouTube,
0:03:41 – 0:03:53 It's the other way around. People look at other people for hours and consume
0:03:53 – 0:04:01 Everything, even though they hate it. I mean, it's clear why they do that. You need
0:04:01 – 0:04:10 Hold on to input to get excited about it again. Same with your favorite content creators.
0:04:10 – 0:04:22 This works for the hate object, for the hate-watching victims. You have things,
0:04:22 – 0:04:28 What you can exchange. You can participate in the livestream or even discuss your
0:04:28 – 0:04:39 express opinions. You can take part in discussion forums – ok, that used to be – nowadays you will stop
0:04:39 – 0:04:49 discuss it on Instagram groups, in WhatsApp groups, in private groups,
0:04:49 – 0:04:58 what you see right now, almost like live tickers and get upset about it and just like stop
0:04:58 – 0:05:08 The content creator you admire is also the one you don't like.
0:05:08 – 0:05:23 Or even already have. This is also a kind of connection. It's an anti-fandom bond.
0:05:23 – 0:05:29 Some people don't even know what hate-watching is. Hate-watching is conscious.
0:05:29 – 0:05:36 Consuming content just to get excited about it. You can do that on Trash TV.
0:05:36 – 0:05:50 see if controversial influencers do strange things on the Internet or even with opinion bloggers
0:05:50 – 0:05:52 or YouTube content creators.
0:05:52 – 0:05:55 You can get really upset about it.
0:05:55 – 0:06:03 We also have our experience with it, because we ourselves were once part of such a, yes,
0:06:03 – 0:06:13 The anti-fan construct. The interesting thing is, structurally speaking, the antifan behaves
0:06:13 – 0:06:22 Just like the superfan. Only the fan who watches everything because he likes to watch and like it or even
0:06:22 – 0:06:32 He also loves and the anti-fan looks at everything because he is looking for mistakes to indignate himself about it.
0:06:32 – 0:06:43 The interesting thing is that the algorithms do not care if you look and comment
0:06:43 – 0:06:51 or write in the live chat, give a thumb up, a thumb down. Everything is an interaction
0:06:51 – 0:07:05 It gives and evaluates the channel's benefits. Because any kind of interaction, even if it's just that
0:07:05 – 0:07:13 hours of watching live streams, shows the algorithm that what is happening there,
0:07:13 – 0:07:21 It has some relevance. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative. interaction;
0:07:21 – 0:07:31 Action right where the video or post is important. I think some people are unaware of that.
0:07:31 – 0:07:46 Ignorance would be the way to go. Do not consume, do not comment and in no case like or
0:07:46 – 0:07:56 which is also particularly bad, the link to the post or the YouTube video or the live stream to
0:07:56 – 0:08:05 share. After all, if you look at this, you have the URL to the post in question.
0:08:05 – 0:08:14 and behind it a special identifier. And so the origin is made visible who shared what
0:08:14 – 0:08:22 has. That's why you can also see in the statistics on YouTube, on Instagram and so on,
0:08:22 – 0:08:35 how many visitors or how much traffic internally via the feed, via the subscribers or even
0:08:35 – 0:08:43 It comes externally. And even there you can resolve whether it just comes from WhatsApp or you don't have
0:08:43 – 0:08:53 seen. Many simply forget this and every interaction is positive for the algorithm.
0:08:53 – 0:09:03 But why do people do it? Well, the super fan who loves his content creator, who makes
0:09:03 – 0:09:13 It's because he has a connection with you. I don't want to go parasocial yet.
0:09:13 – 0:09:22 Connections out. But in general, if you like someone, you support them and you want to do it.
0:09:22 – 0:09:30 see. Why does the anti-fan do this? Well, that's kind of a community. community
0:09:30 – 0:09:42 through hatred. There is this talk of in-group and out-group, we against them. Yes, it makes special
0:09:42 – 0:09:52 Have fun when a reaction is made on a video or on a livestream of a content creator
0:09:52 – 0:10:00 It's about the content of someone you don't like. Then you can even stay in the
0:10:00 – 0:10:09 Community upset about it and a very strong we-feeling arises. It doesn't have to either
0:10:09 – 0:10:17 be a video of the content creator you don't like or a post,
0:10:17 – 0:10:22 Which is being disassembled. It can also be easy to get together.
0:10:22 – 0:10:31 When someone else, a third or a fourth person, looks at something and reacts to it.
0:10:31 – 0:10:40 About the one you're an anti-fan of, what they say. This simply strengthens the sense of togetherness. Find
0:10:40 – 0:10:48 I am very fascinated to look at these dynamics and analyze them. As I said,
0:10:48 – 0:10:56 We were, or still are, part of it, just different. An interesting thing about it is yes
0:10:56 – 0:11:06 Even if you are only dealing with a content creator monothematically, be it in the
