VENT: People in echo chambers

[HS Mom in NC]

People who choose to live in echo chambers are irritating conversationalists! Don't bring up hot button topics with someone if you can't hear a different point of view without being offended.

Vent over.

[Melissa in Australia]

Tell me. My DH is like this. It is awful and means all conversations are extremely limited in topics

[HS Mom in NC]

Sometimes I wonder to myself, "Did they really assume they were going to get agreement on that?" But then I remember that it's a characteristic of people in echo chambers that they really do assume they'll be agreed with, and are shocked and offended when they're not.

Yes, @Melissa in Australia, it really does limit the range of things a person can talk about with them. This isn't the only topic people avoid with her. Echo chambers are a lifestyle after all.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[TechWife]

Yes - I was called out on social media by someone for daring to state an opposing position! This snowflake syndrome is way out of control!

[OH_Homeschooler]

1 hour ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Sometimes I wonder to myself, "Did they really assume they were going to get agreement on that?" But then I remember that it's a characteristic of people in echo chambers that they really do assume they'll be agreed with, and are shocked and offended when they're not.
 

Yes, exactly. Not even sure if it's a characteristic of echo chambers or the people who seek out those echo chambers in the first place. They are so entrenched in their own worldview and so convinced that it's the only right way to think, that they go around telling everyone to think that way. Even complete strangers at a garage sale, for example. (I mean, it is seriously almost always older white guys I've witnessed doing this sort of thing. They're just not used to ever being questioned on anything). 

[Farrar]

I wasn't sure if I was going to agree with you when I clicked, but YES. Absolutely.

I get that some people want to discuss certain hot button issues with people who have a narrower range of opinions - that's safer, less contentious, etc. But people who don't even seem to realize that their networks of people that they meet are going to not all have the same viewpoint? Oh no. Please.

[TravelingChris]

Apparently dd2 did this to dd1 this week.  DD1 called dd2 because dd2 had some texts about how she had a fever and wasn't feeling well, etc and dd1 called her a day or 2 later to see how she is doing.  All of a sudden, dd2 went on a rant about natural Aunt Flo products and how the normal kinds are full of chemicals, etc and everybody should turn to natural.  They weren't talking about Aunt Flo or chemicals or anything related.  But dd2 gets on these rants about different things- straws, now I guess feminine products, etc.  

And dd2 is worried that if she comes to Christmas, we will be ranting about elections.  Uhhh, no,.  I want to be playing games, watching sports, listening to Christmas music, going on walks, baking, etc.  Having a nice relaxed fun Christmas.  

[kbutton]

10 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

People who choose to live in echo chambers are irritating conversationalists! Don't bring up hot button topics with someone if you can't hear a different point of view without being offended.

Vent over.

And the corollary: they are fine with dissent, but you must address everything they did and didn't say on the topic, or else you're not worth being heard. You can't make a minor comment on a minor point. It must be all or nothing.

[HS Mom in NC]

And because you do share views on X and Y, they assume you agree with them on B, Q, V, and R because in their mind a "good" or "real" version of a person sharing views X and Y will necessarily share all other views. Sigh.

[Jean in Newcastle]

It's very lonely to be the odd man out in an echo chamber. 

[HS Mom in NC]

2 hours ago, TechWife said:

Yes - I was called out on social media by someone for daring to state an opposing position! This snowflake syndrome is way out of control!

I notice people hurling the term "snowflake" at people (I understand you're not doing this, you're talking about the phenomenon in general, you're not labeling anyone with it in your post) are the most hyper-sensitive to hearing opposing views of subjects they brought up in the first place, which is exhibiting classic snowflake syndrome behavior.  

It's like that subset of new homeschoolers who will initiate a conversation about how categorically inadequate they think public schools are in a group of parents, and then when one or more of those parents responds with why they think public schools are a good fit for some or that homeschooling is categorically inadequate, the homeschooler who was trash talking public schools plays the discrimination or "mom shaming" card or accuses the other parents of being snowflakes.  Uh, honey, if you bring up the topic of education and state your views, you're obligated to listen to people state their views without being offended by it.

