The echo chambers of American politics and social circles are growing more deafening every day. This cacophony of self-affirming noise has burst out of the small rooms of political and social tribes and become part of everyday life for many Americans. It's impossible to stay current with news and politics without seeing a hundred different conflicting agendas and ideas a day, which is good and bad. It's good because it shows people using their right to free speech, and creates discussions, or at least it should.

Here is where the bad comes in: people aren't really discussing anything, at least the anchors on news networks aren't. Getting the most "lefty" liberal and the most "righty" conservative and putting them in a room isn't a discussion; it's more like a cock-fight. A debate is supposed to be people presenting ideas, backing them up with credible facts, and then countering the other person. If a flaw can be found in one person's ideas, then they should admit defeat, to some degree, and rethink their thought process. When this is done, the individual and society can advance towards a better understanding of whatever they were discussing.

The problem is no one accepts defeat, and it's damn near impossible to get anyone to change their mind.

These unrelenting ideologies have brought about a spike in the ferocity of political and social dogmas. All individuals in a group must say all the correct talking points with the right emotional reaction, or they will be considered a traitor and shunned. This rigid process that all political and social parties participate in, and the fear of defying them, have led to a relatively new idea gaining popularity. This is the idea of post-truth.

If you never heard the term or are unsure of its meaning, post-truth is relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotional and personal beliefs. Examples would be an evangelical saying attacks on Christianity are on the rise without having any evidence to support it. They have nothing to back up their claim, so they pull at people's personal beliefs for support.

Post-truth is also used in gender politics. It is common to hear the phrase "gender is just a social construct" used as an argument. There isn't a total consensuses on this in the academic community, however. When the argument that "gender is a social construct" is put up against the argument that "gender is innate and society built constructs accordingly" how do you exactly prove which is right? It's difficult, so both sides will try and use post-truths to keep their arguments alive.

No matter what political party or social movement you adhere to, post-truth should be prohibited. It is a practice that makes people feel like they are never wrong. That is a bad thing. If you always feel like you are right, that means everyone who isn't the same as you must be wrong. It creates a distrust and a loathing of people who aren't in the same group as you.

You don't have to agree with every word someone else says, but that doesn't mean every idea or fact they have, no matter how objectively sound, should be tossed out because it makes you feel bad. And you shouldn't use the power of your tribe to say ideologies you can't fully explain with facts. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

If someone says something you don't like but you can't fully argue against, take the punch. It's better than punching back with words that only seem to have power because the people in your bubble scream them.