Different people will have different interests, and nobody can know everything. People should not always going to be agreement with each other. It is good. Nev

Different people will have different interests, and nobody can know everything. People should not always going to be agreement with each other. It is good. Nevertheless, things do overlap, and sometimes you can do something else, not always the same thing each time. Furthermore not everyone agrees with everything that belongs to that group anyways, and that is just one kind of group anyways and is not the only possible kind. (If you are religious, it is not necessarily only Christian vs Jewish vs Muslim vs Pagan vs Hindu vs etc. If you are politics, it is not necessarily only liberal vs conservative vs etc. If you speak one language, that does not necessarily mean that you do or do not speak other specific languages too. A book or radio or television or forums etc also might not be about only one thing, and other ideas also possible.) > Most of us don't read books on ideas we have pre-judged to be nonsense or uncomfortable. There are many books and if you go to library you might read many books. At least to me, it is. When I am at home or I buy books, it will be the one I am interested in, but in the library I might read any one. > I generally don't feel I have anything valuable to learn from other ideologies because their moral values make me very uncomfortable. I disagree. I think I can try to learn many things, whether or not I agree with them. > I think of them as different conference rooms at a large seminar. We accept that some attendees will choose to not enter some rooms. Yes, especially if there are multiple simultaneous meetings, or if the rooms are too small, etc. But you should not be required to attend some conferences anyways if you do not want to do. > We accept that a random person jumping on the stage, grabbing the mike, and saying uncomfortable ideas is against social norms, even antisocial. That shouldn't be about if the idea is uncomfortable or not; it isn't the thing to do while someone else is using the stage. If they have something to say they should say it, but not like that! > At a progressive meet, it may be someone shouting homosexuality is unnatural. At a conservative meet, it may be someone saying it's natural. It isn't simply saying such a thing that should be how to communicate; it should be to make the argument for/against it, considering the nuance, etc. I think that "echo chamber" will be bad if it is the only thing, but, it is not going to be the only thing, I think. And, as with anything, some people will do bad things with it.