# Are political echo chambers bad for society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203 "2015-07-15T01:53:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/61 "2015-07-17T20:50:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > In the meantime the Obama administration has increased the funding for the still under construction nuclear power plants. (That fell into a lot of disrepute after a few disasters that many from the left and the right are aware of) Do you have a cite for this? I believe you but I would like to understand how much he is supporting plants under construction. It will be hard for him to make up for the damage he did at Yucca Mountain. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is because I found that indeed it is the Republicans the ones that are not willing to vote for concerted efforts to control our emissions that do include nuclear power, BTW I have pointed at this bit of legislation several times in the past, that you ignore it is a clear demonstration of what the echo chamber is doing to you: > > [Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 Introduced - OurEnergyPolicy](http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/clean-energy-standard-act-of-2012-introduced/) GIGO, I love your passion for this topic but I believe it leads you to blame Republicans in situations where it isn’t warranted. We didn’t need new emissions legislation to build more plants, we just needed the left to work with Republicans to get it done. I agree that nukes + emission regulations is better than just nukes but right now we have neither because the left does not support nuclear power. IMO you’re shift all the blame to Republicans when the left is just as culpable. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/62 "2015-07-17T21:00:37Z")
If one person is providing citations and evidence, and another is just sure about truths, it becomes pretty clear which person is more likely to be checking their assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/63 "2015-07-17T21:01:37Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Do you have a cite for this? I believe you but I would like to understand how much he is supporting plants under construction. It will be hard for him to make up for the damage he did at Yucca Mountain. Ignoring what I said about the clear unwillingness from the Republican dominated states to take over the effort should tell you that indeed the problem is NIMBY. > [@Deeg](#): > > GIGO, I love your passion for this topic but I believe it leads you to blame Republicans in situations where it isn’t warranted. Sorry, it is warranted. > **[Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/climate-of-doubt/?)** > > FRONTLINE explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change. > [@](#): > > BOB INGLIS (R), Fmr. Congressman, South Carolina: You know, I’m pretty conservative fellow. I got a 93 American Conservative Union rating, 100 percent Christian Coalition, 100 percent National Right to Life, A with the NRA, zero with the ADA, Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, and 23 by some mistake with the AFL-CIO. I demand a recount. I wanted a zero. > > JOHN HOCKENBERRY: But Inglis does accept the scientific consensus on global warming and favors legislation to curb the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. He faced a Tea Party rebellion in his primary. > > BOB INGLIS: I had a big tent gathering in Spartanberg County, a bunch of Republicans underneath a great big tent. Comes a question to me, “Yes or no, do you believe in human causation on climate change?” Well, I had a bad habit of answering questions, so I said yes. Boo, hiss, comes the crowd. I was blasted out from underneath the tent. And so— I mean, there were a couple of hundred, 300 people there. I mean, it was intense. > [@](#): > > … > > JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Inglis was defeated. > > … > > Rep. JAMES SENSENBRENNER: That was a very key factor in 10 to 15 congressional districts in the 2010 election, where strong supporters of climate change legislation ended up being defeated. > > Sen. JOHN KERRY: And there’s nothing like a loss in an election to promote fear in the survivors. And that’s exactly what happened in the United States Congress. Currently it is deniers the ones that are controlling the Republican Party, and a big effort for the echo chamber of the right is to not let moderates like you to find what the Republicans are doing (or not doing) regarding this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/64 "2015-07-17T21:12:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ignoring what I said about the clear unwillingness from the Republican dominated states to take over the effort should tell you that indeed the problem is NIMBY. I did not ignore it; in fact I explicitly responded to it. Does this mean you don’t have a cite regarding Obama? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry, it is warranted. > > [Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/) _sigh_ This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Yes, Republicans are clearly wrong about AGW and fighting it tooth and nail. I didn’t see a transcript of the video but the stuff you pasted does not mention nuclear power at all. This has **nothing** to do with the left’s reluctance to support nuclear power. You keep trying to indicate that I’m a product of a Republican echo chamber. The problem is that I get most of my news from NPR, the BBC, and the SDMB (and the occasional Boston Globe article). I get nothing from what one would consider to be Republican news sources. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/65 "2015-07-17T21:29:56Z")
