All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 1, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
35:52
2832 Emotional Dumping: Dangers of Taking Empathy Hostages

Stefan Molyneux discusses the dangers of emotional dumping, overwhelming people with your trauma, avoiding connection through horror and taking empathy hostages.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Made Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
So this morning, I would like to chat about the near-infinite blarp.
B-L-A-R-P. Blarp.
Now, the BLARP is a term that I use for the massive cascade of emotional bombardment that often comes spraying out of traumatized people.
And it's important to be aware of it because I actually think it's not healthy or helpful.
So the blarp occurs when you get into the topic of someone's childhood and, you know, like the rolling down bomb of the Dambusters missions, it blows wide the dam and out comes pouring this tsunami of grief and horror and misery and so on.
And you sort of feel after a while like an astronaut trainer in an out-of-control centrifuge, like...
Yeah.
Lips peeling back from your teeth, your teeth peeling back from their gums, and so on.
And, you know, you want to be compassionate, and you, of course, you know, people have genuinely suffered in these childhoods, and any person of reasonable empathy feels terrible for what happened to these people as children.
But also, at the same time, it's hard to escape the feeling.
That there's something kind of off about the whole interaction and notably what's off is at the end of it no sense of connection or resolution or closure or progress.
There is this myth And you can see it in goodwill hunting and ordinary people and so on.
There's this myth that once you connect emotionally with trauma, right?
So you resist connection, you resist connection with trauma, and then you have this magical connection.
The plug goes in, you throw yourself on the ground, you sob and scream and wail and try to wrangle an Oscar as much as humanly possible, and then you're better.
And that is a dramatic myth that does a huge amount of harm.
Like if I said, oh, did you lose range of motion?
Like say, I'm a physiotherapist.
You lost range of motion when you fell off your bike and cracked your forearm.
Well, I can help restore that range of motion for you.
And the person says, no, no, no, I won't.
My arm is fine.
I don't need it.
Right.
And then eventually they hurt themselves trying to pick up their child.
And they come to the physiotherapist and they're in tears and they say, okay, fix it in one go.
The physiotherapist would say, well, no, I'm glad that you've decided, but this is the beginning.
Not the end of your treatment.
The fact that you have decided to truly engage in physiotherapy means that now you begin the painful process of stretching and massaging and I don't know, whatever goes on with these kind of recovery programs.
But I guess, I mean, people love the easy stuff, right?
The therapist does something.
The emotions hit me.
I connect.
I cry.
It's sort of involuntary.
And then...
I... I'm done.
I feel better.
I'm good.
I'm good!
I had the cry.
Well...
Somebody who's 50 pounds overweight.
I'm not fat.
I don't need to diet.
I don't need to exercise.
It's all a scam.
Dieticians are con men and con women and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then he feels heart pain climbing the stairs.
He runs to his nutritionist and he says, I'm ready for my nutrition.
I'm ready.
I'm ready.
Cure me.
It was like, I'm glad you're ready, but man, crying isn't going to make you thin.
Crying isn't going to give you range of motion back in your arm.
And crying isn't going to get rid of your trauma.
Right?
This is the sort of catharsis idea.
That if you're angry and you play a video game, you get out your anger.
You get out your frustration.
It's uncorked.
It's released anger.
And you're all better.
As far as I understand it, even in terms of psychological experiments, this is not...
Even remotely true.
Not even remotely true.
In fact, quite the opposite is true.
If you're angry and you engage in enraging activities, well, guess what?
Anger is a muscle, and if you continue to exercise that muscle, it gets stronger.
Whatever you exercise gets stronger.
Whatever you don't exercise gets weaker.
These are habits that are lifelong.
For me, I started exercising when I was 15 or 16.
And now it's been 33 years.
I've taken a little bit of time off here and there for the occasional soft tissue injury, but for the most part it's, I mean, almost exclusively I've just kept going.
It's a lifelong habit.
Mental health is a lifelong habit.
And so this idea that, you know, if you just need to get your anger out, you know, like a friend of mine when I was a teenager had this, you know, throw beer bottles at a wall.
Get your anger out.
You know, like it's a pimple or a cyst or something, a boil.
Pop it, lance it.
Ah, much better.
And this is, I mean, it's a pretty retarded view of mental health.
That a negative emotion or an uncomfortable emotion builds up like fluid.
Must have a lot of water in my brain.
And you release it.
It's not a bag of water.
The brain is not a balloon that you can over-inflate.