[mathnerd]

11 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

And because you do share views on X and Y, they assume you agree with them on B, Q, V, and R because in their mind a "good" or "real" version of a person sharing views X and Y will necessarily share all other views. Sigh.

You have not met the narcissists in my life: If you choose to be silent and "gray rock" these echo-chamber dwellers, they assume that you agree with them 100% and make leaps in the conversation that are based off the assumption that everything they stated so far was the universal truth.

[HS Mom in NC]

Just now, mathnerd said:

You have not met the narcissists in my life: If you choose to be silent and "gray rock" these echo-chamber dwellers, they assume that you agree with them 100% and make leaps in the conversation that are based off the assumption that everything they stated so far was the universal truth.

Ugh!  That appears to be a damned if you do [speak up] damned if you don't [speak up] situation. 

[TravelingChris]

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

It's very lonely to be the odd man out in an echo chamber. 

I took a class in college in sociology.  It was in a room with another room next door that had a one way mirror into the main room.  I believe the class was supposed to be analyzing group interactions.  All the students except the one who was behind the mirror would have a discussion.  I can't remember who would bring up the topic- the teacher or whether students took turns.  Anyway, it may have been in 1984 because I remember a lot of political discussions.  I was the only Republican, one of two conservatives and one of three who didn't like communism (we added a Cuban American student in for that discussion).  But yeah,  it is tough to be the only one different.

[Lecka]

I have got a set of people who always say they won’t bring certain things up, so that we can enjoy a civil family time together.

Well — they consistently bring it up and then claim they didn’t bring it up.

It has been going on for years and I just can’t take it anymore. 
 

I am hoping it will all calm down after the coronavirus is over.  

But honestly I’m not counting on it.  It’s hard not to feel like it’s been going on for years and that they have no interest in being sensitive towards us.  
 

Edit:  I mean — surely they could just not bring it up.  That is all we are asking for.  A “funny” joke about if my husband really still likes so-and-so is the kind of thing that will happen. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Lecka

[HS Mom in NC]

I've spent years on the Olympic Bean Dip Passing team avoiding that topic with this person in every.single. conversation we've had, multiple times per conversation. Not to brag, but I think I deserve a medal. OK, I'm bragging.

This time, however, probably due to 2020 Fatigue, I did choose to state my point of view, and when she told me she was offended, I explained I'm sure she was and I thought a large part of it was because she chooses to surround herself with only voices that agree with her instead of choosing to expose herself to differing views.  That ended the conversation.  Fine with me.

We'll see if her patterns of dropping bombs on the opposition by bringing it up through insulting statements about them in spite of the topic of conversation being about neutral things continues or if old habits die hard. I'm just getting too old for this nonsense.

Apparently my vent wasn't over.  I just figured you guys get it and are probably dealing with the same issues too. It seems to be a characteristic of American culture now.

[Lecka]

Well, the couple I have an issue with, have no awareness whatsoever that we feel like we have been putting up with digs and zingers for years.

They have no awareness of times we have overlooked things because we want to avoid a fight and have a nice time.

I just don’t have the bandwidth to manage it anymore.  

[Rosie_0801]

My neighbour comes out with outrageous (to me) stuff at times, and I've learned to wait with politely raised eyebrows for the rest of the paragraph. Inevitably the explanation will make sense and be something I can sympathise with. Fun person to know, my neighbour.

[Melissa Louise]

Most of us can be guilty of this to some extent, no matter our politics. Our media/social media landscape encourages it, and the dying off of journalism as a profession doesn't help. 

Very few of us actively seek to understand the demonized other.

There is civil value in learning how to agree to disagree, in understanding our psychologies are incredibly similar, even if our conclusions aren't, and in being able to leave contentious topics alone in some contexts. 

THe personal is often political, but our politics ( broadly defined) need not drive all our personal relations. 

Its always good to remember that humans aren't caricatures, and one cannot extrapolate from one issue to another. 

 

[MoyaPechal]

My parents are like this. They'll spout legitimately extreme stuff and if you disagree, they yell that you're a stupid commie. I've started ignoring political texts and responding "okay, mom" on the phone once she gets started on how Vermont wants to send people to the gulag.

[MoyaPechal]

4 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Most of us can be guilty of this to some extent, no matter our politics. Our media/social media landscape encourages it, and the dying off of journalism as a profession doesn't help. 

Very few of us actively seek to understand the demonized other.

There is civil value in learning how to agree to disagree, in understanding our psychologies are incredibly similar, even if our conclusions aren't, and in being able to leave contentious topics alone in some contexts. 

THe personal is often political, but our politics ( broadly defined) need not drive all our personal relations. 

Its always good to remember that humans aren't caricatures, and one cannot extrapolate from one issue to another. 

 

 

That's true. My pastor suggested watching The Social Dilemma and it was really eye-opening. Social media's artificial intelligence really does create an echo chamber.

[MoyaPechal]

For me, participating in those sorts of conversations is a dilemma. On one hand, I love talking about politics and I've followed politics since middle school. But on the other hand, I was bullied a lot as a child and was threatened with physical harm for my political and religious views in high school and college so I can have a minor panic attack if someone starts getting aggressive/upset and it's made me a bit afraid to openly disagree with people. Especially these days when people are so polarized and quick to cut you off. In fact, I had a close family member cut me off over the 2016 election. 

[Shoeless]

I spent years politely listening to a friend's political ranting via email.  We're talking multi-paragraph diatribes with a large portion of word salad. I could never figure out exactly what point this friend was trying to make, so I'd sort of ignore it and say "uh huh" or "interesting", and then move on to other topics.  

The *one* time I said "Please stop sending me political rants. It's too much right now", I received an 8 paragraph rant about all my character flaws, (I'm a "snowflake", I lack critical thinking skills, I'm a sheeple, I'm hypocritical about feminism because there was that one summer I read both a book by Elizabeth Warren AND a book by Phyllis Schlafly 🙄, I'm fake, and oh yeah, ex-friend feels sorry for my son because he'll have so many challenges to overcome later in life because he was homeschooled and raised by me. "Poor kid; he's turning out ok, despite having YOU as a mother"). Oh, and the rant was delivered on my birthday.  That was a decades-long friendship, completely annihilated over politics (and boundaries, too, I suppose).

This year has made me seriously question whether people are worth knowing. 

[kbutton]

3 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

And because you do share views on X and Y, they assume you agree with them on B, Q, V, and R because in their mind a "good" or "real" version of a person sharing views X and Y will necessarily share all other views. Sigh.

I think this is the one that's easiest for even well meaning people to fall into. I regularly mostly agree with, say, people at church on a lot of stuff. Normally that is okay if a bit uncomfortable. Sometimes I'm thanked for reminding people that we're a diverse group (though we're really not as diverse as they think). Sometimes, I am bringing up another point of view I'm not super vested in but that I think is valid--for instance, I think, "I really want to invite so and so to church, but if this comment bombs, I know that inviting them would be unwise because they have an even more divergent view." But right now, if people normally tolerate 25% dissent, then 25.0000000001% seems to trip catastrophic thinking.

I have to keep fighting it myself in some areas--places where I see people saying they believe xyz, but the person they are supporting is clearly violating xyz. It's like I'm watching them apply the quoted thinking to themselves (what they thought they believed before the precipitating event/quandary), and instead of realizing they've departed from their own original reasoning, they make it about the other person. I am not the only person that has noticed this, but the people IRL who feel this way are not people I get to see often with our current circumstances.

I keep trying really hard to kind of build a margin for myself and examine myself before talking to people to discern what is my likely make or break point on certain issues. If I know someone is already near that line, I try to avoid it. If not, then I figure there is some room to come to a common understanding. Sometimes I do push something very mildly if someone is near a line, but it's usually to see if we can continue having a reasonable relationship--can they see my comment as mild in the grand scheme of things? If not, then I am forewarned and can plan to alter my future relationship accordingly. 

I expect some people to regain common sense. I expect some to really not care later--this is just a crisis, and they are stressed and saying stuff they don't really mean. But some I need to weed out, and voicing mild expressions of dissent is one test of the waters.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I only discuss politics with very few people.  One of those people is my son to whom I taught logic and history.   😉  We actually don't always agree but we agree on how discussions work and that's the important thing to me.

I am distressed by American Christians who equate political affiliation with godliness.  I want to shout that Jesus did not belong to any American political party and most certainly would not belong to one now if He were on earth.  I don't have a problem with Christians having political views or having Christian principles influence their political views but it isn't as cut and dried on political lines as some apparently believe.  Mostly I want to live life for God and leave politics out of it.  (I see my civic duty to vote etc. as a civic duty and do not equate it specifically with my belief and faith in God.)  I have not come across this blending of politics and faith in other cultures where I have attended church but perhaps it is there and I missed it.  (But I don't think so?)

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I think this is the one that's easiest for even well meaning people to fall into. I regularly mostly agree with, say, people at church on a lot of stuff. Normally that is okay if a bit uncomfortable. Sometimes I'm thanked for reminding people that we're a diverse group (though we're really not as diverse as they think). Sometimes, I am bringing up another point of view I'm not super vested in but that I think is valid--for instance, I think, "I really want to invite so and so to church, but if this comment bombs, I know that inviting them would be unwise because they have an even more divergent view." But right now, if people normally tolerate 25% dissent, then 25.0000000001% seems to trip catastrophic thinking.

 

This is one reason why I am so distressed at the blending of American Christianity and American politics.  I want to invite people to church to learn about God, not to hear rants about politics and the so-called "culture wars".  But I often can't because the gospel will be obscured by politics. 

[GoodGrief3]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Most of us can be guilty of this to some extent, no matter our politics. Our media/social media landscape encourages it, and the dying off of journalism as a profession doesn't help. 

Very few of us actively seek to understand the demonized other.

 

 

Agreed. Very few see themselves as the problem.

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

This is one reason why I am so distressed at the blending of American Christianity and American politics.  I want to invite people to church to learn about God, not to hear rants about politics and the so-called "culture wars".  But I often can't because the gospel will be obscured by politics. 

Yes! 

[TravelingChris]

4 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

This is one reason why I am so distressed at the blending of American Christianity and American politics.  I want to invite people to church to learn about God, not to hear rants about politics and the so-called "culture wars".  But I often can't because the gospel will be obscured by politics. 

I am very happy that the sermons and prayers in my church do not go into these things.  

[kbutton]

8 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I only discuss politics with very few people.  One of those people is my son to whom I taught logic and history.   😉  We actually don't always agree but we agree on how discussions work and that's the important thing to me.

I am distressed by American Christians who equate political affiliation with godliness.  I want to shout that Jesus did not belong to any American political party and most certainly would not belong to one now if He were on earth.  I don't have a problem with Christians having political views or having Christian principles influence their political views but it isn't as cut and dried on political lines as some apparently believe.  Mostly I want to live life for God and leave politics out of it.  (I see my civic duty to vote etc. as a civic duty and do not equate it specifically with my belief and faith in God.)  I have not come across this blending of politics and faith in other cultures where I have attended church but perhaps it is there and I missed it.  (But I don't think so?)

 

I think it varies by denomination and whether a church is more liberal or more conservative both theologically and politically.

I think we are trying to sort out how much is enough and how much is too much to discuss politics expressly because we haven't always had a good grasp of how we should evaluate politics in light of our religious beliefs. The Bible does a good job of making both sides of an issue seem like they fall short, and that's uncomfortable for people. 

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

the dying off of journalism as a profession doesn't help. 

Yes, this.  It is becoming so very hard to find actual journalism versus advocate driven so-called journalism.  The standards have fallen so much and some of the biggest names (like NYT) have openly said that they are advocates first and journalists second.  

One reason I have turned a lot more attention to specialized sources and relying so much less on traditional sources.  Particularly as one of the biggest failings of traditional sources is what they choose to cover may not really coincide with what is most important.  
 

And the COVID reporting is part of this trend.  A report this week highlighted that the reporting on COVID is almost all negative, even though there are also lots of positive stories that could be told,.

[Shoeless]

1 minute ago, TravelingChris said:

Yes, this.  It is becoming so very hard to find actual journalism versus advocate driven so-called journalism. 

This is why I started reading news directly from apnews.com.  I've been reading more Wall Street Journal, too, because their headlines don't immediately send my anxiety through the roof.  If the headlines are obviously trying to push buttons, that says to me the reporting isn't trying to convey information, but instead is promoting an agenda. I don't want any agenda! I just want to know what's going on in the world. 