[quote=“Deeg, post:64, topic:725203”] I did not ignore it; in fact I explicitly responded to it. Does this mean you don’t have a cite regarding Obama? I actually have, before and I posted this before in a previous thread to you too, so lets keep that into account regarding who is learning about this issue. > **[Obama says he supported the first new nuclear power plant in three decades](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/mar/02/barack-obama/obama-says-he-supported-first-nuclear-power-plant-/)** > > Countering Republican attacks on gas prices, President Barack Obama gave a hard-hitting speech on energy policy in Miami > [@](#): > > The administration’s support > > Obama said in his speech that his administration “supported” the new nuclear plants. Again, experts agreed this was so, particularly since the administration is in final negotiations to support the Southern Co.’s construction with $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees. > > Back in February 2010, when the project received conditional approval, Obama himself praised the deal, connecting it to the need for climate change legislation. > > “To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we need to increase our supply of nuclear power, and today’s announcement helps to move us down that path,” he said. > > Our ruling > > Obama said, “We supported the first new nuclear power plant in three decades.” He is right that it’s been that long since a new nuclear reactor has been licensed. However, because it takes so long to construct nuclear power plants, the most recent plant actually opened in 1996. > > The experts we spoke with, both those who support nuclear power and those who oppose it, said that Obama’s statement was largely accurate, given that the last time a nuclear reactor received federal approval was 1978. And, his administration has so far supported the recent approval of new reactors in Georgia with $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees. And my point stands then, the Republicans talk a lot but in the end they are not moving much regarding an option on where to leave the spent nuclear fuel. > [@Deeg](#): > > _sigh_ This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Yes, Republicans are clearly wrong about AGW and fighting it tooth and nail. I didn’t see a transcript of the video but the stuff you pasted does not mention nuclear power at all. This has **nothing** to do with the left’s reluctance to support nuclear power. As I pointed before it is essential for the right to ignore what the Republicans did (and continue to not do) regarding the legislation that supports nuclear power under a framework to control our emissions. > [@Deeg](#): > > You keep trying to indicate that I’m a product of a Republican echo chamber. The problem is that I get most of my news from NPR, the BBC, and the SDMB (and the occasional Boston Globe article). I get nothing from what one would consider to be Republican news sources. In this case I will have to rely on my experience regarding past contrarians, what you demonstrate so far is that you are not aware of how a lot of distorted information gets to one thanks to the peers one has. And that is one big element of the echo chamber IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/66 "2015-07-17T21:48:27Z")
BTW, I can grant that you are trying to be fair, but the problem is that a lot of what we are dealing here is also distorted by the mainstream media and right wing media that also goes with the assumption that “there are 2 sides to the issue” when on many occasions I can see clearly were historians, scientists and serious investigative reports tell us that it is taking place. We have to realize that echo chamber or not, there are issues were one side is clearly into pseudo science or both sides are. I prefer then to encourage the ones that are more in tune with the evidence and regarding nuclear power I do know that a good number of democrats are dumb, but in this case we have leaders that are willing to put the money in support of nuclear power. (Obama and many democrats approve of nuclear power when nuclear is part of a concerted effort to deal with our emissions) And in Arizona I found Republican leaders that did complain about what was done with Yucca Flat in Nevada (justified IMHO) but they ended up doing nothing about it. ---
