[WB] Dystopias

[darvjake]

For any Dystopian worldbuilders: What books/entertainment do you base these Dystopian worlds on?

Mine would have to be Huxley's "Brave New World".

The idea of entertainment/pleasure could rule the minds of citizens is something that not many people have touched on, and I feel as though it could be a good alternative to the "1984" Dystopias that many authors are inspired by.

 

[Shiver]

The "Orwell vs Huxley" divide is something that's definitely been commented on before in the world of Dystopian fiction! Whether it's more compelling/realistic/interesting to imagine a dystopia where humanity's subjugation is through violence and fear, or pacification and numbness.

Personally I always thought the Huxley version seemed more plausible, but recent events in global affairs have shown how frighteningly prescient Orwell was in predicting the ease with which a bully government can promote doublethink and simply negate the power of facts and evidence.

In terms of other authors, highly recommend Margaret Atwood's dystopias. The Handmaid's Tale has had a renaissance thanks to the show, but I also strongly recommend Oryx and Crake for a compelling vision of a bleak but totally plausible corporate-dominated, consumer-mad, and economically disparate world.

 

[Arkwright]

I have to fundamentally disagree with the poster above. I think Huxley's world has become our reality, and that he predicted moral degradation to a T: to the point where we've embraced easy-access hedony and hyper-sexualisation to such an extent that we no longer realise just how far the bar has been lowered; and to talk out against any of this is to commit social suicide... conveniently enough for the advertisers, hey?

Neil Postman talks more about this in his book, Amusing Ourselves To Death. Which, as you can probably tell, is about the television. Amusing was written sometime in the 1980's.

Good books and sources for Dystopia are: 'We' by Zamyatin (the book that preceded and inspired 1984 and Brave New World). Hunger Games - by Suzanne Collins. And Neuromancer by William Gibson (the OG of Cyberpunk). Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep (by Philip Dick), Blade Runner and Akira, (both of which are films), Love, Death, Sex and Robots (The Netflix Series), District 13, Elysium, Doomsday! (eh) 28 Weeks/Days Later. Gattaca. And especially, especially, Children of Men.

Watch this short film documentary: (Don't ignore the background.) It will improve your writing if you listen and work to understand this rule: Dystopian novels are not about characters, they're about the environment the characters are in. Note how shallow Winston and Julia are in 1984, they're made to be empathised with and projected upon, and instead: it's Big Brother, the Thought Police, and The One State in general who are given most of the characterisation in the book. That's because the protagonists are supposed to feel very small and inconsequential, whilst the antagonists - in contrast - feel mighty and (quite literally) omniscient throughout the novel.

Great theories to look into are Jeremy Bentham's 'Panopticon,' John Stuart Mill's happiness principle (the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people is the morally correct choice) and you should try to look into surveillance and facial recognition if you want to understand how Dystopian governments can be so effective in literature. Good sources for this would be the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and the KGB (The Kremlin/Russians.)

Finally, check how meta-data can be used against individuals in our contemporary society by studying Shoshana Zuboff, and I recommend listening to interviews with Edward Snowden, or reading his book.

I don't suggest studying Margaret Atwood. Her work takes the framework of the novels that came before and does something unintelligible with it, and like most bestsellers: people think Atwood is platform gravy because she's on trend. Let me tell you, anything that is on trend is devised to be marketed to the masses, anything that is made to be marketed to the masses comes with a healthy dose of orthodoxy. Do we read dystopia to be subjected to orthodoxy? ... Didn't think so.

Handmaid's Tale made the mistake of getting caught up in the web of gender politics: another massive distraction employed to divide and conquer people and increase social competitiveness. It's a problematic novel that adds to the general malaise we're stuck in right now as a global society, and therefore does the opposite of what good dystopia should do: offer an answer to societal problems, not reinforce them! ... Ai-ai-ai.

Remember, Offred runs away at the end of the novel and does... nothing. If Offred does nothing, achieves nothing, then the emotional story being told equates to nothing. The end of the novel offers no answers. It almost reads like Atwood wanted to write a ($$$$$!) sequel. So-, why publish this book under the pretence of it being a dystopia? It has no moral lesson, and if it has no moral lesson, it isn't dystopia. You can't just explore an issue but never attempt to answer it when you write a dystopia, that's lazy writing. And for one good reason: presenting an issue without any intention to answer it makes your book into a piece of propaganda, ... the irony.