I mean, anger, a sort of chronic anger, is a habit.
It's stimulated, of course, originally usually by childhood trauma, but...
Then it maintains itself through incorrect thinking, through irrational thinking, right?
So if you sort of sit down in a dark room and repeat to yourself over and over and over again, everybody else gets what they want.
I never get what I want.
If you keep repeating this to yourself, after a while, waves of self-pity will roll over you.
If you keep repeating to yourself that you're a victim being exploited by dark forces beyond your power, frustration and rage and helplessness will result.
And I'm not saying that...
I mean...
I'm not saying that the emotions...
I'm not...
The objectivist approach that emotions are the sum total of your cognitive thoughts I don't think is true.
I know it's not true.
But you can, to some degree, program your emotions with irrational thinking.
And you can also deprogram your mind with rational emotions.
So, it's a complex two-way relationship, which we don't have to sort of get into great detail about at the moment.
But because there's this idea, and it fundamentally comes out of Christianity, right?
That, let's say, sin or evil is a series of bad decisions and bad habits...
But sin or evil can be cured by the passive, accept Jesus, I guess some would say not passive, but accept Jesus into your heart and accept the grace of God and lo and behold, your sin is cured.
So because of the incorruptible nature of the soul, because the soul always retains the capacity for virtue no matter what, then virtue is in a sense always in there and you just need to connect with it.
And when you do connect with it and you connect with the soul and you connect with the divine, then you receive the infinite power of God's grace to remake your life.
So as the old proverb has it, habits begin as cobwebs and end up as chains.
So if you make a series of bad decisions, for whatever we can understand the reasons, but if you make a series of bad decisions, then you end up with habits that are chains.
Now, there's not a bunch of cobwebs in the chains that the right words can blow away the chains, reveal the cobwebs, and you can walk away free of your habits.
You have to use a file, and you have to sand down the chains, and really all you can do is wear them away.
You can't just suddenly snap your chains and be free.
So, I mean, if you think of ethics or virtue like exercise, it's continual work, right?
Like, if you don't exercise, there's not one moment where you cry about being flabby and then get a six-pack and great muscles.
It doesn't work that way.
You can say, I'm tired of being flabby, and then you can start to exercise, and then you will have to continue exercising regularly.
For as long as you possibly can in order to retain the value of exercise in the present.
I mean, there's some vague echo effects and so on, but generally that's the way it works.
And we know this is true from dieting because like 3% of dieters keep their weight off because they're not willing to permanently change their behavior.
Don't look back!
You will be turned into a pillar of fat, saith the Lord of the calories.
So, exercise...
Stretching.
If you want to retain your limber nature and you want to keep your tendons at a good length, then you stretch every day.
And if you don't, then your tendons will tend to shorten.
Anyway, so as far as mental health goes, well, it's a lifelong practice of discipline, of self-knowledge, of referral to principles, of keeping your social environment free of So,
we have this idea that...
Peace of mind, mental health, good relations with self and others, good relations to reality, virtue, courage, that all of these things are sort of built up and in the way of these things.
The dam that is holding these things back is avoidance of crying or avoidance of anger or avoidance of whatever, right?
And that's the mental health model that most people work with.
But it's not true.
I mean, it's not just not true philosophically.
Again, as far as I've read, it's not true in terms of what is understood about psychology.
Thoughts are habits, and like all habits, there is no particular moment where you just have some big convulsive emotional experience and those habits are gone.
It just does not work that way.
It's lazy and it sets people up for failure.
Because they probably feel better, right?
There are endorphins and stuff released after you cry, which make you feel better.
And then people say, oh, I'm better.
And then two or three days later, they're back to where they were and they get frustrated and hopeless.
And then they say, well, then there's no point being in touch with my emotions.
If it only makes me feel better, I cry.
It makes me feel better for a little bit.
And then I'm unhappy again and all this, that and the other, right?
So it's a great way to set people up for failure and to get them to avoid the necessary long-term and hard work that is necessary to change mental and emotional habits.
And plus, of course, it tends to underestimate.
You know, it's really hard.
To lose weight and keep it off if all your friends and family are fat and have terrible habits, right?
This is sort of well known that if you want to start exercising, get a buddy, you know, and then meet that person at the gym.
And then, you know, that person, or like any addiction or any bad habits, there's a sponsor or someone that you can go through the process with.
It's also well known in addiction circles that if you hang around with people who still have the same addiction, your chances of recovery go down enormously.
