An echo chamber creates the impression that there is only our opinion and that it's held by the vast majority. I don't think anyone really believes that, we know there are others. But we strongly believe ours to be right.
We're more like a West Ham pub. For West Ham fans, so we can sing our West Ham songs and wear our West Ham colours. We know there's a Millwall pub just down the road, but we don't want them in here, and don't want to go in there. Reality though is that if as long as they don't come in and demand to be allowed to sing their songs and make us all join in, and instead just sat down and debated football, we'd happily listen to them, take the piss a bit and get along.
Apart from a few blokes who are determined any Millwall fan must be beaten up out of principle. Or the Millwall raiders determined to rush in, shout and pick a fight, and then rush out having caused maximum fuss.
And for that reason we can't have a nice chat.
IMO an echo chamber like my facebook is there are no dissenting voices.
Here some claim the dissenting voices are shut down and that has some validity - and its just not the right wingers that get shut down. any unpopular opinion does. This does not make it an echo chamber and I (despite appearances maybe) actually do cherish the multitude of opinions on here.
No chance that you get an easy ride with an unpopular opinion. Often some thought provoking opposing responses. Many of my opinions go against the consensus and I have been utterly slated for them.
Not an echo chamber IMO.
I generally don't agree with many of you lot particularly on the political/related front. LOL!
But there might be some topics with people having similar opinions which may sound like echo chamber but generally not related to politics.
However, I find most people are inconsistent in their political views. i.e. hate Tories to the core but support Boris for war in Ukraine .... Oh C'mon (a phrase I learned from my German friend when he is disappointed, LOL). Aren't you suppose to march for "Stop the War" or are you advocating "Go for war" hhhmmmm ?
No chance that you get an easy ride with an unpopular opinion.
Like the time I said Kirroughtree was boring and had no flow.
@Mark no, what you’re describing is an epistemic bubble
That is the point where, if I was in Mark's shoes, I would have just pulled the plug on the whole thing. Luckily he seems to have more patience.
I can only assume that Brexit thread contributors got bored with the relentless echo of their own veiws.
I reckon they got bored with something relentless.
But then you also get echo chambers which are so sterile that you don’t even get that.
Well everyday's a school day as they say, apparently that is called an epistemic bubble, didn't know that.
In epistemic bubbles, other voices are not heard; in echo chambers, other voices are actively undermined.
Edit: I did read zilog's post, I even quoted it, I just didn't understand that it was describing the Brexit thread.
Would it be better or worse if we had a 'Like' button?
I get the point that some are making that it is not a true echo chamber (though we are having a good old non-echo chamber argument about what an echo chamber actually is!), but I'd be interested to know what topics you think there are where 80-90% of contributors are not in general agreement. Not the what tyre threads (though I suspect the statistics are probably similar there too!), but really the political and broader societal discussions.
The football pub analogy above is pretty good - most arguments, when considered against the full range of possible views - are the equivalent of two fans of the same team squabbling about who their team should buy in the next transfer window.
I’d be interested to know what topics you think there are where 80-90% of contributors are not in general agreement.
Chain waxing...
I’d be interested to know what topics you think there are where 80-90% of contributors are not in general agreement.
Chain waxing…
Not a chance, 90% of the contribution will be TJ alone, helmet wearing on the other hand...
Oddly I think you probably get more diverse discussions on topics where there are actual right and wrong answers, I mean, we could run 2+2=4 to at least a dozen pages of debate I reckon.
Oddly I think you probably get more diverse discussions on topics where there are actual right and wrong answers. I mean we could run 2+2=4 to at least a dozen pages of debate I reckon.
See plane on treadmill!
I’d be interested to know what topics you think there are where 80-90% of contributors are not in general agreement.
funnily enough most of the politics threads. Despite being apparently a part of the lefty shouty bunch actually I hardly see any agreement between the shouty lefty bunch. Its all a bit peoples front of Judea
Its all a bit peoples front of Judea
Over to you Binners
5 minutes on Twitter reminds me what a wonderful place STW is.
