KlarFunk-004 Brainwash in the Bubble - Balcony philosophy meets media criticism

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	30 MB	Download
AAC m4a	17 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:02 Sure, clear sparks.
0:00:02 – 0:00:04 Not around it.
0:00:04 – 0:00:05 Don't just go on.
0:00:05 – 0:00:06 Not just loud.
0:00:06 – 0:00:09 Questions, questions.
0:00:09 – 0:00:13 Clearly sparks.
0:00:13 – 0:00:17 Clearly sparks.
0:00:17 – 0:00:19 Let's talk about it.
0:00:19 – 0:00:26 Let's talk about it.
0:00:26 – 0:00:30 Welcome to a new edition of Klarfunk.
0:00:30 – 0:00:36 I'm Sascha Markmann and I say hello.
0:00:36 – 0:00:42 My God, what was that again for a week?
0:00:42 – 0:00:44 What were those for a few days?
0:00:44 – 0:00:51 I never thought that a spontaneously recorded podcast by Sarah would have
0:00:54 – 0:00:59 It would trigger a flood of comments.
0:00:59 – 0:01:08 The man on the balcony has of course also immediately carried away
0:01:08 – 0:01:14 and has asked himself a few questions and then is immediately
0:01:14 – 0:01:19 It came to mind again that they made fun of the saying that
0:01:19 – 0:01:27 who at that time had brought to the Sabrina that she has beautiful eyes. Well, if I
0:01:27 – 0:01:38 Watch it live again, the reaction was a bit strange from Sabrina. So I
0:01:38 – 0:01:44 personal and this is now only my opinion, had the impression that it had the effect on me,
0:01:44 – 0:01:55 that she had taken this as quite unpleasant, but played it away relatively well. But
0:01:55 – 0:02:00 that's just my humble opinion and I also think it's totally invasive,
0:02:00 – 0:02:08 Because when you say to a woman "you have beautiful eyes" that are relatively personal to you
0:02:08 – 0:02:16 is not known. I don't think Sabrina and Bernardo will ever meet in person
0:02:16 – 0:02:25 have crossed the path. But that would certainly have been on one of his sessions on the balcony
0:02:25 – 0:02:35 or so scorched. Content-wise. We already understand each other. It was interesting what was out of it.
0:02:35 – 0:02:44 was made. It was, of course, given the wipelist discussion around Sarah
0:02:44 – 0:02:55 Immediately subjected to sexualizing thoughts. So the sex life between Sarah and me,
0:02:55 – 0:03:09 That's perfectly fine and we're more likely to have a problem without it than with sex. So I am myself
0:03:09 – 0:03:18 I don't consciously and I don't even have to think about the fact that I have certain services
0:03:18 – 0:03:28 I had to buy from a service provider. There is so much documentary about it.
0:03:28 – 0:03:36 material on YouTube. You just have to look for the certain keywords, then you will find the
0:03:36 – 0:03:46 One or the other ZDF or ARD documentary, which is a sugar daddy. By the way, that's really interesting.
0:03:46 – 0:03:54 I've been getting more and more requests for cooperation from a MySugarDaddy agency lately.
0:03:54 – 0:04:01 Bernhard, do you have anything to do with this? Be honest.
0:04:01 – 0:04:08 Oh God, now pen and block is brought back and notes are taken and so on and so forth.
0:04:08 – 0:04:13 We have to be careful about that. It could be justikabel.
0:04:13 – 0:04:18 As some people like to say, with pen and block.
0:04:18 – 0:04:22 Yes, the imprint.
0:04:22 – 0:04:27 So even a lawan saw himself compelled to do so today,
0:04:27 – 0:04:31 as well as to deliver their witty outpourings
0:04:31 – 0:04:43 and then somehow very quickly reverted to the report of the Office of Order.
0:04:43 – 0:04:49 and then about the fact that she was suspected of contacting the veterinary office for the first time.
0:04:49 – 0:04:54 And if I understood that correctly, the first visit was to the veterinary office and
0:04:54 – 0:04:58 The second visit to the Public Order Office. That these two offices are not necessarily so now
0:04:58 – 0:05:04 talk and send pro forma e-mails before. So if they possibly under
0:05:04 – 0:05:10 some circumstance at some point gets a message that she might be there and
0:05:10 – 0:05:16 I should have a look. If you don't need it, we already have. That they don't, that's clear.
0:05:16 – 0:05:22 It would perhaps be desirable to have such a database, where you could enter something like this,
0:05:22 – 0:05:30 But what have we known for at least ten years, the Internet is new territory for all of us.
0:05:30 – 0:05:38 And that will take a long time to get through the digitization of our administrations.
0:05:38 – 0:05:48 And this is already difficult within a city. But how did the man on the balcony
0:05:48 – 0:05:57 Have you ever made dober fun? Berlin would also be a village and now that you have da Vinci's name,
0:05:57 – 0:06:04 You could find him jerky, because those would be so few front doors.
0:06:04 – 0:06:14 Oh man, so not everyone has the educational level of an old man on the balcony, who without
0:06:14 – 0:06:25 a functioning Internet access to Google seems more helpless than eloquent and can then
0:06:25 – 0:06:35 also go and do not elaborate on such connections and facts for themselves.
0:06:35 – 0:06:47 You know what I mean. Just bring them together for themselves. It's just embarrassing.
0:06:47 – 0:06:55 I mean, we are accused of consuming Lake Starnberg at least once a day for
0:06:55 – 0:07:01 cooling of AI data centres. As I made clear last time, it's at least
0:07:01 – 0:07:08 Five Starnberg lakes. Because the last time I looked, it was so round about 4.8
0:07:08 – 0:07:17 Billions of tokens that have migrated through our small AI infrastructure. This is
0:07:17 – 0:07:29 A house number, folks. So 4.8 billion syllables is already a lot. And yes, I don't know,
0:07:29 – 0:07:38 as it is with you, but if you always accuse other people of doing so, but yourself
0:07:38 – 0:07:45 lets AI summaries of complex topics be delivered and then reads them out,
0:07:45 – 0:07:54 whether the listener might somehow be overwhelmed by this kind of double standard? No,
0:07:54 – 0:07:58 No, that's the click-fee isn't so intelligent, my God, no.
0:07:58 – 0:08:04 There you can't either, who knows what huge spiritual,
0:08:04 – 0:08:07 What do you call that?
0:08:07 – 0:08:10 Benefits? No, efforts?
0:08:10 – 0:08:14 No, competences are required.
0:08:14 – 0:08:21 Well. It had been interesting,
0:08:21 – 0:08:31 this in the incident around da Vinci's imprint thing and then stop also the later evaluation of Bernardo
0:08:31 – 0:08:38 in the chat, which appeared a few times ago, there came "Yes, Lautfunk also have no real imprint".
0:08:38 – 0:08:48 Yes, we have a real imprint. We have a real imprint and that has the
0:08:48 – 0:08:58 Landesmedienanstalt already checked months ago at my own request. Because I wanted to
0:08:58 – 0:09:05 because just play it safe, months ago, after I just looked like this
0:09:05 – 0:09:16 had who actually has everything such an imprint and what they all have in it. And yes,
0:09:16 – 0:09:21 In this bubble that's, I know you all don't like the term, but there's no
0:09:21 – 0:09:29 better term, quite common that the imprint is treated very stepmotherly.
0:09:29 – 0:09:36 And I just wanted to be a role model and then for my blog and so on
0:09:36 – 0:09:39 and so on made a comprehensive imprint.
0:09:39 – 0:09:47 And the interesting thing is, it's actually enough if you link from social media to the
0:09:47 – 0:09:53 halt Imprint is named, to which imprint refers on the website.
0:09:53 – 0:09:56 And then you have all your data.
0:09:56 – 0:10:00 Because what Sarah forgot to say is that there is the two-click rule.
0:10:00 – 0:10:04 An imprint must be accessible within two clicks.
0:10:04 – 0:10:14 And that would be in the case if you were on YouTube, on Instagram and so on with two clicks
0:10:14 – 0:10:20 comes from the profile from the homepage to the imprint.
0:10:20 – 0:10:22 Boah, brainfuck!
0:10:22 – 0:10:25 That's so horny, isn't it?
0:10:25 – 0:10:32 Yes, that's interesting when you're able to understand what you've read,
0:10:32 – 0:10:40 process his little head and then implement this information. And actually is
0:10:40 – 0:10:48 that if you regularly go on shows, produce videos, blog posts, then you are
0:10:48 – 0:10:54 Also subject to imprint, even if you are a private person. Because that is then namely
0:10:54 – 0:11:00 This is an editorial journalistic review. So if that stops
0:11:00 – 0:11:10 Classification of computer games, comments on any live streams or other videos,
0:11:10 – 0:11:17 if you produce content yourself, if you sit on the balcony and there about your life and the
0:11:17 – 0:11:24 Everyday stuff philosophizes as long as it's regular. And I think if you have four
0:11:24 – 0:11:30 up to five times a week relative to the same time this makes that this is already a regularity,
0:11:30 – 0:11:33 And then you have to have an imprint.
0:11:33 – 0:11:39 I mean Germany really has a lot of mindful laws,
0:11:39 – 0:11:43 but I think this imprint thing is quite good.
0:11:43 – 0:11:47 Even if this is a kind of doxing at the expense of the state,
0:11:47 – 0:11:51 but someone who has already founded a GmbH,
0:11:51 – 0:11:56 will see how hard doxing is at the expense of the state,
0:11:56 – 0:11:57 When you do that.
0:11:57 – 0:12:02 or anyone who has gone into personal or business insolvency,
0:12:02 – 0:12:09 will find out how hard the state doxing is, if then simply with the most private of the
0:12:09 – 0:12:15 Private data on the Internet is freely accessible to everyone. I mean, there'll be sure
0:12:15 – 0:12:25 boasted and snubbed about it at the same time, at the same time. So if that affects you yourself,
0:12:25 – 0:12:28 It's always whole, whole, whole, very bad.
0:12:28 – 0:12:33 If this affects someone else, then it's totally legitimate and okay.
0:12:33 – 0:12:35 Because you are to blame for that yourself.
0:12:35 – 0:12:40 Yes, that is the case with double standards and, above all, with double standards.
0:12:40 – 0:12:44 You are extremely morally flexible.
0:12:44 – 0:12:48 That's the same as I noticed the days again,
0:12:48 – 0:12:51 like me under a cuddly cat, so here this
0:12:52 – 0:12:56 this soulful cuddly cat, what is the name of the aunt again, the trolls,
0:12:56 – 0:13:06 this Mindful Panther, I already noticed in the comments,
0:13:06 – 0:13:16 that there is a systematic double standard of all those involved in the comments.
0:13:16 – 0:13:22 So as soon as you somehow reveal that a profile belongs with someone else,
0:13:22 – 0:13:29 Then comments disappear. Otherwise, strict attention will be paid to:
0:13:29 – 0:13:34 that you do not give too much price, because otherwise comments disappear again.
0:13:34 – 0:13:41 But their own accusations, their own distortions, they are abandoned.
0:13:41 – 0:13:45 I had had the days already had an interesting exchange with someone else.
0:13:45 – 0:13:54 where that was also the fact that one makes history from Hötzken to Stöckzken and from there on and on.
0:13:54 – 0:14:00 And interestingly, this Lisa Licht project also wrote a YouTube post about it,
0:14:00 – 0:14:07 It seems very inspired by a blog post I published a few days ago.
0:14:07 – 0:14:13 So exactly as he says, Thursday last week, where exactly the same phenomenon is at stake,
0:14:13 – 0:14:22 that then a question is asked or a claim in the chat, the streamer picks up that question or claim.
0:14:22 – 0:14:32 Then the next one in the chat says so "Yes, that's exactly how I experienced it" and then, because it was the same, it almost becomes a fact.
0:14:32 – 0:14:40 Maybe then the streamer repeats this statement again and zack it is a ground-proof fact,
0:14:40 – 0:14:44 that this statement, which in the beginning was perhaps only a question,
0:14:44 – 0:14:47 This is all at once a provable proof.
0:14:47 – 0:14:50 Boah, brainfuck, really ey.
0:14:50 – 0:14:58 But these dynamics are observed in all kinds of toxic groupings.
0:14:58 – 0:15:11 Yes, you really have to be careful what you say somehow, what you don't say, because it gets into it