And so if you want mental health, and I'm not just talking about conformity, but if you want mental health vis-a-vis reality, if you want to live philosophically...
Then you are shedding illusions, and if everyone around you is steadfastly maintaining those illusions as if they're truth, that's going to undermine your recovery in the same way that if you're trying to lose weight and your obese family keeps offering you bad food and keeps mocking you for going to the gym, then that's going to be hard to maintain.
now even if you fix your personal relationships unless you completely disconnect from all kinds of media you will also get you know craziness lurking and looming in the world in the social world that you live in you will read crazy stuff I just did a had a chat with Noam Chomsky and he was talking about reading the New York Times with regards to a memorial for Vietnam and
And in that memorial, there was a debate about whether it should just be the soldiers who are memorialized or whether it should also include the anti-war protesters and so on.
And he said, you know, the question as to whether what the United States did was an international war crime is never even discussed.
Most things in society are only true in the shadows.
And the shadows are themselves buried in shadows and very hard to see.
You don't see the thing itself in the sort of platonic sense.
You don't see the thing itself.
You don't see the war crime itself.
You only see the war crime because it's not talked about.
It's specifically avoided.
And so you're seeing the shadow of the war crime only because it's not there.
And the only shadow is that it's not even talked about.
It's hard to see.
I mean, it's very effective.
That's just one of many examples.
But, oh, you see, there's this constant lying that occurs, right?
I mean, the CDC, which gets billions and billions, I think $7 billion to fight disease, only spends about 6% of its money fighting disease.
The rest of it is, let's make playground safe, and let's get motorcycle helmet laws, and let's promote good relationships, and all this sort of nonsense, right?
And, you know, with Thomas Duncan, he's admitted, and they say, well, it was a software glitch as to why the doctors didn't know that he was from Liberia.
And then they say, well, no, actually it wasn't really that.
And, of course, the reality of the situation is that the electronics record system is forced upon hospitals by the government, which subsidizes the producers of said...
Hospital record system to the tune of like $30 billion, and in return, the people who make the hospital record systems donate particularly to the Democrats, and it's all just, right?
So, you know, the grossness and hideousness of, you know, and then the director says, well, the nurse didn't follow protocol, and then it turns out that there was no protocol, and then when there was a protocol, the protocol kept changing, and they had no hazmat suits, and they had to basically put tape around their necks to try and keep themselves clear of Thomas Duncan's Projectile vomiting and diarrhea and so on, right?
I mean, so, it's just lies.
You know, just lies.
I mean, so, if you have anything to do with the media, TV, media, movies, right, it's all just so full of unbelievable, horrifying, ass-covering, soul-destroying lies.
So, the entire culture is sick, in general.
So I just really wanted to reinforce this idea.
I want you to succeed in your goal of living philosophically, right?
I want you to lose the invisible choking weight of illusions and delusions and strive for virtue, right?
And I need to be realistic with you and tell you that you have lots of chains to wear away with like a pressure hoser.
And they regrow because there's always culture trying to put your chains back on you.
And if you have irrational people in your social circle and destructive people in your social circle, they'll be trying to put those chains back on you.
So it's a constant challenge.
I wouldn't say a constant fight, but it's something to be mindful of, the degree to which...
You know, if you put crabs in a bucket, you don't need to put a lid on it, because the moment one crab tries to crawl out, the other crabs will grab it with their pincers and pull it back in.
And that's basically society in a nutshell.
He's going for freedom!
Shoot him, boys!
But just with a tranquilizer dart and only in the leg.
So the blarp occurs for a variety of reasons, right?
The sort of just giant emotional dumping that remains unsatisfying to everyone and does not particularly promote progress.
It arises, I think, from this misconception that there's a buildup of negative emotion and when you express that negative emotion, you discharge that buildup and then you are all better or on your way to being better and so on.
And, you know, good will hunting, right?
Matt Damon's character, Will, I guess, good will hunting.
He's defensive and manipulative and so on.
And then he cries.
And then he's all better.
So, the Blarp occurs because there is, I think, there's this idea on both sides of the conversation, or really the monologue, that if I tell the horrors of my childhood, then I will improve.
Now, certainly, acknowledging the horrors of your childhood is important.
And certainly, you don't want to keep them as a guilty secret.
And I think that the Alice Miller idea of the enlightened witness of somebody who witnesses your suffering, or the suffering of your childhood, and empathizes and sympathizes is important.