If someone posts something controversial on here they can be sure of being challenged on it and that's how it should be.
Here, posts have consequences (relatively speaking) and I think that's what's lacking on social media in general and why it's so bloody toxic.
funnily enough most of the politics threads. Despite being apparently a part of the lefty shouty bunch actually I hardly see any agreement between the shouty lefty bunch. Its all a bit peoples front of Judea
So what specific political topic....I'm struggling to think of a specific one. I suppose Corbyn Labour vs Starmer/Blair style labour is about as close as I can think to a proper split in group think - ut I'd regard that as the equivalent of the West Ham fans bickering about their best formation rather than properly diverse opinions. Constitutional monarchy vs republic being another.
5 minutes on Twitter reminds me what a wonderful place STW is.
a massive amen to this. Twitter is bloody horrible.
So what specific political topic
Any of them. those shouty lefty types are often at odds.
We have me the pale pink wishy washy liberal, Ernie the two bob trot, Binners the Chorltonite liberal handwringer who thinks he is a lefty, Dazh the apprentice two bob trot and Rone the magic money tree man
All said with affection chaps before you expel me from the group 🙂
Any of them. those shouty lefty types are often at odds.
We have me the pale pink wishy washy liberal, Ernie the two bob trot, Binners the Chorltonite liberal handwringer who thinks he is a lefty, Dazh the apprentice two bob trot and Rone the magic money tree man
All said with affection chaps before you expel me from the group 🙂
Amusing, but not actually answering the question. A properly meaty specific topic where fundamental opinions are existentially different....with like 52% of posters thinking one way and 48% another. You disagreeing with everyone else and posting 48% of the contributions doesn't count! 😉
If someone posts something controversial on here they can be sure of being challenged on it and that’s how it should be.
If may challenge that comment - why?
Why is it necessary, or more importantly useful, to always challenge a controversial opinion?
Why not accept that someone might have a very different opinion to yours, eg, Crocs make great casual footwear?
I often feel, as you might have noticed, that challenging the generally accepted consensus can be more useful, if not more interesting.
If the existing consensus is never challenged how does change come about?
And if something is controversial it is quite possibly not worth challenging.
Edited
Instead of a ban or warning you should be sentenced to a week on pistonheads.
Mention your a keen cyclist.
Convert - the Starmer thread?
That makes ‘us’ counter to the voting public in 2019?
Well, to the part that has a direct influence on the outcome. There was a majority that did not vote Conservative at the last election. A tiny proportion has selected two leaders since then.
The problem arises when the 'winners' don't ensure the 'losers' are represented.
ernielynch
Free MemberIf someone posts something controversial on here they can be sure of being challenged on it and that’s how it should be.
If may challenge that comment – why?
Why is it necessary, or more importantly useful, to always challenge a controversial opinion?
As you point out, it's perfectly valid to challenge my comment which is kinda, exactly the point I was making.👍
Social justice virtue signalling is to me what woke is
I thought I had a reasonable idea what "woke" is supposed to be, but now I'm not sure.
Twitter is bloody horrible.
My Twitter feed is generally fun and banter. Maybe it's down to who I follow.
woke is an americanism meaning " sees discrimination is not blind to it"
Its nothing to do with virtue signalling. thats a classic way of dismissing it.
I like the bit where Binners is a brexiteer 😆
Seems to be a wider issue tbh, the creeping authoritarianism of the
left
those in government of whatever hue.
e.g. The proposed legislation before the current parliament to ban striking, a fundamental human right. The other side wanted ID cards despite them being an anathema to 'The British'.
an echo chamber maybe if you consider certain posters putting across the. same. bloody. points. on every. political. thread.
binners et. al. considered brexiteers because they accept the reality of our current situation? have a word with yourself.
this thread's irony level is off the scale.
davros
Free Member
I like the bit where Binners is a brexiteer 😆
Is he? The bloody bar steward!
