Today we are taught that propaganda is evil, something that we should avoid at all costs. Perhaps this is true for some. Perhaps some people are not inclined to think for themselves, and so must be shielded, much like children, from certain ideologies. But for those of us who are skilled in critical analysis, we do a huge disservice to society by ignoring propaganda because, if we do not analyze and critique it, then no one will. Or, even worse, amateurs will analyze propaganda for us, inevitably misinterpreting the intent of propagandists, and creating even more misinformation in the process. In recent years, there has been a huge surge in amateurish attempts to decode propaganda much like the era of the Cold War, when grumpy old men went searching for communism at rock concerts. Such people have no idea to detect propaganda, and so they lash out blindly at things they despise. But today it is mainly Christian propagandists who focus on the ills of rock music. But there is another set of amateurs that are just as fond of creating wild, overly simplistic explanations for why wars are waged on the mind. This set of amateur propaganda sleuths consider themselves to be members of the scientific community, even though most of the time they are not. They also consider themselves to be much smarter than the Christian witch hunters they evolved from, but they are not any closer to discovering the truth than Alex Jones. This second "more reasonable" group are the people who write internet articles online in a vain attempt to explain why problems occur. These are the same people who brought you overly simplistic arguments like "cancel culture bad" and "all police are heroes". They are the same people who call for peace after guns have been fired in your direction unprovoked. They are the same people who argued that prosecuting a sitting president who clearly incited a riot live on national television should be prosecuted by state authorities without the assistance of the federal government. They are wishy-washy, and they are full of ignorance; yet they have massive followings and so control the national narratives on complex issues. These people, these elitists swine with excess curiosity and no place to put it, are the people who brought you the famous "echo chambers" argument. The argument essentially states that the reason people are so misinformed politically is because they only ever get information from people who share their political opinions, mostly on social media. This argument is incorrect for many reasons. For example, it assumes that social media users are misinformed, that they are not acting in their own interest politically, and that they are ignoring mainstream media sources altogether. Now, if I were to make the exact same argument about a particular religious institution, that the churches that people go to are indoctrinating them and turning them into lazy idiots, you would call me a bigot. If I made the exact same argument about a particular race of people, claiming that race was uninformed because they chose to hang out with people of their own race, you would call me a racist. So, why is it that elitist academics are able to claim, with no evidence, that social media makes people dumber? Oh, and do you know where these academics are making this claim? On social media of course. Where else can you blurt out idiotic nonsense and have people throw money at you for it? So, I am supposed to believe that social media only changes the minds of those who are not academics because academics immune to fallacious arguments and bias? Well, I don't believe that, and in this episode I prove very clearly that echo chambers do not exist, and that people are not as easily influenced as we have been led to believe. There is no proof that all or even most members of social groups share similar thoughts. So why do people want us to believe this? Why are those who scream for unity causing such unneeded division?