Debate and discussion as performance for groups featuring contentious issues is primarily theater and career. What happens is, someone either figures out that these topics are rooted in paradoxes and dilemmas built into nature, and exposed by philosophical inquiry (among other methods like observation), leading to a method of discussions that avoids exposing the unsolvable paradox so more and more discussion can take place that is monetized. Or, they figure out intuitively to “speak around” the bottom line realization that they are circular in order to achieve the same effect. This is essentially a mode of the “internet monetization game.”
The uninitiated are not aware of the paradox that deterministically causes these issues to arise, and it is their hope that inquiry and discussion can resolve them, that keeps them “looping.” The illuminated know this, and harness this “hope” into monetized tribalism. The uninitiated are not necessarily “unintelligent,” as intelligence is only one condition required to exit the loop. The condition most difficult to embody is the bravery required to face the void underneath the structure of the mind after allowing what is falsely perceived to be “the self” to dissolve, and along with it, hope for solution and change.
Among the uninitiated are the following types of thinkers and perceivers, each group not only speaks a different language, but perceives through a different interface due to biology, upbringing, genetics, temperament and circumstance. There are, but not limited to:
All of them share optimism in there being a solution. A fascist or extremist is just as optimistic as a liberal collectivist, and both of them want an end to the paradox. All of these positions are partitioned from one another by the responses typical when they perceive the paradox, but cannot name it as fact. For example, when some people encounter a variation of the paradox (Munchausen trilemma for instance), they resist the realization that it is built into reality and consciousness, and favor emotional persuasion. Others see it, and react with allegiance to fundamentalism in order to avoid the disintegration of self.
Discussion or debate is the loop that the illuminated manage for the uninitiated. It is, as I have said before, a “sandboxed partition” wherein the discontent of those oblivious to the paradox are directed to express their grievances. What you are really seeing is agreed-upon cross pollination of audiences that are monetizing the debate theater, with a mutual understanding of this technique among all parties involved. Here is an example that music fans might understand. The idea that Dave Mustaine is consistently angered or pissed off about Metallica, and that there is enmity between them. In reality, this story is periodically introduced into music news culture as a way of generating interest for both parties. They will intermittently introduce this “dispute” as a way to benefit each other in the realm of publicity. It is a cross-pollination promotion event disguised as “hot topic disagreement.” This happens in political podcast fields as well. It is a mutually beneficial monetization/publicity event. The public sees “juicy drama,” while the illuminated see jackasses chewing on contrived bullshit while dollars flow forward. They create dramatic narratives that appeal to people's wish to see conflict between “big players.”
There are the performers who are illuminated, and above this, are those who are the architects, who strategically fund certain performers who are seen to be playing in a way that maximizes the containment of the uninitiated.
That is the reality. All of them know that the public is caught in the wake of its own nature to produce folklore and crave drama based on their projections resulting from interpreting events with missing information. They then “fill in the story” themselves with theory, projection, and assumption.
The illuminated use the knowledge of human nature and tribalism to drive further success for themselves. That's all it is. They either know about it and use it consciously while embodying persona, OR, they are so involved in receiving social energy through being celebrated, that they act it out without realizing what they are doing. In the case where they don't know consciously what they are doing, they are “adapting” to it by receiving the social commands through the intuitive undercurrents of interaction. A third category exists: those who play just enough of the game to make a living, while finding it disagreeable yet financially necessary.
That's how it is. That's how it is. The degree to which you know fuck all, is profound. The illuminated love highly motivated hyper confident ignorant people. They are the most useful.
Debate as Performance, Not Inquiry
Debate and discussion over contentious issues are less about truth-seeking than about theater and career advancement. What appears to be authentic disagreement is in fact a staged loop that keeps attention flowing and audiences engaged.
Two strategies emerge:
Both approaches serve the same end: perpetual discourse that can be monetized.
Most participants are uninitiated—they do not see the paradox and believe discussion can resolve the issue. This hope keeps them looping inside the sandbox. The illuminated know otherwise. They exploit this hope, transforming it into monetized tribalism. Intelligence alone does not free someone from the loop. What is harder to cultivate is the bravery to face the void—to let the false construct of “self” dissolve and to abandon the hope of resolution.
Debate theater is not the path out—it is the mechanism of containment. Knowing this offers no liberation in the political sense, but it can end the personal illusion that solutions will be found in tribal arguments. Learn what you can, then move forward in contentment with knowing. The podcast wars and the calling-out of lies cannot undo what is built into existence itself.