0:15:11 – 0:15:19 interpreted and interpreted. To come back to this matter with Bernie and the
0:15:19 – 0:15:27 Regulatory office, several users write in jokes that they have reported this.
0:15:27 – 0:15:36 And Zack gets out of it all at once, he said that. In the next stream, that's what he and she said.
0:15:36 – 0:15:44 And then on the stream on it, that's what he and she said. And sound radio. And Lina.
0:15:49 – 0:16:14 I actually wonder to what extent the reality has already shifted that these paranoid, schizoid, schizophrenic educators have thus taken over the reality,
0:16:14 – 0:16:27 That behind everything and everyone one suspects a conspiracy, a conglomerate of messing, malicious figures,
0:16:27 – 0:16:33 They just do everything they can to make life difficult for you.
0:16:33 – 0:16:37 Here, too, our cuddly kitten is not pre-finished.
0:16:37 – 0:16:45 I mean, if you listen to their weird livestreams like that and watch the chat like that,
0:16:45 – 0:16:47 There are already questions coming up.
0:16:47 – 0:16:52 I mean, one or the other also came up with questions that were not answered.
0:16:52 – 0:16:57 And as a thank you you was then also thrown out of the chat, or for
0:16:57 – 0:16:59 Silent for 24 hours.
0:16:59 – 0:17:06 All this within a few days.
0:17:06 – 0:17:12 How is one more to come to terms with? I mean, the day only has 24 hours and I'm just sitting two
0:17:12 – 0:17:20 Hours in front of the PC. How should I process, understand, document all this, traceable for me
0:17:20 – 0:17:26 think about it when all this happens so much, on so many channels, with so many
0:17:26 – 0:17:35 This is where AI is used. Very simple, in short and concise. I had the days there,
0:17:35 – 0:17:41 had even been yesterday, had read a comment "Without AI you can't get one
0:17:41 – 0:17:49 straight sentence out. You will even be totally inferior in any discussion without AI." So you
0:17:49 – 0:17:54 Honestly, in a live situation, you can't get your data into AI so quickly
0:17:54 – 0:18:01 bang in and wait for the result, especially if that's a cloud-based system, until you
0:18:01 – 0:18:07 I have the answer. And that you can then answer eloquently in an AI way. And believe
0:18:07 – 0:18:12 One thing I'm doing right now is completely unscripted. I don't even have
0:18:12 – 0:18:18 any notes here, no bullet points, nothing at all. This is free muzzle. And everyone,
0:18:18 – 0:18:28 who has been working with us privately for a long time in groups on Instagram, with us
0:18:28 – 0:18:35 exchanged, will be able to confirm that we are completely able to meet without any
0:18:35 – 0:18:44 To express support from a technique. That there is also a relatively large vocabulary.
0:18:44 – 0:18:52 This may seem skeptical to some by informing them transparently,
0:18:52 – 0:18:58 that one uses AI to all due to the fact that one is dyslexic,
0:18:58 – 0:19:07 to keep the spelling and possibly too complicated sentences corrected and on the
0:19:07 – 0:19:37 Other side due to the time management and since life consists of so much more than the Internet and everyone insists that they live such a fulfilling and great life, that they can somehow feel 24 hours with every shit livestream under every video, but can lead such a fulfilling life that they are not afraid to get lost on the Internet, because the so many other things
0:19:37 – 0:19:44 make. There I even believe someone who tells me that he has 90 percent of his time of day for other people.
0:19:44 – 0:19:51 because the output simply looks like it and not like others, which then at night around
0:19:51 – 0:19:56 3 o'clock can still comment diligently. I mean that I'm in my fever camps at 3 o'clock at night
0:19:56 – 0:20:01 could comment or even publish a podcast episode, which is on a different page.
0:20:01 – 0:20:04 I just lay in bed all day, I didn't do anything.
0:20:04 – 0:20:10 God, I am in a situation of justification.
0:20:10 – 0:20:13 I was still in AI use,
0:20:13 – 0:20:17 that you get all the shit that you really have to get,
0:20:17 – 0:20:19 the live streams hours over hour.
0:20:19 – 0:20:23 Some people can somehow feel three times for at least five hours,
0:20:23 – 0:20:27 Not three times for five hours, but three or five hours in total.
0:20:27 – 0:20:37 go live in these three live streams and tell about it until late in the pump and the next
0:20:37 – 0:20:43 Day after all, lead a fulfilling and hopefully meaningful life. I mean,
0:20:43 – 0:20:50 It is always constantly stressed. So if you imagine that you then so from 7 pm to 1 am
0:20:50 – 0:21:00 Half two with half an hour to one hour break streamed live. Yes, this is
0:21:00 – 0:21:07 Almost a working day. Even if you just sit there on the balcony or in the living room and a
0:21:07 – 0:21:13 Interacts a bit with the chat, which is of course also cognitively really exhausting. No question.
0:21:13 – 0:21:20 But we are accused of hanging this all the time, using all the AI, can not do without AI
0:21:20 – 0:21:31 Just put out a sentence. So if you run out of arguments in terms of content, either you go
0:21:31 – 0:21:43 then on the appearance or one goes content on such things as "you work around clean" and
0:21:43 – 0:21:54 something like that. But most of all it goes on appearance. So you notice that again and again. Or how stupid
0:21:54 – 0:22:01 is someone else. But that has for me more so this playground level thing. You're stupid,
0:22:01 – 0:22:11 itself. I also experience this in some way in the comment column. I mean the beautiful is,
0:22:11 – 0:22:17 is that some people because of the interaction and because that is also good for the algorithm,
0:22:17 – 0:22:26 the comment column on YouTube then very, let's say, beef-friendly comment,
0:22:26 – 0:22:35 moderate and then you can just see how this beef culture is there and above all,
0:22:35 – 0:22:43 my God, what a good job Sabrina has done in terms of frame and then also with
0:22:43 – 0:22:52 active support of a Victoria and an Empress Elisabeth and a Jana,
0:22:52 – 0:22:59 My God, what a great job they have done that poor Clickvieh actually did.
0:22:59 – 0:23:09 Believe everything. And they even repeat almost one-to-one the same language. This is unbelievable.
0:23:09 – 0:23:16 So we are accused that the Frank Buttermann has brainwashed the TV treasure tour for us
0:23:16 – 0:23:23 has. So head up, cleaning cloth, Heimer water, some sprüli and Butschi Butschi Butschi
0:23:23 – 0:23:31 But quite the opposite, you're brainwashed, but hardcore, otherwise you wouldn't be one.
0:23:31 – 0:23:34 One thing to do is to take over the wording.
0:23:34 – 0:23:42 But well, what to say, if the enemy fits into the enemy image, the explanation is quite
0:23:42 – 0:23:43 simple.
0:23:43 – 0:23:50 Yeah, actually, I didn't want that long.
0:23:50 – 0:23:58 Normally, the topic would have been bleached in a maximum of three minutes, but we're here in podcast format.
0:23:58 – 0:24:03 And what am I supposed to do? But we are not in the digression either, but I am constantly digressing.
0:24:03 – 0:24:05 [sighs]
0:24:05 – 0:24:09 I think I've got a few repetitions in there, too.
0:24:09 – 0:24:19 It's just that the topic is tiring, because you just notice that with the people you want to reach,
0:24:19 – 0:24:28 simply does not arrive, because stop the framing and the picture, what you get just redrawn by
0:24:28 – 0:24:35 One that has solidified as well into one's own narrative. And if someone says that and the
0:24:35 – 0:24:40 the second and the third, and if they are also people who, because of their parasocial
0:24:40 – 0:24:46 Relationships are really great, then that has to be the truth. And let's say so,
0:24:46 – 0:24:55 the average repressor, no matter the average viewer, who does not think about it,
0:24:55 – 0:25:00 But just take it over. And let's be honest when I look at the statistics
0:25:00 – 0:25:07 If you look at YouTube, that's 90 percent women between the ages of 40 and 60. I would have
0:25:07 – 0:25:16 I like a little more data, Google. So such interests, maybe level of education and what else
0:25:16 – 0:25:23 still interesting for who operators would be so just monthly income. That would be,
0:25:23 – 0:25:29 Let's say so, to analyze the audience, absolute content gold.
0:25:29 – 0:25:36 Thank God I can't see that, because believe me, that would be a podcast,
0:25:36 – 0:25:41 who would really smash and who would really hurt one or the other,
0:25:41 – 0:25:47 Because one could then show that this expensive, painstakingly constructed facade
0:25:47 – 0:25:56 There are more appearances than being. On the part of the creators and on the part of the spectators.
0:25:56 – 0:26:04 Because if you keep bringing together certain data sets, chat comments, comments,
0:26:04 – 0:26:11 and then just so cluster images of any usernames that have a similar
0:26:11 – 0:26:23 Using wording, similar writing style, then there is already a picture. And what can I say about that?
0:26:23 – 0:26:30 Some people seem to have a hell of a lot of time to commit to life on the Internet.
0:26:30 – 0:26:36 And somehow hang out on Instagram and YouTube all the time.
0:26:36 – 0:26:45 Well, I'm dealing with all this shit for two hours from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
0:26:45 – 0:26:48 When I do a podcast episode, it's usually three hours,
0:26:48 – 0:26:53 because then I still have to do the recording, then I still have to do the whole thing afterwards
0:26:53 – 0:26:58 and until that is then online, so three hours in total,
0:26:58 – 0:27:07 Three to four hours. And interestingly, the podcast on non-YouTube is mostly
0:27:07 – 0:27:13 It's more available than on YouTube. Because there is still digital processing going on,
0:27:13 – 0:27:19 then the video must also be rendered from the audio file. Since there are things.
0:27:19 – 0:27:26 So, I've been swaying here enough in front of me now and that's only going to be in
0:27:26 – 0:27:34 We'll end the matter with a single sweat. So what do we reserve? So for us,
0:27:34 – 0:27:44 This is important in the press. Someone ran a scraper. The consequences,
0:27:44 – 0:27:50 If there are consequences, at most it is a letter that you have something to change.
0:27:50 – 0:28:02 The report to Bernardo, well annoying, but probably has no consequences. Let us hope,
0:28:02 – 0:28:08 that he gets the name out and does not pursaut it into the Internet. No, Bernardo,
0:28:08 – 0:28:20 We don't dox names. Listen carefully, talk to me. I'm not allowed to dox names on the Internet.
0:28:20 – 0:28:28 This can be expensive. Did you notice that Bernardo? It is best to take pen and block again
0:28:28 – 0:28:38 and write down. I am not allowed to use names on the Internet in front of a running camera with my reach into the
0:28:38 – 0:28:47 Internet doxing. Have you written this down now? Take this note, do it with the magnet on
0:28:47 – 0:28:54 Refrigerator on it and every time you take out a milk cut, look on it, read the
0:28:54 – 0:29:00 Text, internalise. I've heard that the more you read something, the better you get at it
0:29:00 – 0:29:06 can remember. By the way, this is also a good tactic to get the first hand signs of dementia.
0:29:06 – 0:29:21 Compensate a bit when you name things. Yeah, what else do we have to remember? AI
0:29:21 – 0:29:28 He is a good friend who can do a lot of work. You just shouldn't overdo it,
0:29:28 – 0:29:32 Because if you have to pay the torches, it can be really expensive.
0:29:32 – 0:29:40 Yeah, no, we don't have anything else.
0:29:40 – 0:29:45 Yes, I'll say thank you for listening and see you next time.
0:29:45 – 0:29:46 Goodbye, Sasha.
0:29:46 – 0:29:57 Thoughts remain, questions smoke, think on, ask on, talk on.
0:29:57 – 0:30:01 That was KlarFunk.
0:30:01 – 0:30:03 Sure, sure, funk.
0:30:03 – 0:30:05 KlarFunk.
0:30:05 – 0:30:08 Let's talk about it.
0:30:08 – 0:30:14 [Music]

What was that again for a week? In this edition of KlarFunk, Sascha recaps the absurd reactions to Sarah's spontaneous podcast. The latest dynamics of the bubble are dissected precisely and objectively.

We are talking about extravagant compliments from the balcony, wild sugar daddy rumors (including curious cooperation requests) and the lack of digitization of German authorities in the interaction between the veterinary office and the regulatory office. In addition, there is a legal classification on the subject of imprint obligation, the two-click rule and why transparency on the network is often mistakenly perceived as ‘state doxing’.

Another technical focus: The allegations surrounding our local AI infrastructure. We clarify what is really going on with the cooling water needs of ‘five Starnberg lakes’ and around 4.8 billion tokens processed. The episode is rounded off by an analysis of toxic group dynamics, systematic double standards in comment columns and framing through parasocial relationships.

Smartphone on a table at night with neon bubbles floating above it as well as notebook and panther figure

Thematic breakdown:

Introduction & Aftershocks

The unexpected flood of reactions to Sarah's spontaneous podcast.
Offensive comments, the ‘man on the balcony’ and unpleasant reactions.
Wild rumour cuisine: From absurd sugar daddy fantasies to real agency cooperation requests.

Authority madness & reporting culture

Reports on the operation of the Veterinary and Regulatory Offices.
The lack of digital networking between German administrations and missing databases.

Technology myths & AI infrastructure

The absurd accusation of cooling water consumption in the value of ‘five Starnberg lakes’.
Insights into our use of AI: 4.8 billion tokens processed.
AI as a useful assistance tool in dyslexia vs. the baseless accusation of lack of own eloquence.

Legal, transparency & Imprint obligation

Why the LautFunk imprint is absolutely genuine and has been tested by the State Media Authority.
Declaration of the legal "two-click rule" for social media profiles.
Editorial duties for content creators vs. the perception of transparency as ‘state doxing’.

Media Criticism & Psychology of the Bubble

Systematic double standards and toxic group dynamics in the comment columns.
The Silent Post Principle: How a mere chat question through framing becomes an irrefutable fact.
Paranoia, parasocial relationships and the loss of reality through hours of continuous live streams.
Considerations on the demographics of viewers on YouTube and expensively maintained facades.
Finally: An unequivocal warning about the consequences of name-doxing on the Internet.

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: 185
Duration: 0:30:14
Date of admission: 02.10.26
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.

So on:

KlarFunk-002 The indignation machinery, opportunists and the ‘stupid click cattle’

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	18 MB	Download
AAC m4a	10 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:06 It's clear. Not around it. Don't just go on. Not just loud.
0:00:06 – 0:00:09 Questions. questioning.
0:00:09 – 0:00:13 It's clear.
0:00:13 – 0:00:17 It's clear.
0:00:17 – 0:00:19 Let's talk about it.
0:00:19 – 0:00:26 Let's talk about it.
0:00:33 – 0:00:43 There is now so much outrage-
0:00:43 – 0:00:51 Yes, YouTuber, Indignation Instagrammer, Indignation TikToker,
0:00:51 – 0:00:56 Anywhere you can consume any kind of media.
0:00:56 – 0:00:58 Facebook doesn't matter anymore.
0:00:58 – 0:01:02 But I don't want to go out there.
0:01:02 – 0:01:10 And I've noticed something lately. For example, a term such as
0:01:10 – 0:01:19 The opportunist. It's opportunistic. Oh my God! What a fantastic word,
0:01:19 – 0:01:25 What can be used everywhere these days and what can grow inflationarily into the world
0:01:25 – 0:01:36 The question is, what does this mean? But I don't know, we're getting ready,
0:01:36 – 0:01:44 On this channel, on this podcast, has there ever been an explanation of what opportunists are? Also
0:01:44 – 0:01:54 the different forms. You don't need one, yeah, how do I best describe it now,
0:01:54 – 0:02:10 a stilt that likes to crack on rooftops. Think about it. I just think,
0:02:10 – 0:02:23 that someone trying to explain such complex dynamics and then not 20 minutes,
0:02:23 – 0:02:33 about 12 minutes crash-out goes after a said YouTube livestream was over,
0:02:33 – 0:02:42 on a Friday in the night to Saturday so at two o'clock at night somehow absolutely compelled
0:02:42 – 0:02:49 has seen to explain any terminology for itself just to listen back.
0:02:49 – 0:03:05 I'm trying to explain it again. Why did you or others paint such pictures?
0:03:05 – 0:03:14 of liars? So we're imprinting the picture. Why did people become public liars?
0:03:14 – 0:03:22 framed. It doesn't matter if he's a liar or not.
0:03:22 – 0:03:29 It's not a liar. It's just that in the future, and we're talking in
0:03:29 – 0:03:36 in the near or distant future, these people for all to all
0:03:36 – 0:03:46 Eternity as a liar. And why do you do that? Yes, maybe that could be
0:03:46 – 0:03:52 You don't want the other person, even though he has been in the past.
0:03:52 – 0:04:00 He had lied, perhaps then once spoke the truth and then more internally, from groups,
0:04:00 – 0:04:07 Shads and so on, which has been so popular lately.
0:04:07 – 0:04:13 And when these things, these little bastards you do, come to light,
0:04:13 – 0:04:18 He is the one for his own in-group.
0:04:18 – 0:04:23 It's a great word for the people you interact with.
0:04:23 – 0:04:28 Or maybe you're a content creator, because you're such a great content creator.
0:04:28 – 0:04:34 He is a liar and he does not speak the truth.
0:04:34 – 0:04:38 There is such a beautiful song, so with robber-hotzenplotz and so on.
0:04:38 – 0:04:45 He who lies is not believed when he speaks the truth.
0:04:45 – 0:04:50 Yeah? Does that seem familiar to you? Does that sound familiar to you?
0:04:50 – 0:04:56 I know there are people who say they ate the truth with spoons.
0:04:56 – 0:05:05 Absolutely with spoons! There is no room for any lies. Well, let's just look at
0:05:05 – 0:05:15 various areas of life, be it public, be it on the Internet, then come
0:05:15 – 0:05:21 So many lies on the table. But you have always understood it in the past,
0:05:21 – 0:05:33 To mark dangerous persons in such a way, to transfer a mask, an image, a frame
0:05:33 – 0:05:42 to make them unreliable in their own group. Boah, techniques,
0:05:50 – 0:06:02 Crazy in the Fanta. I have to smoke at least one cigarette right away.
0:06:02 – 0:06:15 This is the ingenuity of this technique. It's unbelievable. I mean
0:06:15 – 0:06:41 This ingenuity of this concept alone. So there's a noisy woman with a rolling R making a video where she's recording for several hours, then she can't actually use that, then she's recording something again, but in hindsight, even though she's telling a story that said otherwise, I've cut that,
0:06:41 – 0:06:51 In any case, various theses and claims were made in this shorter video.
0:06:51 – 0:06:56 And, among other things, that a certain person is a liar.
0:06:56 – 0:07:07 One or two days later, this podcast episode was reacted live on a balcony in Berlin.
0:07:07 – 0:07:18 And again a few days later came exactly this one spot from the podcast with the woman with the roles in R,
0:07:18 – 0:07:24 There's also another content creator who lives in a cheap neighborhood.
0:07:24 – 0:07:29 In any case, something interesting happened.
0:07:29 – 0:07:39 Due to the fact that two relatively large people repeated this for this little bubble
0:07:39 – 0:07:44 In addition to their comments, this image has been reinforced.
0:07:44 – 0:07:48 And you actually see, even if you look at the Shads,
0:07:48 – 0:08:00 how this image has solidified extremely cleanly into the mindset of the shed.
0:08:00 – 0:08:05 After all, three content creators have spoken about the fact that this one person,
0:08:05 – 0:08:09 That one person is a liar.
0:08:09 – 0:08:11 That's wow!
0:08:11 – 0:08:16 This is group dynamically fantastic and you could now spend hours on it
0:08:16 – 0:08:24 Talk about what this means in the end, who is the trigger, what psychology
0:08:24 – 0:08:27 It's about the mechanisms that serve it.
0:08:27 – 0:08:37 But in the end, it's just a small fine mist candle that stinks all over the room,
0:08:37 – 0:08:45 Just don't do it, if possible, but some dark secrets.
0:08:45 – 0:08:51 They will come to light from some strange cellar treasures.
0:08:51 – 0:08:56 And your own picture, which you have built up tediously, about volume, about
0:08:56 – 0:09:07 one, let's say, colored metaphors, the strong use of which has been used,
0:09:07 – 0:09:17 to raise other people above themselves. Yeah, yeah, just to shatter that,
0:09:17 – 0:09:24 For we have all now proved that this one person is a liar.
0:09:24 – 0:09:33 Boah, fantastic. That's so great that with all this "we against the" mechanisms
0:09:33 – 0:09:41 and so on, that it works great and if you still atominate somehow
0:09:41 – 0:09:49 If you apply principles, then you can really distract from your own problems and your own
0:09:49 – 0:09:58 Inconsistencies in the chronology of the recent past. It's great, especially if you can
0:09:58 – 0:10:03 To present oneself as a moral authority and thus rise above others in this way,
0:10:03 – 0:10:10 That you wouldn't have a problem with anyone going to shit you on the roof
0:10:10 – 0:10:18 In the end, the question is, who does that? Oh man, but I'm just realizing,
0:10:18 – 0:10:24 My blood pressure is rising again. Maybe I have too little sugar in it.
0:10:24 – 0:10:30 It's blood. I don't know. They are all such interesting mechanisms. So some people catch
0:10:30 – 0:10:36 then just to roll wilder and wilder with their R, that you almost have a whiplash trauma
0:10:36 – 0:10:43 You get it when you listen to it. Or the AI, which evaluates all this shit, also starts with
0:10:43 – 0:10:50 roll the R and half the display is now only full of Rs because the transcripts are so much
0:10:50 – 0:11:00 Give up errors. It's unbelievable. But to return to the original question. Why
0:11:00 – 0:11:06 A new podcast after a long livestream, the Saturday,
0:11:06 – 0:11:14 Friday, in the night was to Saturday, only to then again certain stories and little things
0:11:14 – 0:11:24 to pick up. You almost assume that you are just following the range. One
0:11:24 – 0:11:31 An opportunist is someone who takes care of himself first. And then it doesn't matter,
0:11:31 – 0:11:42 The motivation for what happens, the reason behind it. Such an opportunist
0:11:42 – 0:11:48 First and foremost, he takes care of his own concerns. This can even be healthy, because if
0:11:48 – 0:11:53 I give so much of myself, I give all my vinegar, I give out all my belongings,
0:11:53 – 0:11:59 because I'm such a person who likes to share or maybe even more than share,
0:11:59 – 0:12:04 At the end of the day, I feel worse when bad times come.
0:12:04 – 0:12:10 But someone who pays such a little attention, such a little money on the high edge
0:12:10 – 0:12:15 has that the pantry is full, that it may even have an emergency reserve, always a full
0:12:15 – 0:12:23 Reserve canister in the car. He plans ahead and he is careful. But if you do this now maliciously
0:12:23 – 0:12:32 would interpret, one would say, this opopulist man who takes away our gasoline,
0:12:32 – 0:12:39 He buys the shops empty because he is so selfish and he only pays attention to himself. You could
0:12:39 – 0:12:44 But I also saw that there are people who are really interested in their advantage.
0:12:44 – 0:12:51 You change jobs because there is more to earn. You're hooked on great content creators
0:12:51 – 0:12:56 Trying to build up some kind of reach. There is such a case today,
0:12:56 – 0:13:02 Tutu, oh I don't know the name anymore, is also attached to various
0:13:02 – 0:13:16 YouTubers who have a strong reach and are also trying their luck with beef content. Definitely
0:13:16 – 0:13:25 There are people who do this to get fame. And it is precisely this accusation that
0:13:25 – 0:13:37 He is a liar, and we are a liar. The question of whether to stop
0:13:37 – 0:13:43 moral reasons, there is no such thing, because that is not logical,
0:13:43 – 0:13:49 because we were, or we are, on the right side, and if the other
0:13:49 – 0:13:56 If we distance ourselves, then this can only be the error, then this must be the error. But maybe there was
0:13:56 – 0:14:02 there are any other reasons for radical expressions in advance and there's the roof shit
0:14:02 – 0:14:12 still the most harmless and still many other things, that this increases in the sum so much
0:14:12 – 0:14:21 I'm pretty much over 3000 here. Yes, 3000 plus 1. And that's a level, there's going to be
0:14:21 – 0:14:28 One is dizzy. You have to be careful at the moral level that you don't
0:14:28 – 0:14:35 Falling down. You know what I mean. That's really crazy when you think about it.
0:14:35 – 0:14:43 Yeah, what else is there to say? I find it interesting that such "action, reaction, reaction,
0:14:43 – 0:14:49 action, action, reaction, reaction, action" and then that runs and runs that and ping-pong, ping-pong,
0:14:49 – 0:14:55 Ping-pong and you can do a lot of content and get upset every time. I'm also stirring
0:14:55 – 0:15:05 Just about that. The question is, does it affect me? And you know what? No, me personally
0:15:05 – 0:15:12 Don't refuel it. I'm just upset that the stupid click cattle and that's what you love
0:15:12 – 0:15:19 Listeners and viewers who click on such content in places, these mechanisms simply
0:15:19 – 0:15:24 Don't look through and enjoy the attention economy. Also an interesting
0:15:24 – 0:15:30 Term, there is also a podcast to or on YouTube a video where I explain this.
0:15:30 – 0:15:38 Oh, my God, no. And you feed the algorithm, you reward the content creator with your attention
0:15:38 – 0:15:47 Absolute bullshit. You can sit in front of the microphone for 15 minutes.
0:15:47 – 0:15:55 Rotten and you just listen to people. It's fantastic. It's a win-win situation. Everyone,
0:15:55 – 0:16:02 who monetized the shit, is happy about 3,50€, you have 15 minutes of your life
0:16:02 – 0:16:12 YouTube is looking forward to advertising revenue. Win, win, win. Yeah, thanks for listening.
0:16:12 – 0:16:13 Goodbye, Sasha.
0:16:13 – 0:16:24 Thoughts remain, questions smoke, think on, ask on, talk on.
0:16:24 – 0:16:34 That was KlarFunk. Sure, sure, funk. ClearFunk. Let's talk about it.
0:16:34 – 0:16:41 [Music]

It's enough! The YouTube, TikTok and Instagram bubbles are once again bursting with outrage, ‘crash-outs’ and hours of reaction videos in the middle of the night. But what is the psychological and group dynamic behind these dramas?

In this episode of KlarFunk, we look at the perfidious mechanisms of the content creator. We clarify why unwelcome people are often strategically framed as liars by their own ‘in-group’ (keyword: Mist candle!) to distract from your own little secrets and inconsistencies.

We are also talking about the wonderful word ‘opportunism’. When is it reprehensible range hunger and when is it just healthy self-care?

In the end, there is a small announcement to the ‘stupid click-cattle’ (yes, exactly, you are meant!), which feeds the algorithm and the cash registers of the indignation machinery through its undivided attention. Win-win-win … or not?

Topics in this episode:

The outrage bubble: Action, reaction and ping-pong content
How the framing of liars works and who benefits from it
Opportunism: Self-protection or reprehensible range hunting?
Attention economy: How we all feed the bullshit algorithm

Thoughts remain, questions too. Keep thinking, keep asking, keep talking. This is KlarFunk.

Masked person on a control console with social media icons and a conveyor belt full of masks and money bags

Thematic breakdown:

The Indignation Machine on the Net

The inflationary use of terms such as ‘opportunism’ by drama creators on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.
Nocturnal streams and the ongoing production of artificial excitement for content generation.

Framing and the Liar Trap

Targeting uncomfortable voices as "liars" within an in-group.
The preventive framing to protect your own secrets, internal chat history and past lies.

Group dynamics and toxic echo chambers

Reinforcing narratives when multiple high-reach content creators repeat unconfirmed claims.
The psychological consolidation of these manipulated images in the mindset of the respective community.

The fog candle as a distraction maneuver

The staging as the highest moral authority using the ‘we against’ principle.
Loud outrage as a tactical means to distract from one's own inconsistencies of the recent past.

True Opportunism vs. Strategic Allegation

Definition of Opportunism: The difference between meaningful self-precaution and selfish range hunting.
The systematic attachment to larger creators in order to gain awareness through staged beef content.

Attention Economy and the Role of the Audience

The lucrative ping-pong of constant action and response that keeps social media algorithms running.
The bitter reality: How the audience with valuable lifetime finances the monetization of contentless content, while platform and creator benefit

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: 164
Playing time: 0:16:41
Date of admission: 21.09.26
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.

The Digression 85 What is Truth?

