Both sides of what spectrum? What kind of echo chamber? It sounds like you have an opinion about which group is being excluded.
Is it always valuable to hear "both sides"? I'd argue that's a bad idea in practice. For example, if an anti-vaxxer came in and started commenting, I don't feel we owe them equal time or comment space. I'm OK with down voting and moving on.
Ironic that your comment is the very first that got negative on this thread.
But just so you know: your comment is being downvoted (at least by me) not only because you created a strawman and made an excellent display of an authoritarian/totalitarian mind, it is because your comment does not improve the quality of the conversation.
Really? I mean I suppose that's one interpretation. I'm more just saying that some things are well understood, commonly agreed upon, fundamental, or at the very least "settled for the time being". There must be things you'd say don't warrant giving both sides equal space.
Your strawman is on the fact that OP is not arguing for "always hearing both sides", and this is what you argued against.
The point is that there are some comments that are being downvoted simply because they are the downvoter is not in agreement.
And your totalitarian display is in the part where you indicate that anything that is not "commonly agreed upon" should be supressed instead of discussed or search for mutual understanding, i.e, "not deserving of space".
I agree with the parent post, and think the comparison of their opinion to totalitarianism/authoritarianism is overdramatic and perhaps emotional - it reduces the quality of the discussion.
Is it always valuable to hear "both sides"? I'd argue that's a bad idea in practice. For example, if an anti-vaxxer came in and started commenting, I don't feel we owe them equal time or comment space. I'm OK with down voting and moving on.