Atwood's a capitalist. Tl;dr.

The OG books are those that recognise that dystopia is beyond race and gender. Gender and race shouldn't matter in good dystopia, because humanity will have presumably, in twenty years time, already be past the semantics, concepts, and language issues that complicate the present day. This isn't based upon a general dislike of contemporary politics, by the way. It's based upon the knowledge of oneness: that we all come from the same source, that we all are the same thing, and that all things should be treated the same way (inc. men, women, animals, and nature). This is why our rights take the forefront in dystopia, and why most authors who have written for this genre are so passionate, because they understand this important concept; and attempt to instil the importance of it upon their readers.

Edit for clarification: Focus on the point of the novel, not the social politics of contemporary society, because by the time your story is set: those problems will be over. Create something unique: a unique struggle, independent to the people in your dystopian society.

 

[RedRose]

I love handmaid's tale SHOW (not the book, NOT the movie, actually not the last season). 1984 would be a fascinating rp... I could never get into the dry thing though.

 

[Shiver]

Handmaid's Tale made the mistake of getting caught up in the web of gender politics: another massive distraction employed to divide and conquer people and increase social competitiveness. It's a problematic novel that adds to the general malaise we're stuck in right now as a global society, and therefore does the opposite of what good dystopia should do: offer an answer to societal problems, not reinforce them! ... Ai-ai-ai.

Remember, Offred runs away at the end of the novel and does... nothing. If Offred does nothing, achieves nothing, then the emotional story being told equates to nothing. The end of the novel offers no answers. It almost reads like Atwood wanted to write a ($$$$$!) sequel. So-, why publish this book under the pretence of it being a dystopia? It has no moral lesson, and if it has no moral lesson, it isn't dystopia. You can't just explore an issue but never attempt to answer it when you write a dystopia, that's lazy writing. And for one good reason: presenting an issue without any intention to answer it makes your book into a piece of propaganda, ... the irony.

Rarely have I encountered an interpretation I disagree with as strongly! All in the name of civil discussion

Firstly, to say that there's no moral lesson in Handmaid's Tale is baffling to me. There's a clear lesson about the tyranny of dogma, and the book sounds a warning klaxon on the fragile status of women's bodily autonomy in North America. It's a cautionary tale, like many dystopian works. It's up to the reader to ponder solutions... in fact, I think you have it completely backwards: when a work of fiction gets prescriptive, then it becomes propagandist. The claim that Atwood is merely getting "caught up in gender politics" is just glib and dismissive.

Furthermore, what does Offred achieve in the end? Liberation... maybe. It's not necessary to see her live happily ever after, or return as a revolutionary, or strike some great victory, or anything of the sort. The book isn't about her, it's about Gilead. As you said, dystopian novels are about the world, not about the characters.

 

[Arkwright]

fragile status of women's bodily autonomy in North America

You lost me here.

... What fragile bodily autonomy do women have in America, of all places? Compare this culture to the Middle East. Talk about your first world problems. America has one of the most sexually liberated cultures in the world, even if Americans do have the older generation nagging down their necks, creating a web of discussion to the contrary, it doesn't actually stop the freedoms Americans want to exercise. The abortion rates prove as much.

I'm not being glib, or dismissive: I'm being earnest. America has self-made problems: not real ones.

A Thousand Splendid Suns

A Thousand Splendid Suns is a breathtaking story set against the volatile events of Afghanistan's last thirty years - from the Soviet inv...

www.goodreads.com

If you want to talk about fragile bodily autonomy, go here. Or here:

Human trafficking in Thailand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Perspective's a valuable thing.

 

[Shiver]

You lost me here.

... What fragile bodily autonomy do women have in America, of all places? Compare this culture to the Middle East. Talk about your first world problems.

Reproductive rights, primarily. A central topic of the book we're discussing.

I'm sorry to say that you're making a very tired, incredibly silly argument. Are women in the developed world better off than women in the developing world? Of course. That doesn't in any way invalidate the issues that exist in North America, like how the US lags far behind the rest of the developed world in terms of sex education, access to contraceptives, and so on. The "you can't complain because you're not the worst-off in the world" argument isn't worth the pixels spilled to type it.