But that only marks the beginning of Of the healing process.
It is not the end of the healing process.
And people get frustrated.
You know, they blarp and they may feel better for a bit because the endorphins release from crying and so on.
And it does feel good, of course.
I mean, it feels better to have somebody sympathize and care and listen and so on.
So they blarp, and then they feel better for a little bit, and then, well, the chains are the chains, right?
They're still there.
Because people think that that's made them free, or that's given them peace of mind, but it hasn't.
All it's done is acknowledge that there's a problem.
But if they think that...
The acknowledgement of the problem is the cure of the problem.
Well, then they're wrong, as far as I know.
Again, this is not all syllogistical, but there's good evidence for what I'm saying.
I mean, I've known women 65 years old with a 90-year-old mother...
Who are, you know, crying about how their mother mistreats them and so on.
And in genuine tears.
But what happens?
I mean, they've been doing this for 65 years and yet they're still enmeshed in this terrible relationship.
Horrible.
Doesn't solve.
You can cry about your fears of getting sick from smoking.
But that does not mean that you have now quit smoking.
So...
The blarp occurs when somebody finds a sympathetic listener and then discharges all of the horror of their childhood on that listener.
It is, I think, not healthy.
And again, these are all just my amateur opinions, but I'll make the case.
I think it's not healthy for a variety of reasons.
First and foremost, it's not healthy because blarping occurs without empathy for the listener.
You're drowning and a floating log comes in.
You just grab the log, right?
You don't care about the log.
It's just something to keep you from drowning.
And if people are suffering from intensely negative emotions, they grab the ears of someone and pour all those negative emotions into that ear, really without a huge amount of concern for the listener.
And that strikes me more as a reenactment of sort of claustrophobic emotions Emotional vomiting parental habits in a victimized childhood.
Is there empathy for the listener to the childhood horrors?
How is this affecting you?
Are you okay?
Do you have any experience with stuff like this before?
I really don't want to use you as my poison container, as Lloyd DeMoss talks about.
I don't want to use you...
As a receptacle, an empty receptacle, into which I vomit or discharge my negative emotions in the hopes of gaining immediate relief at the expense of long-term progress.
I don't want to use you.
Now, blarping has that sense.
I know that's not philosophical at all, but nonetheless, it has that sense of being grabbed...
Like a log by a drowning man or woman and just being used as a receptacle for negative emotions.
And there are some ways that you can, you know, figure this one out or see if this is true.
One of the ways is, does the person ask you if you wish to engage in this kind of conversation?
Look, I'm not talking about my call-in shows because that's, I mean, we know and it's not talking about that.
Does the person say, well, listen, I've got some negative experiences and negative emotions.
I'd like to talk to you about them.
You know, how are you?
Where are you at in this?
Are you able to listen?
Are you in a good space to listen?
And so on, right?
In other words, do they have some care and concern for your experiences before they blarp?
You know, or are you just, look, there's an ear that won't run away.
Let me vomit into it.
So do they check in with you?
Because they're asking you to do something that's difficult and which can be traumatic and can be painful to listen to and can color your mood for days or more.
You also might be depressed.
You also might be someone suffering from a bad childhood.
You may have had a parent who blarped on you regularly.
The blarping.
In which case, someone else dumping their emotional crap on you is a reinfliction of your trauma, right?
So, does it come from sensitivity to the listener?
Well, if it doesn't, then I don't think it's healthy.
Because people suffer in their childhoods fundamentally from a lack of empathy in their caregivers.
And with a lack of empathy comes the inevitable perspective that other people are empty vessels or utilities for you to exploit.
I don't have empathy for my car.
I don't ask it where it wants to go.
Well, that Microsoft, where do you want to go today?
Your software doesn't actually ask you.
It just sits there waiting for you to do stuff.
And then blue screens your ass.
Never get a new computer.
I play that game.
All right.
How many updates till I get blue screened?
So if people were victimized as children...
It was because of a lack of empathy and the use of others, particularly parents to children, as empty objects to be used by the parent with no thought or concern for the feeling of the victim.
The need of the parent, right?
My mom needs to talk about her dating life.
She doesn't ever ask me if I want to hear about her dating life because that's her need.
I'm just a log and she's drowning, she grabs.
She doesn't ask the log whether the log mine's being grabbed because the log has no emotions of its own.
And should the log protest, she will simply scream at the log until the log complies, because it's incredibly selfish for the log to have emotions that contradict the needs of the drowning person.
