Though not from USA, I think people are preferring echo chambers because "reasonable disagreement" are labeled as extremism by the group. I will agree that foll

Though not from USA, I think people are preferring echo chambers because "reasonable disagreement" are labeled as extremism by the group. I will agree that follow the rule of the law and if "law" is not adequate change it. No need for violence. However if there is report of "some" discrepancy in voting. Now the discrepancy could be small enough to not change the result and most people will on the other side too will agree to it and not support the violence. However people who claim that "discrepancy" was wide enough to change result should be listened to with respect. There is no objective way to know how big the discrepancy was. Indeed people should listen to them and think of ways of reducing the discrepancy in future, while agreeing to disagree. Also agree that the degree of discrepancy is a subjective belief. Instead people who feel that "discrepancy" was wide are being looked down upon and that does not give people space to talk to. I am not aware of a good example but I am pretty sure there will be another example where the "others" are looked down upon with disdain. Such behaviour only creates more division and makes the echo chamber stronger. You will find very smart people in each of these echo chambers so cannot say that these people cannot think properly. Blaming social media for it is like print media was blamed when it first came out and opposed churches. Edit: Changed the word biased to "cannot think properly" in the last but one sentence.