0:11:06 – 0:11:17 positive senses or even negative senses, then this can even go so far that the identity
0:11:17 – 0:11:30 It becomes a central pillar, so that this person almost lives in the head. There is yes
0:11:30 – 0:11:39 In fact, this saying "I believe person X lives in person Y in the head" is there every day. And
0:11:39 – 0:11:47 Yes, I can confirm this and this is a very big issue, especially with the anti-fans. Since then
0:11:47 – 0:11:58 my partner and I have changed sides in the spirit of our anti-fans,
0:11:58 – 0:12:07 We actually live in some people's minds and have to deal with every content, every video,
0:12:07 – 0:12:15 They are mentioned at least once in each livestream. Even if it's not about us or with
0:12:15 – 0:12:22 A topic about us. We have to be mentioned at least once and that's really revealing.
0:12:22 – 0:12:29 Sorry, that's really debunked. In addition, there is also the statement constantly,
0:12:29 – 0:12:40 this guy is irrelevant and stupid or not important, but you watch all the videos yourself,
0:12:40 – 0:12:50 All posts, all posts everywhere and get excited about it. So that's the one
0:12:50 – 0:13:00 Extremely relevant to you because you consume everything from them. Yes, it's difficult,
0:13:00 – 0:13:08 If you think about it and just realize that you have a lot of
0:13:08 – 0:13:16 Lifetime invested, all too often, if you then also go and then every event quasi
0:13:16 – 0:13:23 commented live in a live stream in groups, like a live ticker from a court hearing.
0:13:23 – 0:13:30 Oh my God, now she's been drinking from the bottle. Oh my God, did you see?
0:13:30 – 0:13:40 He pobbled in his nose. Unbelievable how important the smallest actions of the
0:13:40 – 0:13:50 can become an object at once, which in the beloved Content Creator as a flattering peculiarity,
0:13:50 – 0:14:00 as a special feature, taken as a unique selling point, is high in the hate objects
0:14:00 – 0:14:07 Discussable. If one person opens one can of cola after another and gets upset about it,
0:14:07 – 0:14:14 that there are only overweight people everywhere, then that's perfectly fine,
0:14:14 – 0:14:22 That is his opinion. But woe to the other, who says something against multi-weighted
0:14:22 – 0:14:33 People, then that's immediately body shaming, fat shaming. It can all be so paradoxical.
0:14:33 – 0:14:45 Or is he like Schroeder? Death and life at the same time? Hm, that's kind of like that.
0:14:45 – 0:14:53 Double standards? The one behavior, which is equivalent, in the one admirable and totally normal
0:14:53 – 0:15:03 is and with the others totally derogatory, already disgusting or highly reprehensible. The one begging
0:15:03 – 0:15:12 after donations and that is not possible and he must necessarily disclose everything and the other begs
0:15:12 – 0:15:21 After donations for him to have pocket money on vacation, but that's totally legitimate. And the other begs
0:15:21 – 0:15:27 and is compelled to do so in order to keep the cost out of a
0:15:27 – 0:15:33 Settlement of litigation. One is valued this way, the other is valued this way.
0:15:33 – 0:15:40 Only one is judged to be particularly bad and reprehensible, and the other is
0:15:40 – 0:15:47 They need support, help. So rather positively rated.
0:15:47 – 0:15:54 And that's double moral, through and through. But let's get to this
0:15:54 – 0:16:02 Interesting topic "parasocial hate relationship". Parasocial is one such word. I think
0:16:02 – 0:16:06 We started doing this about a year ago.
0:16:06 – 0:16:16 Introduce them in these circles. And now this is almost being used inflationarily. The people
0:16:16 – 0:16:20 They are now throwing it around. For some, I actually feel like
0:16:20 – 0:16:28 You know what you're talking about and to others, it sounds intellectually high-quality. So use
0:16:28 – 0:16:38 I have such words. It's caustic. You should be able to use these things properly. Now
0:16:38 – 0:16:44 I'm someone who can't always pronounce the words exactly correctly. Bad stroke,
0:16:44 – 0:16:52 Evil, evil, evil stroke. I wouldn't have had it. Maybe I could use these
0:16:52 – 0:17:01 Pronounce words correctly. I have problems with so many things. I never did that again
0:17:01 – 0:17:10 I got there, even though I had very intensive speech therapy or training.
0:17:10 – 0:17:17 But no, I can't really do that. That's why I avoid x-constructs
0:17:17 – 0:17:25 words. Xanten is, that's still halfway, but if you just crush an old king or
0:17:25 – 0:17:31 This can be extremely difficult in certain situations. And I speak it now
0:17:31 – 0:17:40 Also very indistinct. It's just difficult when you have a slight facial spasm in places
0:17:40 – 0:17:49 He has, and still has, a word-finding disorder. Well, there's a bit of dwindling everywhere,
