To be fair, it never worked. Debate-as-bloodsport is largely a bourgeois way of viewing ideological conflict. Leftist pedagogy is more collective than classic models. The idea of a “marketplace of ideas” assumes that logical victors of an argument survive, but instead people license themselves into agreeing with that which they believe benefits them. The ruling class further propogates ruling class ideology, and uses this idea of a “winners survive” debate market to legitimize the prevalence of bourgeois ideology as such due to logically surviving, even if it never did. The marketplace of ideas is a sham.
To be fair, it never worked. Debate-as-bloodsport is largely a bourgeois way of viewing ideological conflict. Leftist pedagogy is more collective than classic models. The idea of a “marketplace of ideas” assumes that logical victors of an argument survive, but instead people license themselves into agreeing with that which they believe benefits them. The ruling class further propogates ruling class ideology, and uses this idea of a “winners survive” debate market to legitimize the prevalence of bourgeois ideology as such due to logically surviving, even if it never did. The marketplace of ideas is a sham.
i was gonna say that prior to the internet the ruling class had a monopoly on public opinion but that works too