AN EXAMPLE: WHY DO ECHO CHAMBERS MATTER? —“Sounds like fancy-talk for an echo

AN EXAMPLE: WHY DO ECHO CHAMBERS MATTER?

—“Sounds like fancy-talk for an echo chamber.”—Alan Levinovitz

What you mean is, you want to be able to coerce people with disapproval, shaming, rallying, moralizing, psychologizing, reputation destruction, sophism, and pseudoscience rather than exchange value with them in the markets private or common(government).

I mean, why does it matter what they say to each other. what have you got to trade, and why aren’t you offering to trade, instead of engaging in sophisms of pilpul and critique (straw manning)? Right? I mean, why words not deeds? To preserve the ability to coerce, cheat, lie?

There are no political questions that cannot be answered by this simple question of ‘what do you have to trade?’. Conversely, any OTHER attempt is merely out of necessity an attempted act of lying, cheating, or fraud.

So what do you have to trade instead of engaging in the straw man critique of “echo chamber” as an act of sophistry to distract from having nothing to exchange, or trying to ‘cheat’ them, when the only moral constraints that exist are those between cooperators not their enemies?