6 3

In light of the rapidly escalating white supremacist terrorism in our country and throughout the world, I think that in the mass media, for the protection of democracy and human rights, it is incumbent upon all of us to act to drastically curtail the formation and operation of self-reinforcing ideological groups in all of the mass media. We must stop the brewing and spreading of this venomous poison.

In that vein, I urge the ending of all self-reinforcing and exclusionary politically ideological groups on As an adamantly pro-democracy advocate and political liberal, I believe that the free and unimpeded exchange and, debate, and testing of ideas is essential to all democracies. I can and will hold my own against any of these right wing nuts and vicious bigots, and am not afraid of them. They should also not be afraid of the light of day. They simply do not want to be exposed as the hateful and malicious bigots that they are.

By wordywalt8
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


In your second paragraph you say "I believe that the free and unimpeded exchange and, debate, and testing of ideas is essential to all democracies". However in your first paragraph you said " I think that in the mass media, for the protection of democracy and human rights, it is incumbent upon all of us to act to drastically curtail the formation and operation of self-reinforcing ideological groups in all of the mass media".

Your second statement is in opposition to your first statement. In fact the sum of your statements is posting anything is OK as long as you agree with it.

Last, I've seen you debate. You are not good at it, not at all. In fact reading the exchanges below, you don't seem to be an able communicator at all and you try to belittle those only asking for clarification.

Bobby9 Level 8 Sep 15, 2019

As usual for you, you make false assertations and try to make other's statements seem what they are not. You simply try to staff debate by immediately going to disparagement and false manipulation. You have a lot of gall trying to depict yourself as an honest debater You do not know how to debate without resorting to irrational and unethical tactics Yo

It appears also that you choosing to single me out and attack me by seeking out old posts in order to unleash new assaults because you did not fare well in previous exchanges. I am reporting you to admin.

@wordywalt Nothing I said was false. I DARE you to prove anything I said was false. Please do it.

Report as you will. I notice that after challanging everyone to a bet you ignored the fact that I said I'd bet you for any amount. You are the false person.

@wordywalt What's the matter Walt, can't find a lie? After prompting everyone to put their money where their mouth is, why aren't you?

@wordywalt Thanks, you proved it was you who lied, and that you have no intention of following up on your frequent "put your money where your mouth is" outbursts.


If you want a group where people who are for and against these things can discuss issues why not create one or who knows, there may already be one? If they want to talk to you cool, if not no worries. Not everyone is going to want to discuss every issue with every person.

Byrd Level 7 Mar 18, 2019

That would be a good idea once the self-reinforcing ideological echo chambers were completely eliminated. This should be a site for agnostics and atheists, not such echo chambers.

@wordywalt well, I'd say good luck with that but I don't really believe in luck or this particular cause. But I won't knock it, that is one of the many things I love about this site. not everyone agrees on all issues but we still all have a place to speak, as long as the rules are followed. And so far admin seems to have that pretty well covered.


Eliminate self-perpetuating echo chambers? Then where would they hide? Lol

t1nick Level 8 Mar 17, 2019

There are ideological groups on all sides of the spectrum. Should we not interact with environmental or humanistic groups.

For me, this direction is a direct result of the crumbling of our natural resources. Too many of us chasing too few resources. Any person in the field of population demographics worth their salt is well aware of the connections of special interest groups and the allocation of resources. It has been said that when people are comfortable and sure of a good future they are not going to upset the apple cart. Obviously, a lot of apple carts are being upset so that means people are starting to hurt and seek a change often of which involves violence.

''there is a huge difference between exclusive groups for political ideology an as opposed to issue-oriented groups. I am not speaking of the latter.


I’m very confused as to what this is directed at and why

skeptic11 Level 3 Mar 17, 2019

Then you have no concept of what is happening in our country and in the entire world today.


What exactly are you calling for?

I think that my words are more than clear. I am calling for open exchange and debate so that reason and data can rule the day, not for self-reinforcing echo chambers.

@wordywalt I didn’t think your words were clear. That is why I asked. So, to be clear, you want open exchange and debate?

I’m still a bit fuzzy. Sorry I’m not the smartest. Are you calling for people to speak up, or for the removal of something preventing that from happening?

@indirect76 I said that I want open discourse and debate, based on reason and facts, not simply opinion and bias. What do you not understand.

@wordywalt Sorry. I thought it may be an issue with how the site operates that is preventing this. I think it’s clear to me what you originally meant.

My only question though, is now you bring up having these exchanges without opinion and bias. I can more understand not wanting bias, but how can we have an open exchange without expressing our opinions?

@indirect76 I should have said without opionions lacking a factual and/or rational basis.

@wordywalt Can there not be two opposing opinions that are both factual and/or rationally based?

Now, I’ve read your original post several times. Are there really white supremacist or terrorism groups on that are masquerading as something else? Are they proper ‘groups’ on the site, or do you mean groups in the more general sense?

Perhaps providing examples would help illustrate your point.

@indirect76 They can disagree on interpretation of the data. But, other than that, no it is not possible. And, even then, data driven study of the issue will eventually reveal which interpretation of the data is correct.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:312488'.
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • is a non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others!