Escaping the reading (and Internet) echo chamber (cover, poetry, poems)

[jbgusa]

I am a regular contributor to the What book are you reading? thread. I am starting this thread as a place to discuss the tendency to read materials with which you agree and/or to avoid opposing views.

I just finished reading The Earthbound Parent: How (and Why) to Raise Your Little Angels Without Religion by Richard A. Conn Jr. The book is thoroughly well written, and a good and fast read. I just as thoroughly disagree with just about every word of the book. When I started reading the book I received a few comments, among them:

Originally Posted by jbgusa

The Earthbound Parent: How (and Why) to Raise Your Little Angels Without Religion by Richard A. Conn Jr. At Page 70. It's thoroughly well written. I just as thoroughly disagree with just about every word of the book.

To which I received two comments that are the genesis of this thread:

Originally Posted by ylisa7

Agreed...good for you. So why did you choose this book?

Originally Posted by Mikala43

Good for you for reading something you disagree with!!!!....
I think it is always good for us to get opposing views on just about everything!

The Internet has given people the unparalleled ability to confirm their own views, and ignore the views of others. This in turn makes debate rarer and, when it occurs, more divisive. People, for example on discussion boards, tend to talk past each other.

Can this ever be changed?

[chicagoliz]

I think the echo chamber, while it exists for books, is less intense for books than it is for general news consumption, and certainly for online venues for discussion and debate.

I do try to read books to get reasoned analysis of the so-called "other side," but there are virtually no books on traditional conservative Republican issue that aren't written by hacks and pundits, and full of misrepresentations and things that are just outright made up. Sadly, this is part of the whole false equivalency problem that we face on a larger basis.

I've read some books that touch on good parts of religion, and found them interesting. The religion issue is a difficult one -- there exists a widely held belief that in order to be morally upstanding, one must be an adherent of some religion. So these books that state that it is okay to live without religion are a new thing -- stating, essentially, that it is okay to live without religion, which, until relatively recently was a scary and unacceptable idea in our society. (See, for example, the states that still have laws disallowing an atheist to hold elective office.)

Otherwise, there really aren't that many subjects that I'm firmly entrenched in some position, so the only relevant issues would involve social policy. And I do seek out various viewpoints for those, because I do want to know whether a particular policy is desirable. For example, right now, I'm very intrigued by this idea of a minimum guaranteed income, and have read several books about how all evidence points to it working very well. Most opposition is simply a reflexive reaction based in a desire to punish poor people or a belief that it will cost too much money. But I'd be eager to find some scholarly, legitimate work that analyzes the idea in an unbiased manner that pointed out issues that would arise from this policy or would indicate that it would not work or would cause problems I haven't heard about or considered.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

I think the echo chamber, while it exists for books, is less intense for books than it is for general news consumption, and certainly for online venues for discussion and debate. For example, right now, I'm very intrigued by this idea of a minimum guaranteed income, and have read several books about how all evidence points to it working very well. Most opposition is simply a reflexive reaction based in a desire to punish poor people or a belief that it will cost too much money. But I'd be eager to find some scholarly, legitimate work that analyzes the idea in an unbiased manner that pointed out issues that would arise from this policy or would indicate that it would not work or would cause problems I haven't heard about or considered.

The problem is that because of the echo chamber effect if you don't immediately favor a minimum guaranteed income, or its companion "Medicare for all" you're branded a "Trumpist" or whatever is the epithet of the day.

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

The problem is that because of the echo chamber effect if you don't immediately favor a minimum guaranteed income, or its companion "Medicare for all" you're branded a "Trumpist" or whatever is the epithet of the day.

I'm not sure that reasonable, thinking people would brand one a "Trumpist" merely on the basis of someone not immediately favoring a guaranteed minimum income. Nor is some sort of universal healthcare coverage directly tied to it. I think a universal basic income is a tougher sell than universe healthcare, although most who would favor the former likely favor the latter.

What would cause me to think of someone as being a Trumpeter would be the refusal to learn about guaranteed minimum income or to give coherent reasons for rejecting it. A rejection of it after reasoned and informed consideration would be the antithesis of the Trump movement.

[Hulsker 1856]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

I'm not sure that reasonable, thinking people would brand one a "Trumpist" merely on the basis of someone not immediately favoring a guaranteed minimum income. Nor is some sort of universal healthcare coverage directly tied to it. I think a universal basic income is a tougher sell than universe healthcare, although most who would favor the former likely favor the latter.

Correct. It's nonsense.

Hillary Clinton opposed Medicare-for-all before and after the 2016 election. Pretty sure no one thinks she's a 'Trumpist'. A lot of Democrats oppose it, as do a number of Republicans who are either never-Trumpers or had/have been regularly critical of him (McCain, Flake, Corker, Sasse, etc.). Who thinks they're 'Trumpists'? No one.

Ironically, the OP claims to want to 'escape the echo chamber', yet he's peddling echo chamber silliness with that assertion.

Frankly, I don't see why people read either political screeds with which they agree or those with which they disagree. Propaganda is boring and unenlightening, whether it is aligned with or opposed to one's ideas. Hey, I'm an ardent liberal, but the last thing I want to read is some liberal politician's book. It's not that I would have any particular disagreement with the work overall - I just don't need to be patted on the head and have my opinions validated.

[ceiligrrl]

it's kinda human nature isn't it? we are animals, and as such, we tend to run in packs. we keep to our kind. and that is a pity..... and of course, there are built in avenues of prejudice we build..... like religion , like politics, that keep us separate and unequal....... and there will come on those stages ones who use their myopic belief as a weapon.

i fear there is no easy answer to this. myself, i tend to find that there are expansive things that make us more inclined to embrace the world, bring us together, sharing our common traits held in faith within us, namely the arts..... poetry, music .... these brief glimpses into our connections to beauty is what is sacred to me.... poetry, music reaches into each of us, speaks to us as soul friends.... i myself have no need for any religion, but my belief in the sacred will not be impugned by anyone who says my belief is wrong, faulty.... and urge me to turn to their belief. this is such a small rock we live on, but freedom is vast and endemic. to bless and honor each path of freedom is a great spiraling outward, an embracing, an including. a honoring of what it means to be human. and humane.

i often despair that we are a soulless country. we value so little that enriches our souls. we have moved beyond ritual. ceremony. sacramental rites that bind us one to the other. for me, i find that binding always occurs in poetry. poetry always tells the truth, but tells it slant. i love this excerpt from one of William Stafford's poems
" If you don’t know the kind of person I am
and I don’t know the kind of person you are
a pattern that others made may prevail in the world
and following the wrong god home we may miss our star."

..................... then it says: And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,
a remote important region in all who talk:
though we could fool each other, we should consider–
lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark.

i bet i lost a lot of you now. poetry seems to be a four letter word in America. we only might learn by rote because some 5th grade teacher insisted we memorize a poem, any poem.....but this is a lovely poem, it speaks to mankind. it speaks to our humanness: http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/2686...son-i-am-and-i

i love the title of the book it comes from.... A Ritual to Read to Each Other. yes. yes. yes. we need this ritual in our lives.