0:17:49 – 0:17:54 They say so nicely. But I'm digressing, and we're not digressing here,
0:17:54 – 0:18:02 We are here at Klarfunk. But we were in parasocial relationships or parasocial relationships.
0:18:02 – 0:18:10 The hate relationship. We build one-sided relationships with people on social media, on TV,
0:18:10 – 0:18:23 On the screen, on the internet. This not only works in a positive sense, but also with
0:18:23 – 0:18:33 Sympathy, which also works with antipathy, even goes right up to hatred and that is also
0:18:33 – 0:18:40 such a fascinating aspect, because if I sit there now and then get upset about it,
0:18:40 – 0:18:50 Indignant, then my body releases hormones, very popular is dopamine. The whole thing
0:18:50 – 0:18:57 activates us, gives us the feeling of being morally superior. According to the motto "Look,
0:18:57 – 0:19:07 What stupid people do or say. It's almost the addiction to the next excitement,
0:19:07 – 0:19:15 After my own excitement. It works in a positive sense as well as
0:19:15 – 0:19:22 Negative sense. If you watch a nice livestream of someone you like,
0:19:22 – 0:19:29 That's a strong sense of us. I can confirm. I've been watching for a very long time
0:19:29 – 0:19:38 Livestreams of other people. Someone who plays Minecraft and there a beautiful city
0:19:38 – 0:19:50 builds up or a nice base and then works with automation while doing a little
0:19:50 – 0:19:58 Explained and then collected materials. Another who builds a city with a city simulation
0:19:58 – 0:20:04 Trying to keep it in balance. Yes, that's positive content. And yes,
0:20:04 – 0:20:08 I also like this content creator.
0:20:08 – 0:20:12 Only he doesn't know I exist.
0:20:12 – 0:20:16 He has no idea of, not at all.
0:20:16 – 0:20:20 But there are also people I consume where I get upset.
0:20:20 – 0:20:24 And I have the same feeling,
0:20:24 – 0:20:28 Maybe even a little stronger, with the people I don't like,
0:20:28 – 0:20:32 Because I can get upset, I can get upset.
0:20:32 – 0:20:38 That said? No, she didn't. But now on to the initial question
0:20:38 – 0:20:46 To come back with the opposite of love and hate and so on. What is the True Opposite
0:20:46 – 0:20:57 To be a lover or a fan on the net? The answer, as I said at the beginning, is indifference.
0:20:57 – 0:21:10 This is algorithmic death. The real letting go, that's actually the real thing.
0:21:10 – 0:21:23 The true, the true opposite of offense or love. So we remember,
0:21:23 – 0:21:33 No longer angry press the dislike button or 500 or 1000 character "Hate" comments
0:21:33 – 0:21:41 Leave it there. The opposite would be something like "Continue scrolling", not clicking, de-subscribing.
0:21:41 – 0:21:48 Without saying a word, not so much according to the motto "I can't even look at this,
0:21:48 – 0:21:55 I'll go now. You disappointed me so much. I know such theatrical news.
0:21:55 – 0:22:04 Or we know. Well, it was just another comment. Again the confirmation for the
0:22:04 – 0:22:12 Algorithm, how relevant all this shit is. Or to put it philosophically,
0:22:12 – 0:22:21 The true emotional and algorithmic distance arises at the moment when the Creator
0:22:21 – 0:22:30 no longer triggers a reaction when we stop giving it in our most precious resources,
0:22:30 – 0:22:37 Our time and our attention. And here we are again on the subject
0:22:37 – 0:22:46 The attention economy. The more outrageous the content, the more people get upset,
0:22:46 – 0:22:55 The more we see it. Look again to see if there are any new comments.
0:22:55 – 0:23:03 Do other people see it the same way as I do? Are others of the same opinion as me? Has
0:23:03 – 0:23:09 Someone else has already commented on my bubble. And these are all clicks,
0:23:09 – 0:23:15 Clicks, clicks and that's what the algorithm is happy about. And here we are already
0:23:15 – 0:23:22 Let's talk about something, let's call it culture action. Have you seen Hate Watching?
0:23:22 – 0:23:33 Which channels do you give your attention to, yes, even though you don't actually pay attention to them?
0:23:33 – 0:23:39 You want to look, even though you are upset about it, even though you are indignant about what you see,
0:23:39 – 0:23:49 Hear. You can write that in the comments. And maybe we could have a
0:23:49 – 0:23:57 We talk a little bit about it when we pay attention to everything in this way, even though we
0:23:57 – 0:24:05 They don't like it at all. Yeah, I'd say that's it now, and I'd like to thank you for
0:24:05 – 0:24:15 your attention and wish you all a good time and above all do less
0:24:15 – 0:24:20 hate watching. bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye by
0:24:20 – 0:24:31 Thoughts remain, questions smoke, think on, ask on, talk on.
0:24:31 – 0:24:41 That was KlarFunk. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, ye Let's talk about it.
0:24:41 – 0:24:48 [Music]

