Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

The only reason this term exists and why people use it in a derogatory way, or as something to avoid, is to simply avoid taking responsibility for their own media consumption. It makes people feel guilty when (figurative ZOGbot) you, and I both know something is wrong with the media, but you feel too uncomfortable about going out of your way to discuss and act on the TRUTH TM and simply exit from the institutions of international finance.

The cosmopolitan cattle dismisses the freer alternative because the TV handed you the keys to, because the updoot farm that sucks the tax piggy dry is comfortable, and yet the multiculti citizen "doesn't have X" to do it (the time, the will, the balls, etc). That wouldn't bother me, personally, particularly, but you have to project throwing around the idea that it's "dangerous" for others to do so. I guess, in a way, that is correct insofar as collecting your own rainwater without government intervention is "dangerous": not really to you, as you would pretend, but to the metainstitution the ZOGbot pretends to hate.

I'm probably preaching to the choir on this, but I'm not sure. People can apply the same thing to "cults" and the same set of arguments would generally apply. The obvious difference is that the likelyhood of any of you touching me in the future is far more slim.

Any thoughts?

The only reason this term exists and why people use it in a derogatory way, or as something to avoid, is to simply avoid taking responsibility for their own media consumption. It makes people feel guilty when (figurative ZOGbot) you, and I both know something is wrong with the media, but you feel too uncomfortable about going out of your way to discuss and act on the TRUTH^TM and simply exit from the institutions of international finance. The cosmopolitan cattle dismisses the freer alternative because the TV handed you the keys to, because the updoot farm that sucks the tax piggy dry is comfortable, and yet the multiculti citizen "doesn't have X" to do it (the time, the will, the balls, etc). That wouldn't bother me, personally, particularly, but you have to project throwing around the idea that it's "dangerous" for others to do so. I guess, in a way, that is correct insofar as collecting your own rainwater without government intervention is "dangerous": not really to you, as you would pretend, but to the metainstitution the ZOGbot pretends to hate. I'm probably preaching to the choir on this, but I'm not sure. People can apply the same thing to "cults" and the same set of arguments would generally apply. The obvious difference is that the likelyhood of any of you touching me in the future is far more slim. Any thoughts?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (19).
[–] • 0 pt 3y

You are lost as fuck.

I mean your post was an over complicated descriptionof the phrase "echo chamber" and it was difficult to fully understand what you were trying to express.

I'm a bit confused. I never definedthe term "echo chamber" in my post. I am simply expressing why it's a dumb phrase.

You are speaking Ebonics. You are confusing the word description with define. In my comments I said description. I never said you defined the phrase I said you described the phrase. So I can only conclude that you are using something other that standard definitions to derive meaning from words.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt 3y

You are confusing the word description with define

Dude, you stated the following phrase:

What an overly convoluted description of an otherwise easy to grasp phrase.

That's in short, what a "definition" fucking is.

[–] • 0 pt 3y (edited 3y)

That's in short, what a "definition" fucking is.

No it's not at all. A description is NOT a definition.

If you yourself are not able to differentiate between two common words in the English language how can you expect anyone to read your posts and understand anything you are talking about. Who knows if you're even using the correct definitions of words when you speak/type. Words have meaning for a reason.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt 3y

If you're "describing" what a word or phrase is, yes, that's colliquially what a "definition" is.

But please, die on this retarded hill you constructed while pretending you're not being a soynigger.