I'm off to Twitter!
Those of us who remain have been banned, moderated and warned into avoiding subjects where the playground mob is offended* and then report.
I have never been banned because of holding an opinion, nor have I had my opinions ever been moderated, nor warned to avoid certain subjects. Despite the fact that I am sure several people must have been offended by my opinions at a some point over the years.
It's been a good few years since I have been slapped a 48 hour ban but as far as I can recall the only bans I have received have been for language/swear filter avoidance, and without doubt justified - I regularly used to forget to mind my language.
The political cleansing of threads, if it occurs, doesn't come from moderation imo but from intolerance and bullying by other forum users.
Seriously though, politically it's very much an echo chamber. All you have to do is look at the comments on any BBC news article to see that we're missing all the swivel-eyed loons, the antivaxers, the tin-foil hatters etc which seem to make up a reasonable proportion of any politics thread. I'll see if I can invite them over, they'll love it.
I have never been banned because of holding an opinion, nor have I had my opinions ever been moderated, nor warned to avoid certain subjects. Despite the fact that I am sure several people must have been offended by my opinions at a some point.
I too have never been banned for my opinions. Only for being an arse
I doubt you offend anyone Ernie. I don't remember anything offensive from you. always polite just ruddy infuriating at time 🙂
the only bans I have received have been for language/swear filter avoidance,
It wasa bit more than that, it was a tyrade of sweary abuse directed directly at me. 🙂
The political meta thread.
Just a reflection of how everything is not going well.
I regularly used to forget to mind my language.
I always thought that was the approved approach, just swear your cock off and let the filters take the strain?
It wasa bit more than that, it was a tyrade of sweary abuse directed directly at me. 🙂
Really? I don't recall getting banned for that. How do even know that I was banned for that. I didn't think that the mods made public individual decisions?
The only sweary exchange I can recall was when Labrat once used an expletive to attack me and I responded in kind. A mod emailed to inform me that swearing at someone because they swore at you was no excuse for swearing and we both got a two day ban.
I like the bit where Binners is a brexiteer
More or less than when he was Hitler?
I always thought that was the approved approach, just swear your cock off and let the filters take the strain?
You can unintentionally avoid the swear filter, although probably less so these days. Especially if it is a combination of words. I once got in trouble with a mod for using a less polite version of halfwit.
Really, you didn't post for a couple of days and then miracle, apologised. And really, you didn't make your views on Brexit public until way ofter the referendum. Check out the original in/out thread, you were notable for your absence. Work back from here:
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/eu-referendum-are-you-in-or-out/page/250
Edukator - how about not turning this thread into bickering?
You accuse me of bickering, TJ, when he's the one accusing me of lying in his round about way. He keeps doubting the verity of what I'm saying which is what he always does.
He's bigged himself up stating he is the only pround Brexiter around and has been form the start and neither is true, but he turns it around and acuses me of lying. So I've been playing his game. Anyone can check, the in/out thread is there for all to read. There were about 130 members who declared how they'd vote, just over 50 leave, over 70 reamin and Ernie didn't declare.
Check who's right before you take sides in his stupid echo-chamber playground bullying tiff.
Good night all.
Echo chamber indeed.
Christ. Never mind a swear-filter. A spelling-filter would be more useful.
And really, you didn’t make your views on Brexit public until way ofter the referendum
Are you actually carrying on with an argument on another thread onto this one?
The idea that I have not always been opposed to the EU is absurd, if you want to make that allegation then it gives some context to your claim that I was once banned because I allegedly swore at you. Sounds like bollocks to me, to use a swear filter safe term.
Sounds like bollocks to me,
See Tj. Point out an inconvenient truth and he just accuses you of lying.
Read the original in/out thread from the start readers and make you own minds up.