Welcome to KlarFunk, the new format for topics that are too important for quick answers. In this entry-level episode, we dedicate ourselves to a fascinating everyday paradox of the social media world: Why do people spend hours consuming content from people they hate?

We take a close look at the phenomenon of hate-watching and the so-called parasocial hate relationship. We analyse why anti-fans behave structurally exactly like super-fans – they watch videos to the end, subscribe to notifications and comment diligently. You will learn why the algorithms of YouTube and Co. don't care about your excitement, because every form of interaction is considered positive..

In addition, we talk about in-group and out-group dynamics and how common enemy images create a strong sense of togetherness in communities.. When hatred of a person becomes the central pillar of one's own identity, that person lives in one's own head almost rent-free.

The most important learning of this episode: The true opposite of being a fan is not hate, but indifference.. Algorithmic and emotional death only occurs when we stop giving our time and attention away..

Ask the community: Do you catch yourself hate-watching? Write it in the comments and let's discuss it!

Is hate really the opposite of love? – Why the answer is more complicated than it seems

Thematic breakdown:

1. Introduction & The Everyday Paradox

The format ‘KlarFunk’: Space for in-depth topics that cannot be dismissed with a quick response.
The initial observation: The surprising realization that hatred connects people on social media as much as love.
Fans vs. Hater: Why the biggest anti-fans and super-fans show identical consumer behavior, as both videos watch, subscribe and comment to the end.