 

[Arkwright]

My statement was ironic. I know you're talking about reproductive rights. Hence why I said: look at the abortion rates. 'The choice' seems (statistically) very available.

And this is only your opinion, too. (As an American, I'm assuming...? If you're not, then how do you know what's going on, and why're you arguing in defence of these politics that pit people against one another? Seems strange.)

My argument flies pretty well when I'm chatting casually amongst friends and travellers, where there's no bias, and nothing to get defensive about. Sorry it tires you out for you to hear that people have different opinions than you, but they do. No one cares about America or its hyped-up politics, honestly: most people I talk to are just really, really sick of hearing about America and its inflated 'problems.' Especially when these causes of concern are so hypocritical. (You're concerned about rights concerning women's bodies, when naked women who've chosen to be represented that way are shown all over the media these days?) It's even been popularised for women to call each other sluts. ... So, all these attitudes you're arguing for have been normalised already. The victory was won years ago. That's why I think Atwood's barking up the wrong tree, and for an entire generation to still be stuck on an issue like gender is time wasted. The zoomer gen' are past it, time for us to move past it, too.

And you want to talk about reproductive rights? Let's talk about how men still have no say in their own reproduction. We don't get kids unless we marry, or hold a relationship with a woman, even if we don't want to. We can't just get a kid of our own blood and be a solo parent, as we'll be ostracised socially, besieged by courts, or held hostage by social services - unless we just so happen to come across a surrogate who wants nothing to do with us, and won't stab us in the back once the kid's born. Here's hoping.

... Now compare that to how much freedom women have over their progeny. Uh-huh. I'm trying to be civil here, but I don't know how many signs I can put up on the wall for you. It's not as much of a problem as you seem to think it is, earnestly. I'm more scared about black lives, immigrants, homelessness, and drugs.

 

[Shiver]

I'm actually not an American! And I know the argument flies well -- that's why I hear it so much that it's become tiresome. But you seem to be getting a little peeved, so I'm happy to leave it at agreeing to disagree.

To OP and others: I strongly recommend Atwood generally, and Oryx and Crake specifically as a grounded near-future dystopia with some economic and environmental commentary that has only grown more convincing.

Edit: you seem to have completely edited your response while I was typing, so my reply doesn't quite make sense anymore... I'll address the other things.

 

[Arkwright]

I know the argument flies well -- that's why I hear it so much

Yeah, maybe there's a reason for that?

... Denial's an incredible thing. I'm out.

P.S: Sorry if I seemed peeved. Arguments are not my forte.

 

[Shiver]

Yeah, maybe there's a reason for that?

Well, I think the reason is that "whatabboutism" is knee-jerk reaction to any argument. But I don't think it's enough to say "X isn't an issue because Y and Z are also issues, why aren't you talking about those?"

As for the prejudices men face in custody battles and all, that may well be true. But that fact doesn't make it any less valid to ponder (or write about) the things that threaten women's rights in North America any more than the fact that some women in some other places have it worse. It is a fact that, by many metrics, reproductive rights in America are far worse than elsewhere in the developed world, and with certain recent judicial appointments, are at risk of backsliding further. Homelessness, drug addiction, men's issues... the existence of these problems doesn't wipe out the existence of women's issues. It's not a zero-sum game nor a competition.

Also, remember that Margaret Atwood starting publishing in 1969. Her works can't be accused of exploiting any kind of misled, modern zeitgeist. Handmaid's Tale itself over thirty years old.

 

[Arkwright]

It is a fact that, by many metrics,

Alright, then throw me some sources, because I'd genuinely be interested in reading about this. I'm up for conceding and taking in your argument if what you say is true. By North America, what states are we talking?

 

[Corinthi]

I have to say it's very odd to laud many of the works Arkwright praised then condemn Atwood for writing a book the would appeal to the masses. Seems counterintuitive, but I don't want to dig into that because it already got nasty enough above.

Rather, let's talk about dystopia. Don't be too focused on Western media. Japan has produced some amazing Dystopian media, which I'd say was influenced highly by their experience with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus different societal values. Akira, Battle Royale, Ghost in the Shell, Psycho-Pass, Parasyte... Japan has put out a huge quantity of dystopian cinema. Some weird, some wacky, some grounded. It's fertile ground for looking for inspiration.

 

[Arkwright]

I have to say it's very odd to laud many of the works Arkwright praised then condemn Atwood for writing a book the would appeal to the masses. Seems counterintuitive, but I don't want to dig into that because it already got nasty enough above.

My concerns are about technology (1984/BNW/Gattaca/Children/ect), not gender (Atwood). It's not odd at all. Bash the books you think don't add to the conversation, praise those that do.

There's a misconception I really think needs clearing up:

Is it not okay to say I don't like a book? I don't like the book. I thought it was crap. I thought the ending was terrible, and it was a wet novel. I've read Atwood's depiction of Fables, too, and I thought that was crap as well. I should be able to say I didn't like something on a public forum, without my intentions being questioned left and right, guys.

 

[Corinthi]

Not all dystopias are technology driven. Dystopias are defined by the effect the society has on it's citizens, not it's technology level.

That said, technological dystopias are far more commonly depicted and considered than non-technological dystopias.

 

[Arkwright]

Not all dystopias are technology driven. Dystopias are defined by the effect the society has on it's citizens, not it's technology level.

... I know? I never said they were. I just stated my preference(?)

 

[Shiver]

Alright, then throw me some sources, because I'd genuinely be interested in reading about this. I'm up for conceding and taking in your argument if what you say is true. By North America, what states are we talking?

I mean it's not like I'm sitting on a literature review, and it all varies by state. Much of this is widely known, but I can give you some links.

Here you can see that about half of US are mandated to stress abstinence as sex ed, and 11 are mandated to discuss abstinence only, i.e. provide no information on contraceptives and such. That's anomalous in the developed world, and goes a long way towards explaining why the US has more unwanted pregnancies than most developed countries.

Half of US states also have barriers of all sort for accessing contraceptives if you're under 18.... or they allow employers to exclude contraceptives from their workers' health insurance... you can read about that stuff here...

To say nothing of actual barriers to abortion services itself, which also vary widely by state. So-called "heartbeat bills" which require you to go in multiple times and hear the heartbeat before they'll perform the procedure are constantly being introduced, often passed, and given the thumbs up by the Supreme Court. Or extremely restrictive circumstance/timing when abortion will be allowed. And if Roe V Wade is overturned (which is now highly likely thanks to the current makeup of the Supreme Court), you can be sure a number of these states will ban abortion outright.

America is hardly Saudi Arabia, but it's far, far behind western Europe, or even my native Canada (for example) when it comes to reproductive rights. That really isn't in dispute, it's a point of pride in fact for many Americans.

That's why I think Atwood's dystopic lens, namely inequality (environmental, economic, class, gender) is so believable and resonant. It reflects and amplifies the inequalities we see today. Her books are very grounded.

 

[Corinthi]

You did a bit more than simply state a preference with your Atwood commentary, but that's not the point of the thread.

Russia also has some brilliant Dystopian media. Metro, We, The Yellow Arrow. The bleakness of those novels might be a lot to take, but they're brilliant explorations of people, power, and surviving in a system designed to grind you down.

 

[Arkwright]

You did a bit more than simply state a preference with your Atwood commentary, but that's not the point of the thread.

Making snappy, sarcastic, and unhelpful comments seems to be the point of your posts though, hey?

I'm genuinely out. Can't be bothered with your unwarranted passive-aggressiveness, Corinthi: especially after I've opened myself up to listen to Shivers. You can have your echo chamber back.

 

[Shiver]

Making snappy, sarcastic, and unhelpful comments seems to be the point of your posts though, hey?

I'm genuinely out. Can't be bothered with your unwarranted passive-aggressiveness, Corinthi: especially after I've opened myself up to listen to Shivers. Enjoy your one-sided, echo-chamber of a conversation.

I don't think anyone means to attack you personally. Your initial post was a rather forceful criticism of the book (which is perfectly fine!) so people are replying with equally vigorous counterargument. I don't think it's personal, at least not from me.

 

[Corinthi]

*shrugs* I'll admit that I find irony in Arkwright getting annoyed that my posts strike him as passive aggressive when he's been openly aggressive. I am sad that I continued to derail and apologize to OP. I regret mentioning the oddness in lauding The Hunger Games while bashing The Handmaid's Tale for being too commercial.