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	32 MB	Download
AAC m4a	16 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:02 Music
0:00:02 – 0:00:31 [Music]
0:00:31 – 0:00:39 Hello and welcome to a new edition of the digression. Where I occasionally or
0:00:39 – 0:00:45 Whatever, but some would almost never say deviate from the actual topic. me
0:00:45 – 0:00:55 I'm Sascha Machmann and say hello. Today's topic is "What's the truth?" And yes, I'm
0:00:55 – 0:01:01 In recent times, people have noticed that they are entitled to themselves or even the
0:01:01 – 0:01:11 Tell me, I have the absolute truth. I am the truth and want to
0:01:11 – 0:01:21 Let's talk today. The dilemma with the truth. We use the word daily with phrases such as
0:01:21 – 0:01:30 "Tell me the truth" or scientifically proven "My truth". But is it really
0:01:30 – 0:01:37 The same thing every time? We should perhaps define "truth" and "reality" for the first time.
0:01:37 – 0:01:46 Reality is what exists or happens. When it rains outside and we see it,
0:01:46 – 0:01:53 Then we can most likely say, yes, it's raining outside. If we now add this
0:01:53 – 0:02:03 Take weather radar and have a high-resolution picture of the rain, then we can say,
0:02:03 – 0:02:12 Yes, it's raining with us right now. That would be a reality that becomes the truth. But
0:02:12 – 0:02:22 First of all, these two things coexist. A truth can be subjective, and a truth can be subjective.
0:02:22 – 0:02:31 Reality is something that exists. So we can remember that reality is happening,
0:02:31 – 0:02:40 Truth arises where we try to translate this reality into language, numbers, or methods.
0:02:40 – 0:02:49 Translate. Sounds like a read, it is. Some people tell me they have the truth.
0:02:49 – 0:02:58 Recognized for itself. I can only do this with the help of Chatchibiti. Wink, wink. But we must
0:02:58 – 0:03:08 First, clarify or separate other terms. Truth, a statement, agrees with the
0:03:08 – 0:03:18 Reality about one. Knowledge, a statement that is true and for which we are comprehensible,
0:03:18 – 0:03:29 have reliable or supporting documents. Knowledge does not mean absolute fallibility. This is important,
0:03:29 – 0:03:39 Because I can also have false knowledge and then it is fallible. Certainty, a pure
0:03:39 – 0:03:48 personal sense of security, because when I am conscientious that I know something,
0:03:48 – 0:03:58 It doesn't mean it's right. So the feeling of security can be very deceiving,
0:03:58 – 0:04:07 You know the truth or you have that knowledge. Honesty. You say what you do for yourself
0:04:07 – 0:04:18 Keeps true. You can be honest and still be wrong. We just had, didn't we? The lie. Man
0:04:18 – 0:04:26 Deliberately claiming something that you yourself think is wrong in order to deceive. Then we still have
0:04:26 – 0:04:35 The error. You sincerely believe in false information. Then there are the
0:04:35 – 0:04:44 The wrong information. The wrong is passed on unchecked. It's a misdirection. They say one
0:04:44 – 0:04:54 true section to leave or create a false overall impression. If this is the case:
0:04:54 – 0:05:02 It was read aloud, it was read aloud, and it came from Chechypiti. I am unfortunately
0:05:02 – 0:05:12 I am unable to find such complex content thanks to my lack of cognitive transfer performance.
0:05:12 – 0:05:20 process. Now we come to a field in the natural sciences. There are
0:05:20 – 0:05:33 Truths are very important. For example, we assume or we know that a triangle
0:05:33 – 0:05:41 It always has 180 degrees. This is also true as long as this triangle is on a surface,
0:05:41 – 0:05:51 on a straight surface. If this area is curved, this triangle can have up to 270 degrees. To the
0:05:51 – 0:05:59 Example if this triangle is on a ball. Both statements are correct. Both
0:05:59 – 0:06:06 Statements are the truth. They only have different requirements and that is
0:06:06 – 0:06:15 also important. Because if you look at what we do in our everyday physics, let's say
0:06:15 – 0:06:23 those of the macrocosm, that is, the world visible to us, then these rules are the same for all of us.
0:06:23 – 0:06:30 And if I throw a stone from a tower, it will be with the and the speed, with the and the
0:06:30 – 0:06:37 Acceleration, which is always constant, falls to the ground. We can predict that,
0:06:37 – 0:06:44 We can prove this in an experiment and we can document it. These
0:06:44 – 0:06:53 However, rules do not apply in the other area, in the one macrocosm and what is the name of the other
0:06:53 – 0:07:01 The cosmos? My head is broken. In the world of quantum physics, for example, there are other
0:07:01 – 0:07:13 Rules for the same processes, but they exist at the same time. Somehow crazy. It
0:07:13 – 0:07:18 This is not my area. I don't know quantum physics very well.
0:07:18 – 0:07:24 I have to admit, I don't know. But we just saw it,
0:07:24 – 0:07:33 Two truths can coexist with each other.
0:07:33 – 0:07:43 Prerequisites. We can now also look at the whole thing in philosophy. What is
0:07:43 – 0:07:51 Truth from a philosophical point of view. And there we have different terms. We have
0:07:51 – 0:08:00 It is a subjective truth. This concerns the experience of an individual. For example, I feel it
0:08:00 – 0:08:08 Room as cold. Then we have the objective truth. This applies regardless of individual
0:08:08 – 0:08:17 Person. If you take out the meter and measure it, you can say, yes, this room has 17 degrees. Then
0:08:17 – 0:08:26 There is also the intersubjective truth. This is true for a number of people who have shared
0:08:26 – 0:08:33 Rules comprehensibly measure, for example, this temperature in the room. And they can then
0:08:33 – 0:08:41 Several people use tested thermometers to measure a temperature of 17 degrees.
0:08:41 – 0:08:51 That would be an intersubjective truth. So you can remember, objectivity means
0:08:51 – 0:08:58 Not that no one was involved. It means that the result does not depend on
0:08:58 – 0:09:06 It is the person who carried out the test. This can be done using mathematical methods,
0:09:06 – 0:09:16 Physical experiments, but also in everyday situations. Now let's get to the
0:09:16 – 0:09:26 Classical theory of truth. And here we come to the first term and that is correspondence,
0:09:26 – 0:09:37 the agreement. Statements fit reality. When I say the cup is there,
0:09:37 – 0:09:46 It can be proven several times that there is a cup there. I can take a picture of it,
0:09:46 – 0:09:53 I can bring witnesses, I can bring the cup when it's on the table,
0:09:53 – 0:10:02 document in different angles, make drawings and say, this is the truth,
0:10:02 – 0:10:11 The cup is there. This can also be measured using geometric methods. trigometry
0:10:11 – 0:10:18 can be placed here on tetrahylets and then stop as often as the surveyor in the small
0:10:18 – 0:10:25 Measure the scale of where the cup is in the room. Now on to the Corridor,
0:10:25 – 0:10:39 freedom of objection. I can check a statement, an event or, yes, that's enough,
0:10:39 – 0:10:49 whether different representations of one and the same vision coincide. For example, an
0:10:49 – 0:10:59 chain of events. How did the First World War begin? How did the Second World War begin? There's
0:10:59 – 0:11:07 Events that follow each other and which then result in a non-contradictory picture.
0:11:07 – 0:11:16 A problem with the thing is, a crime novel can be perfectly logical in itself, but still
0:11:16 – 0:11:32 Freely Invented. You have to check the chain of evidence or the evidence to make sure it is correct.
0:11:32 – 0:11:41 And to be true. Then there is pragmatism, probation in practice.
0:11:41 – 0:11:53 Truth claims show their value through testing or permanent probation. There you have to
0:11:53 – 0:12:02 Let's be careful. A lucky charm can really calm down before an exam. But he does not prove
0:12:02 – 0:12:12 supernatural forces. Something can be useful without being true. And yes, I have my own
0:12:12 – 0:12:18 I had a lucky charm when I went to exams. It was a little magical object,
0:12:18 – 0:12:27 Which was absolutely useless. But because I have a special meaning to this little object
0:12:27 – 0:12:40 It helped me to find the necessary focus to hold a good exam.
0:12:40 – 0:12:49 Delivering the result. Then there is the consensus. The ideal agreement. He meant it
0:12:49 – 0:12:59 Not a simple majority decision or a success of a propaganda action, but the agreement
0:12:59 – 0:13:08 reasonable parties under ideal conditions, free from coercion, manipulation or information control.
0:13:08 – 0:13:17 And that too was read now. You know, lack of cognitive transfer. So can
0:13:17 – 0:13:27 Consensus can be an indication of truth, but it is not a substitute for evidence. Yes,
0:13:27 – 0:13:38 Yeah, that's fine, isn't it? Let's now turn to the blog Everyday Life, Media and Society. My truth
0:13:38 – 0:13:48 versus Interpretation. Feelings are real as experiences. When someone is afraid of a noise
0:13:48 – 0:13:57 The night has. Is the feeling real? However, the cause may simply be that the cat is a
0:13:57 – 0:14:08 He threw the lighter off the table and it wasn't a burglar. Social constructs, institutional,
0:14:08 – 0:14:13 Indicative truth or reality.
0:14:13 – 0:14:27 Money, property, laws or borders do not exist by mere fantasy, but because we
0:14:27 – 0:14:37 they mutually recognize, institutionally secure and practically act to ensure that we have a
0:14:37 – 0:14:44 The social truth. The value of a bill, for example, is not in the paper,
0:14:44 – 0:14:53 it is stabilized by states, central banks, treaties and everyday acceptance.
0:14:53 – 0:15:03 A 10 euro note is not worth 10 euros because it says so, but because we believe or
0:15:03 – 0:15:12 because we know or because we believe it to be true that this note has a value of 10 euros and
0:15:12 – 0:15:19 It has a purchasing power of 10 euros. This is an interesting concept. Should we perhaps
0:15:19 – 0:15:26 Talk about it, too. There is a legal truth. A court asks,
0:15:26 – 0:15:36 what happens and what can be proven according to the rules of the procedure. An acquittal for lack of
0:15:36 – 0:15:48 Evidence does not necessarily mean that nothing has happened. It just shows that you don't
0:15:48 – 0:16:01 a chain of evidence or a lack of a chain of evidence cannot prove a historical reality; or
0:16:01 – 0:16:11 can prove sufficiently and this then leads to the free saying due to lack of evidence. Then come
0:16:11 – 0:16:17 Let's turn to a manipulative truth, the framing. There has been a recent one about this
0:16:17 – 0:16:26 Podcast of mine in disarray. I believe in 84. The interesting thing about framing is,
0:16:26 – 0:16:39 You don't have to lie. You just leave out certain little truths and keep going.
0:16:39 – 0:16:50 to a new truth in which context is omitted or comparator variables are changed. Let's take
0:16:50 – 0:16:58 For example, an example. The number of incidents has increased by 100 percent. This may now be in
0:16:58 – 0:17:06 sound dramatic at first when it comes to crimes or accidents at the nuclear power plant,
0:17:06 – 0:17:17 But if the number rises from 1 to 2, then that's true, it's a truth,
0:17:17 – 0:17:25 But it creates a completely different picture. For in the foreground is first,
0:17:25 – 0:17:34 The number of incidents has doubled. It is a distortion of the image. So we can
0:17:34 – 0:17:42 Not every manipulation needs a lie. Sometimes a full-fledged,
0:17:42 – 0:17:50 A carefully chosen truth, an apology, a carefully chosen truth. This memorandum was also
0:17:50 – 0:18:02 read. Thank you, ChatGBT, Gemini and Croc. Now there's another blog, that's the truth.
0:18:02 – 0:18:15 and power, but that's really very dull, let's say. Power does not decide on it.
0:18:15 – 0:18:26 what biologically or physically, mathematically, scientifically, it was, but it determined,
0:18:26 – 0:18:37 which discourse gains the upper hand, in which direction truth is formed,
0:18:37 – 0:18:53 what evidence, what evidence may be used. In the end, one can say,
0:18:53 – 0:19:00 Power cannot create reality arbitrarily, but it strongly influences,
0:19:00 – 0:19:08 which vision of reality is publicly visible, disseminated and socially
0:19:08 – 0:19:15 is recognized. You would also have to make an issue about it. We should do it in the future.
0:19:15 – 0:19:28 In summary, it can be said that not always what appears to be true can also be considered absolute truth.
0:19:28 – 0:19:36 apply. I've tried to show that there are different truths at the same time.
0:19:36 – 0:19:43 can give. And you always have to say, is that objective, is that subjective? And
0:19:43 – 0:19:51 I have the feeling that subjective truths are always very often taken as the truth.
0:19:51 – 0:20:00 will. 'Cause I've heard something, read something, which I then think is the truth, because it's also
0:20:00 – 0:20:09 Sometimes just my own opinion. Then there's the confirmation bias.
0:20:09 – 0:20:21 It's pretty much what's going on in different social media worlds when there's a truth in the world.
0:20:21 – 0:20:31 A bubble is considered true because all of them share the same or most of them share the same opinion.
0:20:31 – 0:20:38 Well, also an interesting topic. You'd have to do something about it. Perhaps one should
0:20:38 – 0:20:48 Just wonder what kind of statement that is. If it's a fact, it's an opinion, it's an opinion.
0:20:48 – 0:20:58 Feelings, is it an interpretation or even a prognosis? Then you should ask yourself, can you do that?
0:20:58 – 0:21:03 check. Is there data, documents,
0:21:03 – 0:21:10 The intersubjective process? So several people have seen this thing, there
0:21:10 – 0:21:16 Witnesses, even there the truth does not always equal the truth
0:21:16 – 0:21:22 is. Because people always pay attention to a little bit of other things.
0:21:22 – 0:21:30 You can already see that when there was an accident and you have 100 witnesses,
0:21:30 – 0:21:36 They will all tell you the same thing by and large. But there will also be deviations,
0:21:36 – 0:21:42 One of them looked at it, the other looked at it, the other looked at it.
0:21:42 – 0:21:51 If you look there, you can say that most of it happened, but the others did.
0:21:51 – 0:22:00 Things? This is very subjective, but it can be said that in general this
0:22:00 – 0:22:08 The accident that the witnesses describe happened as they described it. Then there are
0:22:08 – 0:22:18 How reliable are the sources? Is there self-interest in the sources? Or are
0:22:18 – 0:22:25 These sources are independently confirmed. In a physical experiment, the other
0:22:25 – 0:22:32 Scientists can reproduce the result. Then you can assume,
0:22:32 – 0:22:40 You can say yes, the result is true. It has been confirmed. You should always be
0:22:40 – 0:22:47 Are there uncertainties? And when there are uncertainties, those uncertainties became
0:22:47 – 0:22:57 Also named. It is not a sign of error or weakness, it is rather a sign of
0:22:57 – 0:23:08 Strength when considering uncertainties in the measurement method, uncertainties in the enumeration of facts, of knowledge
0:23:08 – 0:23:15 Openly named. And then you always have to ask yourself if you think you have the
0:23:15 – 0:23:24 Is there any information that could change your mind? If the honest answer
0:23:24 – 0:23:34 is, there is no, it is probably more of a defense of a non-truth, but rather
0:23:34 – 0:23:45 an opinion or identity that you would like to have this result. Finally, I would add another
0:23:45 – 0:23:59 Share some thoughts. Responsibly dealing with the truth. You don't have to go to everything
0:23:59 – 0:24:10 Have an irrefutable answer. One should separate rather cleanly according to what I know,
0:24:10 – 0:24:19 what do I guess, what did I feel, what did I hear and you always have to be honest
0:24:19 – 0:24:29 say and also ask, I know everything at all and there is no shame in admitting
0:24:29 – 0:24:38 If the answer is no. You can't always know everything, and I see it that way.
0:24:38 – 0:24:45 In the areas I am interested in, what rapid progress we are making. And
0:24:45 – 0:24:55 A few hundred years ago, people believed that the Earth was a disk. Then they are
0:24:55 – 0:25:03 People died for it because they then claimed that the earth was a bullet, even though it stopped.
0:25:03 – 0:25:09 They could prove that the earth is not a disk, but a sphere, because it is so simpler.
0:25:09 – 0:25:17 It is easier to see how the stars move in the sky. When the earth is not
0:25:17 – 0:25:25 to the center of a solar system, but stopped at its position, as
0:25:25 – 0:25:34 where she is today, then people died for it, even though they knew that so even better
0:25:34 – 0:25:43 It is as if the stars were moving in the sky as if the earth were in the center.
0:25:43 – 0:25:50 Everything moves around you. These people had a truth, but the general public had
0:25:50 – 0:25:57 Another truth and superiors, i.e. the rulers, also had their truth and their
0:25:57 – 0:26:07 Truth could not be a lie, because then one would have proved that what they believed in or that the
0:26:07 – 0:26:17 The higher power in which they believed was fallible and thus the entire construct in itself would be fallible.
0:26:17 – 0:26:25 Yeah, it's a bad thing, isn't it? And we've had that over and over again. There are still people today,
0:26:25 – 0:26:31 They believe that the earth is flat. And everything else is a lie. And they try,
0:26:31 – 0:26:35 with scientific and physical experiments to prove that the Earth is a
0:26:35 – 0:26:40 It's disk. And then wonder if the experiments indicate that the Earth
0:26:40 – 0:26:45 But it's not a disk. The experiment must be wrong. Or a miscarriage
0:26:45 – 0:26:52 We already have a few points with which we have discussed the plans,
0:26:52 – 0:27:03 What I read from Shadshibbit here and Gemini and Grok. If you have this knowledge
0:27:03 – 0:27:08 If you could take advantage of it and ask yourself the questions about it, you could come up with it.
0:27:08 – 0:27:15 that the truth you believe in is not necessarily the truth, the facts
0:27:15 – 0:27:22 correspond. And I've met in the past, especially in the recent past,
0:27:22 – 0:27:32 Again and again, that truths are created that are often repeated for others.
0:27:32 – 0:27:40 the truth, and then not so the actual truth is in the foreground,
0:27:40 – 0:27:49 But the truth which has been spread, which is true for all others, but is not true.
0:27:49 – 0:27:59 This is like the people who believe in the flat earth. It is a self-confirming group
0:27:59 – 0:28:07 You can't do anything about people and you can't do anything about it. But I'd like to ask you another question,
0:28:07 – 0:28:17 Or rather, two questions. How many of those we call truth have we tested ourselves?
0:28:17 – 0:28:28 How much of it have we heard often enough? This is one and the second would be,
0:28:28 – 0:28:38 When does your personal experience become a verifiable assertion about reality?
0:28:38 – 0:28:49 Write it to me in the comments, what ideas you have about it and argue this time
0:28:49 – 0:28:57 off. That would really interest me. That was it, that's over 30 minutes now
0:28:57 – 0:29:01 any ramblings of some idiot who reads a lot of chatshibiti
0:29:01 – 0:29:09 has. Thanks to this great, fantastic technology, without which I would not be able to
0:29:09 – 0:29:18 Just a meter from the door. Oh, I'm not that way. Well, joke,
0:29:18 – 0:29:25 Don't be scared. Thanks for listening and goodbye, see you next time.
0:29:25 – 0:29:26 Your Sasha
0:29:26 – 0:29:28 [Music]
0:29:28 – 0:29:31 [Music]
0:29:31 – 0:29:37 [Music]
0:29:37 – 0:29:43 [Music]
0:29:43 – 0:29:49 [Music]
0:29:49 – 0:29:55 [Music]
0:29:55 – 0:29:58 [Music]
0:29:58 – 0:30:04 [Music]
0:30:04 – 0:30:10 [Music]
0:30:10 – 0:30:16 [Music]
0:30:16 – 0:30:23 [Music]
0:30:23 – 0:30:26 [Music]
0:30:26 – 0:30:32 [Music]
0:30:32 – 0:30:38 [Music]
0:30:38 – 0:30:44 [Music]
0:30:44 – 0:30:50 [Music]
0:30:50 – 0:30:53 [Music]
0:30:53 – 0:30:59 [Music]
0:30:59 – 0:31:05 [Music]
0:31:05 – 0:31:11 [Music]
0:31:11 – 0:31:17 [Music]
0:31:17 – 0:31:20 [Music]
0:31:20 – 0:31:26 [Music]
0:31:26 – 0:31:32 [Music]
0:31:32 – 0:31:38 [Music]
0:31:38 – 0:31:44 [Music]
0:31:44 – 0:31:47 [Music]
0:31:47 – 0:31:53 [Music]
0:31:53 – 0:31:59 [Music]
0:31:59 – 0:32:05 [Music]
0:32:05 – 0:32:11 [Music]
0:32:11 – 0:32:14 [Music]
0:32:14 – 0:32:21 [Music]
0:32:21 – 0:32:27 [Music]
0:32:27 – 0:32:34 [Music]
0:32:39 – 0:32:42 [Music]
0:32:42 – 0:32:48 [Music]
0:32:48 – 0:32:54 [Music]
0:32:54 – 0:33:00 [Music]
0:33:00 – 0:33:07 [Music]
0:33:07 – 0:33:10 [Music]
0:33:10 – 0:33:16 [Music]
0:33:16 – 0:33:22 [Music]
0:33:22 – 0:33:28 [Music]
0:33:28 – 0:33:34 [Music]
0:33:34 – 0:33:45 [Music]
0:33:45 – 0:33:47 [Music]