2. Hate-Watching & The Cold Logic of Algorithms

What is hate-watching? Conscious consumption of content – such as trash TV or controversial influencers – only to be outraged.
The Blind Algorithm: Why platforms don't differentiate between positive and negative criticism, and every form of interaction increases reach.
The tracking trap: How the reckless sharing of posts and videos via Messenger additionally pushes the relevance of the unloved content.

3. Group dynamics & The parasocial hate relationship

Community by demarcation: How in-group and out-group mechanisms create a strong ‘we-feeling’ through common enemy images.
Rent-free in mind: When observing the opponent becomes a central pillar of one's identity and this must be mentioned constantly.
The Search for Outrage: Why parasocial hate relationships spill dopamine and convey a sense of moral superiority.
Double standards: Why exactly the same behavior is legitimized in the favored content creator, but immediately devalued in the hate object.

4. Conclusion: The True Counterpole

The only solution: Why not the angry dislike, but the complete indifference (non-observance and de-subscription) is the true algorithmic and emotional death.
Call to Action: The open question to the community on which channels she catches herself hate-watching.

Links to the issue:

Is hate really the opposite of love? – Why the answer is more complicated than it seems - LautFunk Podcast & Blog

Advertising:

Related episodes:

Leave feedback on the issue? ✍️ Then write a comment Audio feedback on the show? ☎️ 0231 53075818

Trustpilot

Contributors to this episode

Sascha

Number of downloads: 147
Playing time: 0:24:48
Date of admission: 29.08.26
This episode is from season 4, there are a total of 4 seasons.

One According to Funk Publication Cartel Production - Where stories are transmitted unmistakably.

Podcast license:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Note: This post contains affiliate links. If you shop through these links, I'll get a small commission at no extra cost to you.

Is hate really the opposite of love? – Why the answer is more complicated than it seems

‘Philosophy and psychology show that: Those who hate don't let go. Real emotional distance only begins with indifference’

When people are asked about the opposite of love, there is often a word: hatred. The answer is a matter of course in everyday life. Love stands for affection, closeness and care, while hatred stands for rejection, hostility and distancing desires. At first glance, the matter seems clear. But is it really that uncomplicated?

Dealing with Shame and Guilt at Borderline: The Way Out of Darkness After the Emotional Storm

“The crisis is often followed by icy self-hatred. This is how you break the spiral of shame and guilt and find your way back into regulation.’

It's a scenario that many of us know all too well. The storm is over. Perhaps it was an intense outburst of anger, a panic reaction from acute fear of loss, or a moment when the internal pressure became so great that self-harming behavior seemed to be the only functioning valve. While in the acute situation the adrenaline rushes and the body works in absolute survival mode, then, when the calm comes in, the inevitable emotional hangover follows.

Between Light and Darkness: How to better understand and dismantle black-and-white thinking in borderline symptoms

"What's behind Borderline's black-and-white thinking? Find out why splitting occurs and how you can use specific DBT strategies to allow emotional shades of grey.”

Those who live with borderline symptoms or love a person who struggles with them may know these moments: Just there was still close, suddenly everything is in danger. This text is not intended to condemn, but to make it clear why this is happening – and how to find more nuances step by step.

Hello here is Leon from TALNEWS, thank you for the nice conversation. Again and again gladly! :)

… liked this!

The fact that you are now working on the linguistic form is a transparent distraction maneuver. On every page of this blog is completely …

Sascha with all love, let go of the AI , these foreign words you bring in are supposed to distract from the topic …

It is significant that a rhetorical mask is chosen here from psychological terms such as ‘gaslighting’ and ‘blame reversal’, which are used in the diametric ….

Topics of this episode

Links to the issue:

Support our podcast

Follow us on

Related episodes:

Contributors to this episode

Podcast license:

Thematic breakdown:

Support our podcast

Follow us on

Related episodes:

Contributors to this episode

Podcast license:

Thematic breakdown:

1. Introduction & The Everyday Paradox

2. Hate-Watching & The Cold Logic of Algorithms

3. Group dynamics & The parasocial hate relationship

4. Conclusion: The True Counterpole

Links to the issue:

Support our podcast

Follow us on

Related episodes:

Contributors to this episode

Podcast license: