I don’t even want to talk to you and you aren’t even as unpleasant as those who support maga ideals, so your whole just talk it out has been a failure from the onset. But, if you believe maga is even easier to talk it out and change their minds then go at it.

You aren’t even doing a good job of getting non Trump supporters to agree with you.

And if you don’t see supporting someone who wants to be a dictator, wants to get rid of minorities, hires white nationalists like Hegseth, threatens Canada’s independence, bombs Venezuelan boats, and has ties to the files as not evil then what exactly is evil to you?

Because a person who endorses that type of person and only complains when they are financially affected, but were happily cheering on the policies before hand sure seem evil to me. This isn’t like some disagreement about which food is better. What they fundamentally were in support of is red flags.

How do we even know if they are actually reformed and won’t go and vote for the next Trump who they believe will be more strategic about who they hurt so the right kind of people are left unaffected?

Expressing disapproval of Trump doesn’t mean they disagree with many of the things he is doing, since he has so far been truthful on all the things he said he’d do starting with wanting to be a dictator and Project 2025. Nothing is a surprise.

Only surprise is they thought only illegals and minorities would be affected, and that’s still something they want.

If she saw the future she’d still vote for Trump. The core ideology is something she agrees with and is happy with many of the policies being carried out. She’s just not happy about the random way it is being carried out that is leading to collateral damage to groups of her kind that weren’t supposed to be affected.

You can’t even bring together people who aren’t on Trump sides, so you are failing on your messaging from the start when it comes to your big proclamation of talking it out.

She hasn’t changed. She’ll vote for the next Trump who they believe will be more surgical when it comes to hurting people they don’t like. This is her basically telling the party to reduce the collateral damage. The ideology that brought her to support them hasn’t changed.

It is interesting that forums had less people but felt very active and didn’t need the millions of people that places like modern day social media do.

And I think big part of it is the presentation of material with threads that get bumped up when people comment and can keep going on for years.

In reddit type social media a thread is considered dead after like a day or less, so needing a new one even if it is the same topic to start up conversation again. Even more the case for one off comment type social media like mastodon.

I hear echo chamber brought up a lot but never really have seen examples of a place that doesn’t have an echo chamber.

I think that’s just the natural result of people forming communities as opposed seeking out battle grounds for adversaries.

Only thing that can be done is offering people the tools to freely form as many communities as they want with the main barrier being who feels compelled to join the new echo chamber community.