 

[Arkwright]

openly aggressive

How can you be openly aggressive on the internet? There's your problem right there, Corinthi. Shivers and I were having a hard talk. But for you to wedge yourself between post after post and not give me the space or time to reply to Shivers derails--

I am sad that I continued to derail and apologize to OP.

-- the discussion and makes it so that if I intended to hear Shivers out, which I did: I can't. Because I'm too busy replying to your chain: your chain that presumes my understanding, not all dystopia is about technology, and tugs at comments made three posts back, lauds the hunger games.

Let's talk about the Hunger Games, if you want to be cocky about it. I think Collins does something very well that Atwood doesn't: the book has a female protagonist who is relatable to both genders - unlike, I'd argue, Offred - and satires commercialisation, an issue that's contributing to the degradation of the environment and global warming.

Now do you see why I value one and not the other? One issue presented here is physically affecting the world around us in a way that's almost irreversible. The other is a gender issue that I believe has already been ironed out. And my original argument was that: dystopia should no longer represent gender issues as issues, in order to surpass the conversation entirely. Shivers has presented evidence as to the contrary: these issues are apparently still prevalent, and apparently they should be discussed in fiction.

But I shouldn't have to explain that in separate posts to you, Corinthi. If you're really as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you should be able to make the logical conclusions about why I'm using the examples I'm using, and not scoff at my points as ironic. They're not ironic. Collins sold three novels worth of dystopia that satire our obsession with entertainment and commercialisation, in an environment obsessed with entertainment and commercialisation, and it sold, and she made it accessible to kids: a book about a woman overthrowing the government (although we see that has no effect on governance, in the end). Talk about achieving the impossible. Not even Orwell managed to have that much stomach: in comparison, his novel ends in tragedy.

Atwood wrote a book about a girl who ran away, and didn't change a damn thing. She only highlights the issue. She never tackles it. My respect goes to the person who did 'it', the impossible: not the character or the author who only touched upon the issue. That may be an odd way to see it to you, but I believe that's what dystopia is about: overthrow the issue, or die trying. If as a writer, you really think your issue is the last issue, make your character live and die for it. Matyrdom is the essence of good dystopia. Offred should not have scampered away to secure a possible sequel. Imo, Atwood had no conviction and no plan, and I felt that throughout her novel: how couldn't I, when all the plot beats led towards it? All novels end the same way: an inevitable, but surprising end. There was nothing surprising about Offred's escape, it was just disappointing, a big: ''... That's it?'' moment for me. Was Atwood saying the forces of evil can't be beaten? Maybe. Should she have? No, not in my opinion: that's the wrong message to send. Whereas, the moment I opened The Hunger Games, I felt Katniss' hunger from page 1. She left me starving for food. One writer versus the other - I know who I'd pick for style alone.

I respect you both enough to reply to each of you, but for you to jump in Corinthi and put words in my mouth means I unfortunately have to stop to correct you, which I shouldn't have to do, because all the content of my argument is in my posts, not yours: you fabricating my intentions in your posts makes me look bad because I have to keep clarifying myself. If I have to clarify myself every post, I'm never going to get into the actual meat of the conversation. Don't do this.

And someone should explain to you Corinthi that any apology with an implied 'but,' isn't an apology.

Shivers, I'm a teacher, and I've heard of the revolving door policy and the problems with the US education system from my colleagues; and it sucks, quite frankly. Everyone should have access to better education, critical thinking, and sex ed'. Especially sex ed' that reminds kids that male and female are just words, just concepts, and the sooner they start distancing themselves from words as dogma, the better. I'm sorry to hear it is such a tangled mess in the US. It's a relatively young country (500+ years?), so hopefully things will become even more progressive there. (It feels odd to even say that when America is known as 'the' progressive country, but it seems like what you're saying must be right.)

Sorry to anyone I offended with the hard talk. These're hard issues that dystopia touches upon, and it's a shame we can't discuss them without thinking one of us might have ill intentions.

Edit: To be honest, I'm a bit scared of writing anything as to the contrary these days online, as it seems to get held against me; and I always get flagged and moderators in my inbox. I can't really fathom that, as it speaks into the issue itself of freedom of speech being stamped upon, which ironically is exactly what we're talking about here when we mention dystopia. So let's not play into the tropes in a thread like this, of all threads, all right guys? Please.

