Thread by @HawaroniHawara

I joined a Reddit discussion about Charlie Kirk today.

Someone had called him “far-right,” and I just wanted to see what arguments they had.

Spoiler: it was a wall of bubble-driven misinformation. 1/10

The replies ranged from “that shooter was right-wing too” to “Charlie Kirk called for gays to be stoned.”

Not a single verifiable source, just wild claims parroted in unison.
2/10

It’s like watching a choir perform — not music, but the same talking points echoed again and again.

All of it recycled from their own bubble, none of it checked.
3/10

You can tell immediately: they don’t inform themselves, they just pass on what they picked up from their circle.

“Charlie Kirk wants to kill gays!!1!!1” — and that’s considered an argument.

4/10

Trying to reason with people like that is impossible.

They’ve abandoned rational discourse entirely and expect you to meet them on their level instead.

5/10

And when you don’t?

You’re immediately branded, shouted down, and treated as if the script has to be protected at all costs.

It feels less like debate and more like social enforcement.
6/10

What struck me most: the herd behavior.

The instinct to repeat, enforce, and silence dissent without ever asking: Is this true?

7/10

That’s why discussions in such bubbles rarely lead anywhere.

Without a shared commitment to facts, there’s no common ground.

Just noise.

8/10

My takeaway:

You can’t “win” debates in echo chambers.

The better approach is to step back, demand sources, and not waste energy on parrots.

9/10

Social media amplifies misinformation, but it also reveals how easily people surrender independent thought.

That’s worth remembering before diving into the next “debate.”

You cant argue with a person who deliberately left the plane of reason.

10/10

@threadreaderapp unroll