‘Just tell me the truth!’ – A phrase that we can easily utter, but which poses a huge mystery to us. Because reality just happens – the rain out there is neither true nor false, it's just there. Truth only arises when we humans try to translate this reality into language, numbers or models.

In this episode, the abrasions Let us dissect the concept of ‘truth’ methodically. Why are mathematical truths always dependent on preconditions? Why does scientific honesty not mean absolute certainty, but the transparent disclosure of measurement uncertainties? And where is the boundary between our real, subjective experience and an intersubjectively verifiable fact?

We wonder why our own feelings sometimes deceive us, why consensus is not a substitute for evidence and why a statement can be literally true and yet highly manipulative (keyword: Framing). In the end, a five-step critical toolbox is waiting for you, with which you can test assertions in everyday life. Because in the end: Dealing responsibly with truth does not mean having an immediate answer to everything – but a clean separation between what we know, what we believe and what we simply do not yet know.

Knowledge pyramid: Rise of chaotic data about information, knowledge and understanding to radiant wisdom

Breakdown of topics

1. The entry: The dilemma with a big word

The everyday phenomenon: How we use the word ‘truth’ on a daily basis (‘Tell me the truth’, ‘Scientificly proven’, ‘My truth’).
Truth vs. reality:
- The reality: What exists and happens independently of us (e.g. the rain).
- The truth: A characteristic of our statements, figures and models about this reality.
The term check (the demarcation):
- Truth: Consistency of a statement with reality.
- Knowledge: A true statement based on reliable evidence – without the claim of absolute infallibility.
- Certainty: The purely personal sense of security (Can be deceiving!).
- Honesty: Tell them what you think is true.Does not protect against error).
- The spectrum of deception: The subtle differences between lies, error, misinformation and deception.

2. Block I: Logic, Prerequisites & Natural Science

Mathematical Truth (The World of Systems):
- Truth through logical derivation from axioms.
- The triangle example: Why $180^\circ$ angular sum on a flat plane and $270^\circ$ on a ball are not a contradiction, but depend on the prerequisites.
- The nerd excursion (Kurt Gödel): Why formal provability and truth are not completely identical even in mathematics.
Physical Truth (The World of Models):
- Science does not prove absolutely, but seeks empirical evidence through measurement and experimentation.
- The Newton-Einstein example: Theories as provisionally best approximations within certain limits.
- The measurement uncertainty: Why scientific honesty means making uncertainties transparent and measurable (criterion of falsifiability).