**Author:** ![Construct](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@Construct](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Construct)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2015, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/67 "2015-07-18T05:30:46Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > @ **Construct** : It is awesome that you would choose gay marriage as an indictment of any sort of liberal echo chamber or liberal groupthink. > > Homosexuality, and gay marriage, have been social taboos; quite literally the product of nothing but group think. Evidence supporting prohibitions against them have been exclusively the product of echo chambers or supernatural sources (essentially gussied up group think). > > You’ve offered a firm defense of echo chamber reasoning, apparently completely ignorant of having done so. This is a common result of life in the progressive echo chamber. Liberals believe that there is no reason whatsoever to oppose their preferred policies. This is on it’s face unlikely – there is reason to support or oppose nearly every conceivable policy. And in fact, there are numerous arguments to oppose same-sex marriage that are grounded in logic and based on secular values. I’ll present three below: 1. Gay marriage, like all things in life, will have positive and negative effects. The US could adopt a policy of reasoned conservatism, preferring to let some states and foreign nations be the laboratory of radical social change and allowing us more information to evaluate gay marriage on the merits at a point in the future. 2. Progressives regularly teach that no one is entirely gay or straight, but rather that everyone varies in degree of bisexuality, and that sexual preference can vary based on circumstance. Consequently, government policies that discourage same sex relations, such as denial of marriage benefits, can in fact encourage people to enter heterosexual relationships. Because of the high rates of HIV in the male American gay community, and the community’s social resistance to measures that could reduce HIV transmission, encouraging heterosexual relations would be beneficial both for the health and financial welfare of gay people and the country at large. 3. Evidence indicates that children raised by homosexuals have worse life outcomes in a number of respects compared to children raised by nuclear families. Whether this is intrinsic to gay couples or is a consequence of gay people’s low sexual time preference and proclivity towards short term relationships is unclear, but evidence strongly suggests that gay people right now on average do not raise children who are as successful as children raised by nuclear families. Thus, the government should deny homosexuals the right to marry to discourage gay people from raising children. When conservative ideas are introduced in the liberal echo chamber, they are usually poorly understood and half-heartedly argued by devil’s advocates. Consequently, progressives can enjoy the noble lie that there is literally no reasoned opposition to their beliefs, living their lives in blissful ignorance detached from the real world. Their views, in terms of willful blindness to reality, do not differ from those of creationists and other wingnuts. I will certainly concede that there are positives to allowing homosexuals to obtain marriage licenses, most notably that marriage could act as a damper on the rampant promiscuity of the gay community in America. I’m also here on a far-left board with very few conservatives and critique to many of my comments. That’s evidently not an echo chamber. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2015, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/68 "2015-07-18T05:50:25Z")
> [@Construct](#): > > 1. Evidence indicates that children raised by homosexuals have worse life outcomes in a number of respects compared to children raised by nuclear families. Whether this is intrinsic to gay couples or is a consequence of gay people’s low sexual time preference and proclivity towards short term relationships is unclear, but evidence strongly suggests that gay people right now on average do not raise children who are as successful as children raised by nuclear families. Thus, the government should deny homosexuals the right to marry to discourage gay people from raising children. That is based on a study that contradicted many others and indeed, many are pointing to flaws to it: > **[How Lousy Gay Parenthood Makes a Case for Gay Marriage](https://slate.com/technology/2012/06/new-family-structures-study-is-gay-parenthood-bad-or-is-gay-marriage-good.html)** > > Read Mark Regnerus' Slate essay on the new gay-parents study. > [@](#): > > This loaded classification system produced predictable results. In his journal article, Regnerus says respondents who were labeled GF or LM originated most commonly from a “failed heterosexual union.” As evidence, he observes that “just under half of such respondents reported that their biological parents were once married.” Most respondents classified as LM “reported that their biological mother exited the respondent’s household at some point during their youth.” Regnerus calculates that only one-sixth to one-quarter of kids in the LM sample—and less than 1 percent of kids in the GF sample—were planned and raised by an already-established gay parent or couple. In Slate, he writes that GF kids “seldom reported living with their father for very long, and never with his partner for more than three years.” Similarly, “less than 2 percent” of LM kids “reported living with their mother and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.” > > In short, these people aren’t the products of same-sex households. They’re the products of broken homes. > [@Construct](#): > > When conservative ideas are introduced in the liberal echo chamber, they are usually poorly understood and half-heartedly argued by devil’s advocates. Consequently, progressives can enjoy the noble lie that there is literally no reasoned opposition to their beliefs, living their lives in blissful ignorance detached from the real world. Their views, in terms of willful blindness to reality, do not differ from those of creationists and other wingnuts. In this case the liberals do have a good reason to be :dubious: the flawed study was “funded by two socially conservative funders: the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation.” ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2015, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/69 "2015-07-18T11:47:45Z")