[SoCal_Bear]

The rule of thumb I've been using is when I discuss things with people is that whatever your opinion on X issue, unless and until you can articulate a well reasoned argument for the opposing point of view then you haven't done enough to understand X issue. Educating yourself about opposing point of view doesn't mean you can't have your point of view. It means that you are engaged in actual discourse about said topic.

About the conflation of American Christianity and politics, there is a really excellent book out by Kaitlyn Schiess called the Liturgy of Politics. This is the summary here:

A generation of young Christians are weary of the political legacy they've inherited and hungry for a better approach. They're tired of seeing their faith tied to political battles they didn't start, and they're frustrated by the failures of leaders they thought they could trust. Kaitlyn Schiess grew up in this landscape, and understands it from the inside. Spiritual formation, and particularly a focus on formative practices, are experiencing a renaissance in Christian thinking―but these ideas are not often applied to the political sphere. In The Liturgy of Politics, Schiess shows that the church's politics are shaped by its habits and practices even when it's unaware of them. Schiess insists that the way out of our political morass is first to recognize the formative power of the political forces all around us, and then to recover historic Christian practices that shape us according to the truth of the gospel.

https://www.amazon.com/Liturgy-Politics-Spiritual-Formation-Neighbor/dp/0830848304#:~:text=In the Liturgy of Politics%2C Kaitlyn Schiess explores how it,fresh and much needed view.

You can hear her talk on Holy Post about the book here: https://www.holypost.com/post/episode-420-four-false-political-gospels-with-kaitlyn-schiess

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by calbear

[TravelingChris]

3 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I think it varies by denomination and whether a church is more liberal or more conservative both theologically and politically.

I think we are trying to sort out how much is enough and how much is too much to discuss politics expressly because we haven't always had a good grasp of how we should evaluate politics in light of our religious beliefs. The Bible does a good job of making both sides of an issue seem like they fall short, and that's uncomfortable for people. 

Yes, and so far, since we have been attending and joined in 2011, our church has a mix of liberal and conservative people both theologically and politically.  I like that better than being in a church with only liberals or only conservatives.  And that goes back to a thought by a previous poster who said that people often assume that if you like A, B, C  you obviously like D.  And I find that while I am mostly conservative, I have issues where I may be more aligned with libertarians or even with liberals---like with keeping prisons safe and prison reform.  But that is something that a lot of people don't understand and particularly some of the loudest voices.  

[kbutton]

5 minutes ago, calbear said:

https://www.amazon.com/Liturgy-Politics-Spiritual-Formation-Neighbor/dp/0830848304#:~:text=In the Liturgy of Politics%2C Kaitlyn Schiess explores how it,fresh and much needed view.

You can hear her talk on Holy Post about the book here: https://www.holypost.com/post/episode-420-four-false-political-gospels-with-kaitlyn-schiess

 

I listened to this, but I was busy and didn't follow up on the book. Thank you! As I remember, it was an excellent talk. I need to listen again. 

[SoCal_Bear]

26 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

This is why I started reading news directly from apnews.com.  I've been reading more Wall Street Journal, too, because their headlines don't immediately send my anxiety through the roof.  If the headlines are obviously trying to push buttons, that says to me the reporting isn't trying to convey information, but instead is promoting an agenda. I don't want any agenda! I just want to know what's going on in the world. 

I would highly recommend https://ground.news/ to anyone here. It is an aggregator of news and will show you the bias rating of a news agency (from three non-partisan media watch dog groups). It it really helpful that in one place I can choose to read a left, center, and right to see how a particular story is being reported. Nothing is being filtered from me as I can see everything in one place. My favorite aspect is their blindspot feature where they show you what isn't been reported on and by extension seen by the left and the right. The website site is a lot more powerful than the app IMO since I can see more.

[popmom]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

This is one reason why I am so distressed at the blending of American Christianity and American politics.  I want to invite people to church to learn about God, not to hear rants about politics and the so-called "culture wars".  But I often can't because the gospel will be obscured by politics. 

