@barisanhantu I said fuck that and fuck anyone that has any issue with me expressing my emotions or my point of view in a situation because I have knowledge about it. And far too often people are realizing that I think about and look into the things I talk about way more than they do.
Things the recovery industry will not tell you:
1. The drug worked. That is why people use it. Not weakness. Not moral failure.
A neurological event so complete and persuasive that any honest account of addiction has to start there.
The problem is not that the drug fails. The problem is that what it does is unrepeatable, and you will burn your entire life to the ground trying to get back to a place that no longer exists.
2. Shame is not guilt. Guilt says I did something bad. Shame says I am something bad. Guilt is appropriate. Shame is a cell with no windows. Most people use the words interchangeably. That mistake is lethal.
3. You cannot shame someone who has already named the thing you are holding over them. Say it first. Say it in plain light. The weapon drops.
4. Guilt can coexist with self-respect. Shame cannot. You can hold the damage and the dignity at the same time. I know because I live there.
5. Radical honesty does not give you back who you were. It hands you the clean slate of who you always wanted to be. The mask comes off. The cartoon other people drew of you stays on the page.
6. Nobody gets clean on a winning streak.
7. You have to be almost self-delusional in your forgiveness of yourself. (Go watch Chase Hughes)
8. The greatest sin was not the chaos. It was the absence. Being unavailable to the people who needed you.
9. Sustainable recovery starts with one thing: honesty with yourself. If you love an addict and want to help, that is the only door in.
10. I am only an expert on my recovery. Nobody is an expert on anyone else’s.
@You_BetterStop@SnakeyBoy047@hankgreen@MemeCopium@TheBrianMcManus Yes, it could be used to show a channel can take off. He didn't do that, though. He also didn't get the views organically. He paid for them. Most people do not have $600 to spend on advertising your in the algorithm.
Y'all think you're making good points when they're just bad.
@radiofled@MemeCopium He's happy with the results of an experiment that he lost money on and didn't show what he set out to show. That's what you think when you consider something a success. Lol. You can try to claim he didn't say that explicitly, but we both know what "happy with the results" means.
@SnakeyBoy047@hankgreen@MemeCopium@TheBrianMcManus One 10k views video with views paid $600 for is not a success story replicateable by most people on the planet. The experiment failed to show what he wanted because he added a variable that most people do not have to invest. It was bad. He's an idiot. And y'all are gullible.
@radiofled@hankgreen@MemeCopium No, the point is that he paid $600 for advertisement of the video. He made the video claiming it was a success (the cope mentioned by OP), then his viewers ran the numbers up.
Perhaps, the denseness is not coming from me on this one. It looks like it is, in fact, y'all.
@MangaisKing@hankgreen@MemeCopium@TheBrianMcManus Nothing has been lied about. Ludwig coped about the 10k views he paid for with $600 advertisement to his audience, who then found and blew up the video. It has since been shown as a success story and example of just hard work being what you need to succeed. You need much more.
@LarkSolitary Ludwig "coped" when he made the video about the Secret Channel he spent $600 advertising. He then claimed victory after it blew up harder cuz of his fans flooding it. Nothing about what @hankgreen said was true about this post. That's why he deleted his response to me.
@hankgreen@MemeCopium@TheBrianMcManus Thank you for deleting what you said because it was wrong. His video, as OP has explained, boosted the secret channel video. He also paid money to promote it. Money most people don't have. The experiment was badly formed and carried out. Nothing about this post is incorrect.
@ESOLallstars@marwood_lennox Oh, right, a firebombing does sound particularly bad. Afterward, did they find the publishers and authors work location so they could kill them like Muslims did against Charlie Hebdo? If not it's not comparable.
@marwood_lennox@MiltonEverglade How many people were killed for Life Of Brian vs how many have been killed for drawing a picture of Mohammed? That's the comparison Ian is making. You're focusing on censorship cuz you know the answer to my question.
@Economix191@FionaSmall Yah, it's just the easiest thing for them to point to, despite him acknowledging that it was banned. They don't have any actual food faith response, because there isn't one.