In re: **Construct’s** post: Item 1 is just horrid logic. “There are good things and bad things about x. Therefore x should be allowed in some states as an experiment.” That conceptualization isn’t even internally consistent. Consider values of x: oranges, free speech, home ownership of nuclear weapons, Keanu Reeves movies, dogs, having a free press, murder… It makes no sense to propose that the method of evaluating things should be using states as case controls in some experimental fashion. **Construct’s** point 1 is just a plea to allow groupthink to persist in a more localized manner. 1. Point 2 is just a nonsensical mishmash of logically disconnected fragments and false statement . Progressives do not regularly teach that nobody is gay or straight. Some people sometimes assert this, but it’s hardly a commonly expressed, deeply held, or clearly progressive standpoint. Then **Construct** pivots from this assertion about people in general to the idea that each individual person is equally variable along a sexuality dimension, such that a regulation could make people change their sexuality. That’s just a dumb idea. THEN he pivots from that to the disease risks associated with sexual behavior, which is obviously different from marriage and is obviously not unique to homosexual behavior. Point 3: in addition to what GIGObuster said, regardless of one study (yes, a flawed and highly suspect study to boot) the broader empirical base drives a clear scientific consensus that SSM does not pose increased risks for poor child outcomes. **Construct** simply helps to demonstrate the point that these things do not boil down to two balanced and equivalent ends of a normal distribution. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2015, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/70 "2015-07-18T14:51:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Going forward I found that the Obama administration and many democratic leaders do support nuclear power when used as a part of dealing with the control of our emissions Cite? > [@](#): > > Republicans do not support those efforts and do prefer to toss out nuclear power… Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2015, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/71 "2015-07-18T14:53:13Z")
I’m a conservative. I’m here. You’re a liberal, reader. Where are you? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/72 "2015-07-18T15:01:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Cite? > > Cite? Post #60 and Post #65 gave the cites already, they show that Republicans are willing to toss Nuclear power when it is under a framework to deal with our emissions, and how the Obama administration guarantees loans for power plants under construction that would go under otherwise. So where we are? Paying attention to a discussion and not relying on just the echo chambers. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/73 "2015-07-19T04:54:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Post #60 and Post #65 gave the cites already, they show that Republicans are willing to toss Nuclear power when it is under a framework to deal with our emissions, and how the Obama administration guarantees loans for power plants under construction that would go under otherwise. > > So where we are? Paying attention to a discussion and not relying on just the echo chambers. 🙂 No, they don’t. Please quote the text that supports your specific claims. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/74 "2015-07-19T05:52:22Z")
Discussion has drifted somewhat from OP’s question. Yes, the echo chambers run America now; they’ve been present all along, e.g. with religious and racial divides, increased with cable TV and now accelerate very dramatically with Facebook and the rest of the Internet. And yes, the echo chambers are very bad for society and political processes. Whereas opinions on an issue once tended to distribute like a bell-shaped curve, bimodal curves are common now _and the two modes drift further and further apart_. Where once a large number of centrists were ready to move forward with compromise, now the two sides of an issue don’t even understand each other. Yes, in older times towns often had two newspapers, but people often read both, interacted with a variety of people, and attended town meetings. These days, those who pursue politics are more likely to spend their time at an echo chamber rather than at a town meeting which necessarily brings opposite opinions together. It is ironic and sad that the Internet, which puts the hugest library ever at anyone’s fingertips, seems to be more the problem than the solution: > [@HumbleThinker](#): > > It gets worse than that. Google, for instance, can give you search results based on your past internet activity … I’ve no solutions to offer, except perhaps some that would seem very elitist. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Discussion then turned to SDMB. Is it an echo chamber? I find conservatives to be very well represented in discussions of economics here, with a centrist perspective the consensus. On social issues like gay rights and anti-racism the right is booed down here. On issues like nuclear power and GMO, leftist opposition is booed down here(\*). Thus, this Board does have relatively broad diversity of thought; to the extent that it is an “echo chamber” only some on the very far right would stereotype it as a “leftist” echo chamber. (\* Disclaimer. I support nuclear power. I understand that GMO, despite huge potential for ecological damage, allows a larger human population but, unlike the echo consensus here, I understand that overpopulation is a major problem.) But, like those on the extreme right, I have learned that deviating from the echo chamber’s opinions here is frustrating. For example, someone recently bumped a thread discussing [SDStaff CKDexterHaven’s article on the Ark of the Covenant](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1401/what-happened-to-the-ark-of-the-covenant). It is completely obvious that Mr. Haven never read the book by Graham Hancock he claims to review – there was no need for him to read it, the echo chamber told him Hancock is a crackpot. I pointed out the errors and got zero response. As another example, no one can discuss the Shakespeare authorship controversy here. The thread will fill up with 20 people who know nothing except that the echo chamber tells them anti-Stratfordians are crackpots, and two knowledgeable people who impose different standards of proof on themselves as on others. I won’t debate the controversy itself further: it’s the ignorant echoing response to the controversy that now intrigues me. Feel free to start a Pit thread about that. The ignorant echoing response I see on a few non-partisan questions gives me sympathy for conspiracy nuts who, even if their ideas are fundamentally wrong, may have legitimate questions but find only ridicule instead of answers. I sometimes find myself on Chief Pedant’s side and sympathize with him that he gets only echo-chamber response. I no longer come to his defense because I find him …, well, too pedantic! ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/75 "2015-07-19T10:50:29Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Let’s drop the absurd pretense of false balance by pretending that liberal and conservative echo chambers are equivalent. And you prove **sleestak** ’s point. As someone who has looked at messageboards of both polarities over the years, I can tell you that they are the same. The SDMB is better than most, but the liberal bias is significant. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/76 "2015-07-19T11:11:10Z")
Give me a break. Fox News and CNN (the liberal counter-point that Fox News watchers often point to, rather than MSNBC, probably because they already know MSNBC is something no one watches) are equivalent. Sure. Rush Limbaugh and… who, again, has the outrage-farming lies with millions of listeners on the liberal side? Sure, I’m sure they’re just as bad. All those masses of chain e-mails that lie to you and try to make you outraged about how your country is being destroyed!!! are equally divided between liberal and conservative. SDMB is totally the equivalent of Free Republic. There are just as many crazy hateful liberal posts to facebook as conservative ones. There are totally as many liberals that are basically professional outraged people posting in comments all across the internet. When liberals criticize Bush for starting unnecessary wars, that’s totally the same thing as when people criticize Obama for probably being a secret muslim terrorist. All of those statements are obviously false and ridiculous. You’re just playing the “I’m above the fray, I’m more enlightened than you, you just can’t see how biased you are!!!” role without any examination of the actual facts in general. Your position is intellectually weak and devoid of substance. You eschew actually evaluating the nuance and evidence of the real world in favor of the philosophical position of “everyone is always the same no matter what, and they just can’t see it because they’re partisan” which is a very damaging attitude. It gives people who really are extreme cover for their viewpoints because you’ve already determined that they can’t be any worse than their opposition no matter what they do. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/77 "2015-07-19T11:29:36Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > The SDMB is better than most, but the liberal bias is significant. Which is to be expected when one side is more attractive to thoughtful, reasonable people. One look in the SRIOTD thread is proof that conservatives are seriously whack. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/78 "2015-07-19T12:20:29Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Which is to be expected when one side is more attractive to thoughtful, reasonable people. Umm.. no. IME there are just as many idiots on each side. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/79 "2015-07-19T14:13:34Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Which is to be expected when one side is more attractive to thoughtful, reasonable people. That’s a hugely arrogant statement. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203/80 "2015-07-19T14:28:19Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > That’s a hugely arrogant statement. Cite? I gave you a cite. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-political-echo-chambers-bad-for-society/725203.md?page=5)