I couldn't go to a church that did that. Have you thought about changing? My church is similar to TravelingChris' although we are all pretty similar in our theology/doctrine. But I really appreciate that there is no blending of Christianity and politics. Our congregation is all over the map politically. But worship is "Jesus Christ and him crucified". 

Edited December 12, 2020 by popmom

[ScoutTN]

My in-laws are some of those echo chamber people. I gave up trying to have any real conversations with them more than 15 yrs ago. 

Reading the various points of view on these boards, on so many topics over the years, has helped me to be a better listener, to ask better questions, and to make connections with some people with whom I have substantive disagreements. 

[HS Mom in NC]

Thanks all for the discussion.  I really do appreciate it.

[kbutton]

5 hours ago, popmom said:

I couldn't go to a church that did that. Have you thought about changing? My church is similar to TravelingChris' although we are all pretty similar in our theology/doctrine. But I really appreciate that there is no blending of Christianity and politics. Our congregation is all over the map politically. But worship is "Jesus Christ and him crucified". 

I can't answer for Jean, but as for my church, the comments from the pulpit will stop, but then it crops up in Sunday School. That stops, and then people will make offhanded remarks in the hallway, or ladies in the bathroom will be discussing something crazy. 

I live in a certain color of state, and I live in the part of the state that is just about the most saturated with that particular political color. I tend to lean that way by most measures, and it makes ME uncomfortable. I am not sure how different it would be in another local church with similar beliefs, but I do know that if I moved somewhere else I could find churches with similar beliefs that would be more balanced.  

[popmom]

37 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I can't answer for Jean, but as for my church, the comments from the pulpit will stop, but then it crops up in Sunday School. That stops, and then people will make offhanded remarks in the hallway, or ladies in the bathroom will be discussing something crazy. 

I live in a certain color of state, and I live in the part of the state that is just about the most saturated with that particular political color. I tend to lean that way by most measures, and it makes ME uncomfortable. I am not sure how different it would be in another local church with similar beliefs, but I do know that if I moved somewhere else I could find churches with similar beliefs that would be more balanced.  

Well, this makes me sad. I mean...I used to be a member of a large church where this went on--mainly in our Sunday School class as you mentioned. When I was younger, "echo chambers" weren't really on my radar. I wonder if we hadn't moved if I would still be at that church. I'm def not a church hopper, so I appreciate y'alls faithfulness to your churches. Sometimes the best--most God honoring thing we can do is to pray for our church leaders.

Edited December 12, 2020 by popmom

[Frances]

7 hours ago, MissLemon said:

This is why I started reading news directly from apnews.com.  I've been reading more Wall Street Journal, too, because their headlines don't immediately send my anxiety through the roof.  If the headlines are obviously trying to push buttons, that says to me the reporting isn't trying to convey information, but instead is promoting an agenda. I don't want any agenda! I just want to know what's going on in the world. 

Outside of the editorial page in the WSJ, both of these sources are generally considered centrist, so are good for those who want to avoid bias to the extent possible.

[Shoeless]

9 minutes ago, Frances said:

Outside of the editorial page in the WSJ, both of these sources are generally considered centrist, so are good for those who want to avoid bias to the extent possible.

Exactly. I checked them against a media bias checker website, and both were ranked highly for accuracy of reporting, as well as being pretty close to center. I have a slight personal preference for WSJ because I think their site is slightly more readable than apnews.  I can also choose to read articles in the order they are printed in the WSJ physical paper, rather than in the order the website "decides" to show them.  I like that I can opt out of the algorithm! 

Edited December 12, 2020 by MissLemon

[easypeasy]

9 hours ago, MissLemon said:

This year has made me seriously question whether people are worth knowing. 

Oh, AMEN, sister! I will not fully emerge from this quarantine bubble and associate with the same people ever again. It's been... enlightening. 

[MoyaPechal]

I'm guess I'm really lucky that despite living right by DC, our church is very nonpartisan. I've never heard someone bring up politics at coffee hour. The only reason I know anyone's views is from seeing them on Facebook before I deleted it. I still have no clue what our priest's views are, aside from being pro life and really jaded about politics in general. It seems like there's a good mix of views and a lot of people who don't like either party.