3. Block II: The Philosophical Toolbox

The three perspectives on statements:
- Subjective: The purely personal experience ("I'm cold").
- Lens: Applicable independently of the person (‘It is 17 °C’).
- Intersubjective: Under common rules for several people comprehensible (Testing with calibrated thermometers).
The classical truth theories in the hardness test:
- Correspondence: The direct correspondence with reality (the cup on the table – measured with the theodolite).
- Coherence: The freedom of contradiction in a system (The circumstantial puzzle). The problem: Even a crime novel can be perfectly logical, but freely invented.
- Pragmatism: Permanent probation in practice. The problem: A lucky charm can really calm down without possessing supernatural powers.
- Consensus: The agreement of reasonable parties under ideal, non-compulsory conditions (consensus as an indication, not as a substitute for evidence).

4. Block III: Everyday life, media & social power

My Truth vs Interpretation: Why feelings (like fear at night) are real as an experience, but the interpretation of their cause (the cat vs. the burglar) can still be wrong.
Social constructs (institutional reality): Why things like money, borders or property do not exist out of mere fantasy, but because we institutionally secure them and collectively act on them.
Legal vs. historical truth: The disparity between what actually happened and what can be considered proven in court proceedings under strict rules (e.g. acquittal for lack of evidence).
Framing (the manipulative truth): Why one does not have to explicitly lie in order to distort the truth (The example of ‘100%increase from 1 to 2 cases).
Truth and Power: How power structures influence which versions of reality are publicly visible, disseminated and socially recognized.

5. The final: The critical toolbox for practice

The 5 test questions for everyday life:
1. What kind of statement is that? (Fact, opinion, feeling, interpretation or prognosis?)
2. How can it be tested? (Are there data, documents or intersubjective procedures?)
3. How reliable is the source? (Is there self-interest or independent confirmation?)
4. What uncertainty remains? (Have gaps been openly identified?)
5. What information could change my mind? (The test against one's own Confirmation Bias).
Final thought: A plea for clean separation in one's own head: What do I know? What do I suspect? What did I feel? And where can I honestly say: I don't know yet.
Interaction / Call to Action: The final questions to listeners for discussion in the comments.

Advertising:

Related episodes:

The Invisible Frame

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: 397
Playing time: 0:33:47
Date of admission: 19.07.26
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.

The digression 84 The invisible frame

Format	size	Download
MP3 Audio	26 MB	Download
AAC m4a	13 MB	Download

transcript
00:00 - 0:00:02 Music
0:00:02 – 0:00:31 [Music]
0:00:31 – 0:00:36 Hello and welcome to a new edition of Digression,
0:00:36 – 0:00:45 Where I occasionally deviate from the subject. I'm Sascha Markmann and say hello. This
0:00:45 – 0:00:55 Today's theme is like pictures and frames and I'm not talking about the noodles now. Yes,
0:00:55 – 0:01:14 Yeah, what do I mean by that? I mean something like narration, interpretation or even the concealment and the setting of pictures,
0:01:14 – 0:01:26 In which narratives are used. What is a Narrative? This is just meaning and value-creating
0:01:26 – 0:01:43 Storytelling or storytelling. What is a frame? It is a framework, i.e. a framework, a narrative,
0:01:43 – 0:01:54 How to paint a picture. The picture is almost the content. And that's what you're trying to do
0:01:54 – 0:02:02 various things, mostly very self-serving, stop, how can you say that,
0:02:02 – 0:02:13 to make some sense. Mostly very self-serving. A special, very strong sentence
0:02:13 – 0:02:22 The most dangerous frame is not the one you disagree with. The most dangerous frame is the
0:02:22 – 0:02:31 You don't even recognize it as a frame. And then we are already at the point. When I'm from
0:02:31 – 0:02:40 tell someone and I want this person or this event, this object
0:02:40 – 0:02:48 is particularly perceived and I would like this particular perception to have a special direction
0:02:48 – 0:02:58 I'm leaving. Then we speak of a frame, of framing as an activity. We can do that once
0:02:58 – 0:03:06 Take an example. We just take one and the same event and report differently
0:03:06 – 0:03:17 about it. Protesters blocked the main traffic or a main artery. Or we could also
0:03:17 – 0:03:24 Climate catastrophes have paralyzed the city centre. One and the same action, one and the same
0:03:24 – 0:03:32 Consistency, but a completely different narrative that is extremely judgmental. One is,
0:03:32 – 0:03:39 Protesters blocked one main artery or traffic and the other stops,
0:03:39 – 0:03:46 Climate catastrophes paralyzed the city centre. You know what I mean. I think
0:03:46 – 0:03:54 this comes out very well, what is meant by setting pictures, frames,
0:03:54 – 0:04:04 When you frame. Now, however, this framing isn't basically something that's bad. Doing this
0:04:04 – 0:04:12 We ourselves are constantly. We evaluate, we sort, we arrange for ourselves and the
0:04:12 – 0:04:23 Let's do it in fractions of a second. And so it may be that for one or the other a
0:04:23 – 0:04:36 and the same event, experience of different subtleties, is evaluated differently,
0:04:36 – 0:04:42 is dissolved differently or a different meaning is also considered.
0:04:42 – 0:04:48 And that happens completely automatically and that's what each of us does. The only important thing is,
0:04:48 – 0:04:58 The frame and the lie are separated from each other. Because I can also
0:04:58 – 0:05:09 frame so far that it is a lie and that I spread lies to stop this picture in a way
0:05:09 – 0:05:15 framed in a lie. But without becoming any kind of big-scientific now
0:05:15 – 0:05:23 Or too philosophical, let's just talk about it. Each of us does this,
0:05:23 – 0:05:36 Everyone is trying to have the power of interpretation. Right now in this whole YouTube
0:05:36 – 0:05:44 Beefs, the beefs on social media. You see it all the time. Pictures are sown, there are
0:05:44 – 0:05:53 The more often these stories are repeated, the more often these stories are told and the more fatal they are.
0:05:53 – 0:06:03 The more these stories are repeated, the more this image solidifies. It is
0:06:03 – 0:06:12 In fact, it's going to be a "truth" because when so many people say it,
0:06:12 – 0:06:25 Then that must be true. And so pictures are created in beautiful frames, which absolutely
0:06:25 – 0:06:32 It has nothing to do with reality. An example, we had reported yes or I had reported,
0:06:32 – 0:06:40 that the channel Lautfunk had lost the monetization and briefly the story about it
0:06:40 – 0:06:47 Tell them and we'll have them again. In the storytelling from the outside, however, it is becoming more and more
0:06:47 – 0:06:55 claims that we still lost them because we artificially generated AI slob,
0:06:55 – 0:07:10 Yes, producing crap. For as an example, one cited the AI-set fairy tales, they would be yes
0:07:10 – 0:07:17 Fully AI-generated. For one thing, it must be said that these fairy tales were put on a second channel.
0:07:17 – 0:07:26 published, namely Lautfunk RAW. And on the other hand, the voice that wrote the text was legendary.
0:07:26 – 0:07:37 We talked, we generated AI. The music and also the lyrics, that was solid craftsmanship. Anyone who
0:07:37 – 0:07:45 Knowing me and following me for a long time, I know I'm a dyslexic. I use AI to
0:07:45 – 0:07:53 Correct spelling. This is transparently understandable everywhere,
0:07:53 – 0:07:59 Because I communicate transparently everywhere. But let these details
0:07:59 – 0:08:08 off, the frame is created or the image is framed. There was a sanction on the part of
0:08:08 – 0:08:20 YouTube had that monetization taken away from us because we were AI-generated Slop
0:08:20 – 0:08:30 produce. And the more often this is repeated, the more you believe this story. The picture
0:08:30 – 0:08:46 It's true because the frame fits. Yes, that's how it is and there's little you can do about it, because if it's
0:08:46 – 0:08:54 Everyone says it must be true. You can also see this wonderfully in the story right now.
0:08:54 – 0:09:03 Amy Zedek, Virgis Maoki in association with Jay Riddle, what happened two years ago.
0:09:03 – 0:09:10 The story could only get so big at the time, because high-reach YouTubers,
0:09:10 – 0:09:21 Alarizo and many others have told this story as well. What are they all called? All of them,
0:09:21 – 0:09:26 They told their story about their bad experiences with Amy Zedek.
0:09:26 – 0:09:34 And I had also had a follow-up with a colleague about it,
0:09:34 – 0:09:42 borderline, where we had talked about these dynamics and also our assessment of the
0:09:42 – 0:09:50 situation and have also let us be tempted there, because so many people who stop Amy Zedek
0:09:50 – 0:09:58 I knew her, or worked with her, and they all told the same story.
0:09:58 – 0:10:12 And so the frame fit perfectly on the picture, what Mauki had created there. Yes, there you can
0:10:12 – 0:10:21 Let's see how effective this simple tool is. It's a mechanism in our brain,
0:10:21 – 0:10:31 It can be triggered from the outside. And if there are even more exacerbating factors from the outside,
0:10:31 – 0:10:38 Then the story just comes true. It's incredible, isn't it? It's just unbelievable.
0:10:38 – 0:10:50 Well, but a nice picture without a good frame is actually worth nothing. In the
0:10:50 – 0:10:57 Art history there are pictures, because sometimes the frame is worth more than the picture. Because
0:10:57 – 0:11:04 If you take the frame to another picture, it doubles or triples.
0:11:04 – 0:11:13 The value of the image. And I think that's just a nice analogy to this story with the
0:11:13 – 0:11:26 Framing. Because only if I do this framing well and it fits the actual story,
0:11:26 – 0:11:34 can I give history a new meaning, or perhaps a special Auxon,
0:11:34 – 0:11:44 Let's put it in a certain direction. It is important to have a label,
0:11:44 – 0:11:52 A label sticks to it to take it from the example of the first sentence. Yes,
0:11:52 – 0:12:02 You take activist, conspiracy theorist, expert, hater, mob and with that you get
0:12:02 – 0:12:11 There is some significance to this label. But you can also go there and just so certain
0:12:11 – 0:12:23 Leave things out. A small screenshot where you only show a part of or a part of a
0:12:23 – 0:12:31 Video clips that confirm or reinforce what you want to say. This is also a
0:12:31 – 0:12:38 Possibility to steer the context in a certain direction. If you have a subordinate clause
0:12:38 – 0:12:46 or stop omitting the end of a sentence after the comma or if this is such a inserted
0:12:46 – 0:12:55 It's an intermediate clause. What also works well is simply by following the order or the
0:12:55 – 0:13:02 Dramatology, to put it this way, has changed. You can have events in a different order.
0:13:02 – 0:13:10 reproducing. This also allows you to create a certain frame in which you can then stop the image.
0:13:10 – 0:13:20 Presented appropriately served. You can also frame by showing only certain sources. It is
0:13:20 – 0:13:30 In the case of opinion blogging, this is a very popular means of ensuring its authenticity.
0:13:30 – 0:13:37 This is confirmed by using only certain sources and not the entire context.
0:13:37 – 0:13:45 I or Sarah and I are not exempt from this, even if you put a lot of effort into it.
0:13:45 – 0:13:51 There is always a selection, whether that is conscious or unconscious,
0:13:51 – 0:13:58 But guaranteed in framing, it is deliberately used as a means.
0:13:58 – 0:14:05 And of course, what you can do in the audiovisual context, i.e. in the video or
0:14:05 – 0:14:15 in the audio or in the pictorial context that one tries to set certain frames.
0:14:15 – 0:14:25 It starts subtly with the thumbnail, and then goes on with the thumbnail.
0:14:25 – 0:14:36 Heading or signature, i.e. a subheading. And that's how you try one
0:14:36 – 0:14:47 To set a certain direction, a certain framework. What works in this context, too, is
0:14:47 – 0:14:58 How to cut. It is also a question of the order in which the material is
0:14:58 – 0:15:06 Which sound is used to which image. There's so much you can do to create a mood.
0:15:06 – 0:15:14 to produce. One and the same scene looks complete with different background music
0:15:14 – 0:15:22 different. Even this is framing, because you give the picture a new frame. Enemy images can
0:15:22 – 0:15:31 It's also great for framing. Yes, these are the bad guys, these are the bad guys, and we are the bad guys.
0:15:31 – 0:15:37 Good one. This then has something to do with in-group and out-group and such dynamics. To this end:
0:15:37 – 0:15:40 You might want to make a separate issue.
0:15:40 – 0:15:46 This group dynamic is also a very fascinating topic.
0:15:46 – 0:15:59 You can use so many interesting aspects when you use framing as a weapon.
0:15:59 – 0:16:08 The only important thing is that you find people who have the same pictures, the same ways of telling stories.
0:16:08 – 0:16:18 Use the same frames. Of course, this is best done if you disagree or
0:16:18 – 0:16:26 Being so persuasive that others take over. This can also be done in the current
0:16:26 – 0:16:34 Watch YouTube Beef. That the smaller content creators take over, that it audience groups
0:16:34 – 0:16:43 assume that it will take opinion-strong viewers and the more often this in the comment column
0:16:43 – 0:16:58 appears, in the video or in the post, in the social media post and thus appears more real and valid
0:16:58 – 0:17:09 this story, this statement, this image that has been framed by this frame itself
0:17:09 – 0:17:20 automatically amplified. But how can you resist the framing? So there's a
0:17:20 – 0:17:29 This is a very specific case that needs to be considered. If you sit within this
0:17:29 – 0:17:37 Defending frames and moving there, you take over the rules of the game of the opponent. You make
0:17:37 – 0:17:53 Justification podcasts, videos, postings, posts and yes, you just make statements,
0:17:53 – 0:18:01 which contradict the accusations and thus directly confirms the accusations,
0:18:01 – 0:18:11 Because they respond to the accusations. It is smarter or better and more effective to
0:18:11 – 0:18:18 which, if one makes visible the invisible frame, which is inserted, and the
0:18:18 – 0:18:27 Enter the meta-level. What does that mean? By looking at the framework and analyzing it.
0:18:27 – 0:18:34 You make the invisible frame visible. You almost don't respond to criticism,
0:18:34 – 0:18:44 but dissects it neatly like a surgeon and thus shows that an image is drawn
0:18:44 – 0:18:50 will. And once you've done that, you can set your own framework,
0:18:50 – 0:19:01 the so-called "reframing", which is set objectively, ideally to try to
0:19:01 – 0:19:10 Give the picture a new meaning. It is important to realize that you have a few
0:19:10 – 0:19:18 Mechanisms know how this framing happens. First of all, which words load
0:19:18 – 0:19:26 The subject emotionally. Second, what role do the person, perpetrator, victim, expert,
0:19:26 – 0:19:40 Companion or a joker, a dangerous figure? In third place, what is prominently shown or
0:19:40 – 0:19:49 What is said and what is knowingly omitted. What disturbing elements are left out of the
0:19:49 – 0:20:02 Abandoned the narrative? What is the order or what sources are used? And the most important question
0:20:02 – 0:20:15 is, who benefits from this story, who benefits from this frame, what do you get from it? And so we come
0:20:15 – 0:20:26 Let's go back to the main line from the very beginning. The most dangerous frame is
0:20:26 – 0:20:34 Not the one you disagree with. The most dangerous frame is the one you don't even use as a frame.
0:20:34 – 0:20:46 recognizes. I know it's today, yes, that's hurt the format. I can't go very deep here
0:20:46 – 0:20:51 into the matter and I don't want to make the explainer bear like that either. I actually wanted
0:20:51 – 0:21:04 more or less just point out and point out that frames, frames, picture frames,
0:21:04 – 0:21:13 Whatever you call it, it's something totally normal that our brains do all the time.
0:21:13 – 0:21:25 Assessing events, situations, categorizing them, giving them a weighting and a much-used
0:21:25 – 0:21:36 Stylistic means is to have a power of interpretation over a narrative. I can, as in an example
0:21:36 – 0:21:43 One and the same event, depending on how I tell it, what frame I pack it,
0:21:43 – 0:21:51 It has a completely different meaning. This is a manipulation technique. And on that
0:21:51 – 0:21:58 I just wanted to point it out. The last weeks and months are so many videos about so many people
0:21:58 – 0:22:11 where a manipulative narrative was used to create group narratives
0:22:11 – 0:22:22 Strengthening or weakening or reinforcing within yourself. And that's something I
0:22:22 – 0:22:31 or what Sarah and I have been watching extremely lately and yes,
0:22:31 – 0:22:40 But they are already very critical. Thank you for listening and
0:22:40 – 0:22:46 I know this was a terribly, terribly boring episode, but I think the one or
0:22:46 – 0:22:52 Others will understand what this is about. So, thank you nice and
0:22:52 – 0:22:56 Farewell to next time. Your Sasha
0:22:56 – 0:22:59 [Music]
0:22:59 – 0:23:05 [Music]
0:23:05 – 0:23:11 [Music]
0:23:11 – 0:23:17 [Music]
0:23:17 – 0:23:23 [Music]
0:23:23 – 0:23:26 [Music]
0:23:26 – 0:23:32 [Music]
0:23:32 – 0:23:38 [Music]
0:23:38 – 0:23:44 [Music]
0:23:44 – 0:23:50 [Music]
0:23:50 – 0:23:53 [Music]
0:23:53 – 0:23:59 [Music]
0:23:59 – 0:24:05 [Music]
0:24:05 – 0:24:11 [Music]
0:24:11 – 0:24:17 [Music]
0:24:17 – 0:24:20 [Music]
0:24:20 – 0:24:26 [Music]
0:24:26 – 0:24:32 [Music]
0:24:32 – 0:24:38 [Music]
0:24:38 – 0:24:45 [Music]
0:24:45 – 0:24:48 [Music]
0:24:48 – 0:24:54 [Music]
0:24:54 – 0:25:00 [Music]
0:25:00 – 0:25:06 [Music]
0:25:06 – 0:25:12 [Music]
0:25:12 – 0:25:15 [Music]
0:25:15 – 0:25:21 [Music]
0:25:21 – 0:25:27 [Music]
0:25:27 – 0:25:33 [Music]
0:25:33 – 0:25:39 [Music]
0:25:39 – 0:25:43 [Music]
0:25:43 – 0:25:50 [Music]
0:25:50 – 0:25:55 [Music]
0:25:55 – 0:26:02 [Music]
0:26:07 – 0:26:10 [Music]
0:26:10 – 0:26:16 [Music]
0:26:16 – 0:26:22 [Music]
0:26:22 – 0:26:28 [Music]
0:26:28 – 0:26:35 [Music]
0:26:35 – 0:26:38 [Music]
0:26:38 – 0:26:44 [Music]
0:26:44 – 0:26:50 [Music]
0:26:50 – 0:26:56 [Music]
0:26:56 – 0:27:02 [Music]
0:27:02 – 0:27:14 [Music]
0:27:14 – 0:27:17 [Music]

Each of us does it, mostly in fractions of a second: We classify, evaluate and sort experiences. But what happens when this psychological mechanism is deliberately triggered from the outside in order to gain interpretive sovereignty?

In this episode, the divergence Sascha dissects the phenomenon of framing. Why does the targeted manipulation through omissions, changed sequences or emotional terms on social media work so frighteningly well?? Using the concrete example of current YouTube beefs and own experiences with the channel Lautfunk It shows how a perceived ‘truth’ is suddenly constructed from constant repetitions that has nothing to do with reality..

The most important thing at the end: How to defend yourself against an underlaid frame without taking over the rules of the game of the opponent? The change to the meta-level and the art of reframing.

“The most dangerous frame is not the one you object to. The most dangerous frame is the one you don't even recognize as a frame.”

🎧 Topics Outline:

🟢 Intro & Definition

Welcome to Digression | Welcome and introduction to the episode.
The foundation: Pictures and frames | What distinguishes a narrative (meaning and value foundation) from a frame (narrative frame) and the actual image content?.
The core problem | Why the most dangerous frame is the one we don't even perceive as such.

🔍 The Nature of Framing

The linguistic experiment | How the same act is assessed in completely different ways by terms such as ‘demonstrators’ vs. ‘climate chaos’.
Automatic evaluation | Why our brain frames constantly and unconsciously in fractions of a second to reduce complexity.
The Limit to Lies | When does the mere classification give way to a deliberate false narrative?.

💥 Dynamics on Social Media & Case Studies

The Truth of the Masses | How completely distorted images solidify through constant repetition in social media beefs.
Case study Lautfunk | The Selective Narrative on the Loss of Monetization and the Correction of AI Voices Lautfunk RAW.
Transparency & Accessibility | The use of AI as an aid in dyslexia.
The case of Amy Zedek | review of the dynamics two years ago, the influence of wide-ranging channels and a critical self-reflection on his own podcast episode at the time.

🛠 The Tools of Manipulation

The Analogy of Art | Why the frame is sometimes more valuable (or determines the value) than the image itself.
The Toolbox of Framing | How contexts are deliberately shifted by:
- Labels & Labels (Activist, hater, expert).
- Selective omissions (Cut screenshots and video clips).
- dramaturgy (Chronological order of events).
- Source selection When it comes to opinion blogging.
Audiovisual framing | The subtle power of thumbnails, sub-headlines, and the psychological effect of background music in video editing.
In-Group vs. Out-Group | The Game of Enemy Images (‘We vs Die’).

🛡 Counter strategies & Conclusion

The justification trap | Why defense within the opposing frame only confirms its rules of the game.
The meta-view | Dissect the invisible frame like a surgeon to make it visible.
Reframing | Give the picture a new, more objective meaning.
The 4 test questions against manipulation | What to pay attention to (emotional words, role distribution, omissions, profit).
Outro | Summary, critical classification of the current network culture and adoption.