And so if people were victimized in their childhoods by parents or caregivers without empathy, who simply emotionally dumped on the children or acted out against the children, I'm in a bad mood, you did something wrong, I'm going to yell at you or hit you or whatever, right?
We all have those temptations as parents.
We all have stuff that makes us cranky from time to time and that affects our parenting.
You just have to be conscious and aware of it, right?
So, if, as a child, the Blopper suffered from being used as an emotional tampon, then using other people as an emotional tampon is not going to make them better, it is in fact going to make them worse.
Re-enacting your abuse in the body of the abuser, or in the mind of the abuser, makes you worse.
The only way to survive abuse is to never enter or act out on the mindset of the abuser.
I mean, never is a strong word, and it's probably impossible to never inhabit that mindset, but to resist doing whatever the abuser did is essential to overcoming abuse.
I mean, it's the Dr.
Phil thing, right?
His dad was an alcoholic, so he doesn't touch alcohol.
He's just doing the opposite, right?
So, in many ways, the blarping can be viewed as a reenactment of abuse rather than a changing of habits, rather than a resolution of abuse, which is why it's so fundamentally unsatisfying and why people can just keep blarping and keep blarping for the immediate hit of feeling better in the moment but never actually make any progress and in fact deteriorate.
And then, of course, people get weary of the blarping and don't want to hear it again, and then the person gets to feel hurt and rejected, and then they feel really bad, so then they've got to go out and find a new...
Blarpy, right?
A new person to pour their trauma into and so on.
And for women, of course, in particular, if they're physically attractive in particular, then they can find, you know, shake your tits, find a blarpy.
And that is, of course, the pattern of a lot of traumatized women, right?
They use their sexual attractiveness and then blarp on men and then The men stick around, and then they get weary, but then they can snap their fingers and get a new larpy, which is why the sort of sexual attractiveness stuff is so dangerous.
Sexual attractiveness for both sectors is a massive subsidy.
You can get people to pay attention to you, or your eggs, or your resources, or whatever.
You get people to pay attention to you.
It's a massive subsidy, and subsidies promote inefficiency, and subsidies promote exploitation.
So...
An attractive woman can always find a man to pretend to listen to her attentively.
And, you know, a man with perhaps more insight than virtue will recognize that being blurbed on will often lead to sex because there's the immediate relief, the endorphins and so on, and their sexual availability follows emotional dumping, which is why a lot of men hang around for the emotional dumping for the sexual availability that follows.
So that's one of the reasons why Blarping is bad, bad for people.
Another reason is it's win-lose, right?
So the blarper feels better, but the blarper feels worse.
If you sort of have sat and listened to somebody talk for an hour or two about horrible childhood trauma, you feel pretty bad afterwards, right?
You're upset, angry, hurt, frustrated.
And so it's like, whew, I feel better, right?
Says the blarper, the blarpee, is like, I can't breathe.
Elephant of history taking a crap on my chest.
So it's win-lose.
And, I mean, I would argue, of course, that the major purpose of mental health is to focus on the win-win negotiation, right?
Not the win-lose.
Sustainable relationships are always win-win.
Exploitive relationships, I guess they can sustain in horrible ways.
Sadism and masochism, perhaps, combined.
But mental health is the pursuit of win-win relationships.
And blarp and blarpy is a win-lose relationship.
And as a win-lose relationship, it's a reenactment of the abuse.
So the person who's blarping really only feels their own emotions and has no sensitivity for the emotions of the listener.
And the listener, generally, has no sense of his own emotions, only the emotions being provoked by the blarper.
It's a hijacking.
of one's emotional system to hear trauma, right?
I mean, there's not many people who can watch the opening 20 minutes, sort of head-blasting, human-disassembling opening 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan and feel bored or indifferent or Worry whether they picked up milk that morning.
That Spielberg and company, they take over your emotional system with the stimuli that's all around you.
And so it is an erasure.
I mean, you're allowed to ask questions and clarifications, but when someone's blarping, are you allowed or encouraged to bring your emotional experience to the interaction, your direct emotional experience?
Suppose you feel irritated, like it's gone on too long.
Are you allowed to bring your irritation to somebody who's wailing and gnashing their teeth about their horrible childhood?
Well, generally, no.
That's considered to be insensitive, right?
It's a form of domination.
Because when someone's weeping and wailing about a terrible childhood, there is a kind of domination that occurs in that insofar as you really can't have your own emotional experiences if they conflict with the needs, right?