 

[Corinthi]

How can you be openly aggressive on the internet? There's your problem right there, Corinthi. Shivers and I were having a hard talk. But for you to wedge yourself between post after post and not give me the space or time to reply to Shivers derails--

You seem to be managing the openly aggressive just fine. Although you do seem to have a problem with walking away, despite multiple dramatic declarations of being done because people are too tiresome to deal with. Also, if you truly wanted to engage in an open exchange of ideas with Shiver, my comments wouldn't stop you. Hell, they pose no barrier whatsoever to what you wish to write. I have not that power. That's reserved for dystopic regimes and platform owners. Your proposed inability to engage with Shiver is nonsense, and I think we both know it.

At the core of all of this digression from what the OP wanted to discuss is that you the dystopia Atwood crafted and the way she crafted it, didn't resonate with you. Much in the same fashion the Hunger Games didn't resonate with me. Where you saw a relatable protagonist that appealed to both genders, I saw a fairly cliché young adult protagonist. You felt her hunger and I just didn't. I never worried about her because the tropes were never far from the surface, where as Atwood's book felt more grounded, more real, and more bleak. It resonated with me in a way the Hunger Games didn't, and yes, the ending is part of that. Offred couldn't tear down the system. Not in that universe. She wasn't a plucky teenager who could change the world (if not really). She was no one. The best she could do was slip her chains. That felt real. The issues you voiced in regards of Atwood's capitalistic intentions could just as easily be applied to Collins, but that's irrelevant.

You found things in the Hunger Games that resonated within you as a reader. You didn't find that with The Handmaid's Tale. That's completely valid and I don't take issue with your opinion at all.

What prompted my snide comments is how you spent more words trying to discount how another reader felt about a dystopian story that resonated with them, than you spent on talking up the dystopian worlds you do like. It's not a fucking competition. It's alright for people to like what they like, even if you don't like them. No one asked you to tear down The Handmaid's Tale. You took that all on your own and sidetracked into making statements on the role of Gender in Society that may line up with your own experiences, but aren't universal.

So yeah, I took little passive aggressive shots. I admit it. The way in which you approached the thread rubbed me the wrong way because the original question was: 'For any Dystopian worldbuilders: What books/entertainment do you base these Dystopian worlds on? ' It wasn't: 'For any Dystopian worldbuilders: What books/entertainment do you base these Dystopian worlds on? And why are other people's preferences wrong?'

And with that, I'm done. And unlike some folks, I mean it. I've no issue at all with someone else having the last word.

 

[Arkwright]

Although you do seem to have a problem with walking away

Said already I respect you both too much to. And if you reply to me in the negative, I'll reply to you in the positive.

my comments wouldn't stop you

Not true, if you keep incessantly pitting the argument against me.

what the OP wanted to discuss

OP isn't here. He hasn't replied for a while, and doesn't look like he's about to. If he does: great. But why do you keep landing on this? I'm not detracting from the thread about dystopia by discussing dystopia.

The issues you voiced in regards of Atwood's capitalistic intentions could just as easily be applied to Collins, but that's irrelevant.

True.

You found things in the Hunger Games that resonated within you as a reader. You didn't find that with The Handmaid's Tale. That's completely valid and I don't take issue with your opinion at all.

Thank you, and I agree, 100%.

It's not a fucking competition.

... I thought it was a healthy discussion, personally. Shivers and I were having a perfectly affable conversation by the end of our comment chain. And yeah, I know I tore down Handmaids. That was the content of my post, which I wrote that way for a reason. Then I waited for Shivers reaction, read it, nodded my head, and figured she had some good points, and asked her to elaborate. Arguments take time to progress. Have a little patience, and you might've seen me concede. You have to give people time to breathe man, otherwise you smother them.

I agree, I went vaguely off-topic. But if we stick to just listing books we're going to have a pretty boring thread on our hands here. I'd have liked to have asked you what you liked about half the books you listed, but I haven't had chance yet.

 

[Trussed Maiden]

Making snappy, sarcastic, and unhelpful comments seems to be the point of your posts though, hey?

I'm genuinely out. Can't be bothered with your unwarranted passive-aggressiveness, Corinthi: especially after I've opened myself up to listen to Shivers. You can have your echo chamber back.

Dude.

You have the right to make comments like this that are strongly put. People have the right to disagree with you, the presentation and the attitude.

It's expressing an opinion about an opinion, not a wide stretch in an online discussion, right?