Again, we're back to sort of the parental poison container paradigm.
You're just not allowed to have your own emotional needs if they conflict with what's going on.
I mean, instinctually, you might feel used.
You might feel resentful.
You might feel eclipsed.
You might feel invisible.
You might feel kind of bullied in a way.
I'm not saying always, but you might.
Certainly, there would be good reasons to feel that at times with these kinds of situations.
Are you allowed to say, I'm really, really annoyed at this.
It's been going on for an hour.
You've not asked me.
You didn't ask me if I wanted to participate.
You just kind of started talking.
You blurped on me.
You did not ask me how I was doing.
I'm finding this really difficult.
I don't know when it's going to end, and I don't think it's actually particularly healthy.
Are you allowed to bring your emotional reality, if that's what it is, to the interaction?
Well, I guess not, because then you'll be accused of being insensitive.
Right?
So the person who's emotionally dumping on you without even asking first and without asking how you're doing is now going to call you insensitive.
And so you're in a situation where you're dominated by the other person's emotional neediness.
you can't have your own expressed experience.
If you have your own experience of irritation or boredom or frustration or bewilderment or, you know, the too muchness of the horror or whatever, you can't say it, and in fact, you have to hide it.
So the horror dominates and eclipses you as an individual, and you then have to be the passive, empty vessel of nodding and making sympathetic sounds that, But you as a human being with independent emotional experiences, you as a human being have ceased to exist.
You have become an empty, conforming vessel designed to hold prior trauma.
That is not a good experience.
That is not a healthy interaction.
Are you allowed, let's say that it's a woman who's 30 or whatever, right?
Are you allowed to challenge the victim narrative?
As children, yeah, victims.
Absolutely.
But let's say she's angry at her parents, and let's say her parents were 30 when they abused her.
So her parents have moral responsibility at the age of 30, even though, doubtless, her parents had very bad childhoods as well.
So has she done things that are wrong at the age of 30?
Has she used or abused or exploited other people?
Well, in which case, she can't just get angry at her parents.
Because she's now in the category of, had bad childhood, has done abusive things.
Are you allowed to challenge the victim narrative?
I mean, the victim narrative has a lot to do with avoiding personal responsibility.
You know, portraying yourself as a victim of a bad childhood, even though you might be 30 years old and have exploited other people, where you can't get angry at a moral category you inhabit.
I mean, you can, but are you allowed to call that out?
Are you allowed to point that out?
You know, I sympathize with your victimhood as a child, but I'm a little confused because you say that your parents did these bad things, but I've known you to do a few bad things.
Where's your sympathy?
That was because of my childhood.
It's like, yes, but you're angry at your parents and they had their bad childhood, so when do you actually have moral responsibility to no longer do bad things?
Right?
Can you challenge the victim narrative?
If it's appropriate and if there's evidence?
Sure.
Well, if you can't, then again, you're in a win-lose, anti-empathetic, exploit-and-erase situation, which is a continuation and a reenactment of the child abuse in an unconscious way, which contributes to the trauma.
It makes the chains stronger.
Are you allowed to suggest therapy?
You know, wow, you've got a lot of stuff to deal with there, you know, and I'm sorry, and I can listen, and I can give you some, in my show, I can give some sort of philosophical principles that hopefully clarify some things, but I'm not always telling people, I'm a broken record telling people to go to therapy.
Note to younger listeners, broken record does not refer to the Guinness Book of World, but rather to an ancient method of relaying music through plastic, you know, and if the person is, you know, Wants to fix it themselves and doesn't want to go to therapy and finds ways of avoiding therapy.
Well, then they're saying, it really bothers me that I don't have full movement in my arm.
It's like, well, I can certainly sympathize with you and I think that's terrible and I'm sorry you got injured, but you kind of need to go to a physiotherapist to fix this, right?
Telling me about it is not going to fix your arm, right?
And can you say that?
Can you do that?
Well, if you can't, if the person gets upset...
Then you are in a blarp apocalypse.
And I think you're actually just enabling negative or destructive behavior.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
Send me your experiences.
Don't blarp on me.
Don't blarp me, bro!
But do tell me your experiences with this and tell me whether what I'm saying has any accord with what you've experienced.
I'm really sort of curious to know.
So send me a message, drop me a line, and donate if you can, please, please, please.
FDRURL.com slash donate.
I will talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection