This Substack was created in July 2024, but lay dormant for 3 months until I felt inspired to launch into print in response to a video of a shock-jock interview conducted on a New Zealand based alternative news outlet called “The Platform.” The details of this are documented in my very first post “Sean Plunket’s Hypocrisy: A Look at His Fluoride Debate Interview with Mary Byrne.”

What struck me most was Plunket’s style—not the open inquiry one might expect from a platform branding itself as “Open. Tolerant. Free.” but something closer to performative containment: a strategy of mockery, false association (chemtrails, moon landings), and ad hominem dismissal designed to discredit rather than engage.

This led me to RationalWiki. In my second post, “Looking More Closely at RationalWiki” I found the same discursive logic—not in tone-of-voice, but in tone-of-text: epistemic quarantine achieved through sarcasm, taxonomic ridicule, and guilt-by-indexing.

Over the following six months, through to March 2025, I began tracing the same pattern across several Reddit communities, which became the backdrop to my Estrangement Ideology series. In them, and across Reddit’s broader structure, I observed a crowd-sourced replication of many of the same containment mechanisms.

Across these terrains, a pattern emerged: reasoning deployed not to explore complexity or seek understanding, but to secure cognitive boundaries. The same rhetorical devices surfaced repeatedly—mockery, pre-emptive disqualification, tone discipline, and appeal to institutional consensus.

This article names that pattern Control-Fixated Reasoning and situates it as a generational adaptation to the collapse of institutional epistemology and the psychic trauma of hyper-information.

The Rise of Control-Fixated Reasoning

Control-Fixated Reasoning is a defensive cognitive and cultural mode in which reasoning serves not to discover truth, but to maintain epistemic order—prioritising containment over exploration, consensus over inquiry, and stability over risk. It is characterised by the compulsive use of logic, mockery, and appeal to consensus to suppress ambiguity, enforce discursive boundaries, and neutralise perceived deviance.

In contrast to healthy scepticism or reasoned debate, “proof” is demanded as a gatekeeping tactic, not an invitation to dialogue. In Plunket’s case this involves the rhetorical strategy of demanding names or numbers from interviewees on the fly, when they are unable or unwilling to provide names, this is deemed proof of their insincerity, lack of knowledge or apparent vacuity.

The affective tone adopted in these debates is inevitably hostile, sarcastic and performatively rational. Examples include gems like:

“You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.”

—Used not to engage with presented evidence, but to pre-emptively disqualify it. Reasserts epistemic authority without confrontation.

“Next you’ll be telling us the earth is flat and vaccines have microchips.”

—A classic associative smear. Opponent’s actual claim is substituted with caricature.
Collapses credibility through ridicule, not argument.

“Cite a peer-reviewed study in a top-tier journal—go on, I’ll wait.”

—A trap, often deployed mid-thread or live, where producing complex evidence is structurally impossible. Has appearance of openness used as containment lever.

“Sorry, I don’t argue with conspiracy theorists.”

—Simultaneously moralising and evasive. Positions the speaker as rational while disengaging. Shifts burden to the other party to prove their right to speak.

“If you can't even understand basic statistics, maybe stick to YouTube.”

—Used to gatekeep debate by enforcing technical hierarchies. Reinforces in-group expertise while humiliating deviance.

While ostensibly running under a rationalist banner, it is rather ironically common to find the combatant deploying a series of logical fallacies. As described above, ad hominin is a frequent example of this. But a catalogue of other examples is not difficult to observe, including straw man, appeal to authority, guilt by association, no true Scotsman, slippery slope, circular reasoning, red herring and appeals to ridicule. In this sense, the dominant concern is not truth, but stability—minimising the risk of exposure to ideas that might fracture consensus or induce cognitive uncertainty.

Based on the contexts examined, my hypothesis is that Control-Fixated Reasoning is not so much a pathology of individuals, but rather a cultural adaptation to systemic epistemic collapse—a reflex developed in the ruins of authority. In this sense, it emerges most strongly in environments where trust in institutions is collapsing, but where no viable counter-institution exists.

The mechanism is not censorship in the classic sense—it’s containment through ridicule and pre-emptive delegitimisation.

Media of Containment: Plunket, RationalWiki, Reddit

In the ecosystem of modern discourse, containment is no longer enforced solely by institutions—it is enacted performatively across media formats masquerading as platforms for debate. Whether through the broadcast stylings of talkback radio, the taxonomic sarcasm of RationalWiki, or the crowd-sourced boundary enforcement of Reddit, the effect is the same: deviance is staged, not interrogated; dissent is neutralised before it is addressed. Crucially, the individuals or perspectives targeted by these operations are offered no real recourse. Their presence is permitted only to serve as a foil for epistemic policing—a managed display of “openness” whose outcome is never in doubt. This section dissects how three distinct but structurally aligned platforms convert the rhetoric of free exchange into a theatre of containment. The medium shifts, but the logic remains: control the bounds of the imaginable by scripting deviance as pathology, and mask exclusion as rational adjudication.

A. Talkback as Live Boundary Policing (Plunket)

Plunket’s fluoride interview with Mary Byrne exemplifies real-time containment: Byrne’s claims are not addressed—they are invalidated by association. His method entailed interrupting, reframing, and mocking, all while performing the role of a fair-minded host. This included:

• Labelling fluoride opponents as “nutters” and “cookers,” framing dissent as psychological dysfunction rather than disagreement.
• Relying on expert authority—specifically Dr. Rob Beaglehole and the “scientific consensus”—as stand-ins for argument, bypassing Byrne’s referenced studies and legal rulings.
• Conflating fluoride scepticism with conspiracism, sarcastically linking Byrne to moon-landing hoaxes and chemtrails—positions she never invoked—transforming the segment into a theatre of derision.
• Undermining her affect, suggesting irrationality or hysteria as a basis for dismissal.

Plunket’s interview with Alia Bland following Day 4 of the New Zealand Covid-19 Royal Commission Inquiry presentations followed the same script. Bland, representing Voices for Freedom (VFF), was introduced not as a participant in public discourse but as a tolerated outlier—pre-positioned for discrediting through tone, framing, and procedural derailment. This included:

• Frontloading institutional loyalty, opening with praise for the Commission’s credibility and subtly coding dissent as anti-civic or conspiratorial.
• Interrupting and redirecting Bland’s critique of the Commission’s limited scope by pivoting the conversation to VFF’s reputation and presumed agenda.
• Characterising VFF as untrustworthy, invoking prior media portrayals and group associations rather than engaging with Bland’s actual claims.
• Collapsing inquiry into extremism, implying that critique of the RCI aligns with disinformation or anti-science movements, regardless of Bland’s stated position.
• Maintaining a tone of ironic detachment, projecting tolerance while operationally foreclosing debate through timing, tone, and rhetorical framing.

In both cases, the form of debate is retained while its substance is evacuated. The interviewees are not confronted as equals in a shared search for understanding, but as symbolic contaminants—useful only to reinforce the host’s performance of reason. What unfolds is not dialogue, but theatrical ritual containment dressed in the garb of free speech.

B. RationalWiki as Asynchronous Sanitisation

As described in the article on RationalWiki, the culture on the platform runs under the banner of rational debunking of fringe or conspiracy. It doesn’t mock in real-time—it catalogues deviance and ring-fences it using techniques commonly adopted under the banner of “fact checking.”

For instance, the RationalWiki article on Joseph Mercola exemplifies control-fixated discourse through a dense layering of rhetorical containment techniques. It opens with ad hominem—branding Mercola a “quack,” “snake oil salesman,” and “anti-vaxxer”—establishing ridicule as its epistemic foundation. Rather than engaging Mercola’s claims on their merits, the article relies on consensus bias and deferral to institutional authority—“every reputable medical body disagrees”—to shut down inquiry. His arguments are not rebutted but invalidated by association, linking him to RFK Jr., the Plandemic video, and other ideologically contaminated figures. Sarcasm and ridicule displace analysis—“just pick a concern out of a hat”—while appeals to regulatory reprimands (FDA warnings, FTC settlements) serve as institutional reinforcement, implying that state censure equals truth. The result is not a reasoned critique but a curated taxonomic exorcism, designed to fence off deviance rather than investigate it.

The RationalWiki article on RFK Jr. operates as a textbook case of discursive containment through circular legitimacy logic. It begins with ad hominem classification, branding him an “anti-vaxxer” and “conspiracy theorist” before presenting any of his claims, ensuring that readers engage from a posture of suspicion. This is immediately reinforced through guilt by association, tethering him to figures like Joseph Mercola and the Plandemic film, constructing an epistemic network of contamination. Rather than engage RFK Jr.’s positions in their strongest form, the article curates quotes and summaries to maximise perceived irrationality—a tactic of selective framing and omission. Sarcasm substitutes for argument, with rhetorical sneers (“a Kennedy with a podcast”) used to collapse his credibility into persona.

The invocation of institutional consensus is used as a closing move, not an entry point for debate: CDC, FDA, and WHO positions are asserted as final, with any dissent cast as anti-science. Critically, the structure of the article enacts a self-reinforcing legitimacy loop: RFK Jr. is discredited because RationalWiki says so, and RationalWiki is trusted because it documents discredited figures like RFK Jr. This produces a hermetic circuit where containment is not argued but performed—where the act of being catalogued becomes both the crime and the conviction.

In effect, RationalWiki does not refute RFK Jr.; it quarantines him rhetorically, sealing off dissent by denying it the oxygen of serious address. The choreography here is not accidental—it mirrors the logic of excommunication, where heresy is proved by its very utterance. Dissent becomes performative contagion, and the act of being catalogued is sufficient proof of discreditation.

These character assassination tactics are not aberrations—they are structured expressions of Control-Fixated Reasoning. What appears as rationalist critique is, in fact, a form of epistemic policing, where the primary objective is not to weigh claims but to neutralise deviance. RationalWiki’s method—catalogue, label, ridicule, associate, expel—mirrors a broader cultural impulse to stabilise the collapsing boundaries of legitimate discourse. In a landscape saturated with uncertainty and institutional erosion, Control-Fixated Reasoning emerges as a defence mechanism: it simulates inquiry while enforcing containment.

The ritual destruction of figures like Mercola or RFK Jr. is not about truth—it is about preserving the illusion of epistemic order by eliminating those who threaten its symbolic coherence.

C. Reddit as Crowd-Sourced Epistemic Immunity

Reddit typifies Control-Fixated Reasoning through the performative dismissal of dissent. Labels like “debunked” or “anti-science” act as discursive kill-switches, with vague references to “the experts” standing in for evidence. These labels function not as falsifiability tests but as ritual expulsion codes—emitted to reaffirm the group’s immunological perimeter. The goal is not rebuttal but reaffirmation: through invocation of shared disgust, the forum performs its own moral hygiene. Sarcasm and moral superiority enforce group loyalty, converting debate into ritualised boundary policing. Karma systems and moderation filters reinforce consensus discipline, downvoting deviance and elevating conformity. Subcultures form around institutional narratives, cloaking epistemic control in casual irony.

For example, a thread on the r/Wellington subreddit typifies the mechanisms of Control-Fixated Reasoning as applied to local political discourse. The central tactic is ritual stigmatisation through sarcasm, guilt-by-association and consensus mockery. The target is not substantively engaged on policy grounds but invalidated through labels—“cranks”, “NIMBYs”, “cooked”—vague insinuations of malfeasance, and the leveraging of procedural breaches, such as Wikipedia editing, as character indictments. Accusations of “dirty politics,” “doxxing,” and “shady actions” are circulated without evidentiary burden, functioning less as claims to be verified than signals for alignment. The crowd rewards dismissal over analysis: karma upvotes cluster around sarcastic takedowns, while nuance—as seen in one user’s dissent—is penalised or ignored. The effect is not investigative scrutiny but crowd-sourced ideological quarantine, where affiliation alone warrants discreditation and discussion is reduced to status enforcement. This is local democracy reduced to ritual containment theatre—epistemic order policed via meme, mood and mob.

Generational Trauma and the Psychology of Closure

It is possible to understand the phenomenon of Control-Fixated Reasoning as a generational adaptation to epistemic collapse. While CFR manifests across age groups, its ritualised form dominates digitally native spaces (Reddit, RationalWiki) where users skew toward 20–40s—a cohort weathering unique epistemic storms. This cohort matured amid cascading betrayals—9/11, Iraq, the 2008 financial crisis, pandemic contradictions, institutional dissembling, digital censorship. As information proliferated, trust has imploded. Authority no longer stands uncontested and the result is an overload of reason with no stabilising centre. In this vacuum, Control-Fixated Reasoning arises not as pathology but as reflex: clamp down, mock deviance, minimise exposure. Mockery becomes immunological—less rhetoric, more defence mechanism. In this context, confidence and certainty are performed as a theatrical devices. Those who engage with fringe or dissident material are seen not as curious but as contaminated. As the intellectual landscape flattens, tone replaces logic in a simulacrum of the latter, while containment displaces inquiry. What emerges is not a culture of reasoning, but one of filtering: who to trust, what to exclude, how to remain cognitively intact.

This reframes containment media, such as talkback radio, RationalWiki and Reddit, not as distortions of public discourse but as adaptive architectures developed under duress. Plunket’s talkback segments mimic real-time boundary enforcement, ritualising ridicule while simulating fairness. RationalWiki industrialises it—cataloguing deviance under the guise of fact-checking, deploying sarcasm, guilt by association, and circular appeals to authority. Reddit operationalises it at scale, transforming debate into crowd-sourced discipline via karma, consensus memes and derisive tone. These platforms are not neutral—they perform sanitation of meaning. Their function is deviance management. RationalWiki doesn’t rebut RFK Jr.—it quarantines him. Reddit doesn’t debate opposing views—it mocks them into illegibility.

This is the psychology of closure. In a world where expert consensus fractures, institutional loyalties are obscured, and lay participation is obstructed by specialisation, reasoning mutates into survival protocol. Simplified answers gain traction not for truth but for relief. The individual cannot adjudicate spiralling contradictions, so pre-emption becomes method. The logic is: dismiss before infected. Mock before confused. Filter to remain whole.

This is not to claim all containment is illegitimate, but to expose when its mechanisms replace inquiry with excommunication.

Control-Fixated Reasoning is thus not a failure of intelligence—it is the exhaustion of interpretive bandwidth. The goal is no longer to understand, but to endure.

The Social Cost: Fractured Families, Collapsing Dialogue

As the fabric of shared meaning frays, reasoning hardens into defence. Disagreement shifts from negotiation to betrayal; belief signals tribe, not truth. Control-Fixated Reasoning emerges to manage the threat of the breakdown of meaning: mocking deviance, rejecting ambiguity, policing tone. Empathy is cast as risk—listening becomes dangerous. Debate collapses into alignment tests; understanding is framed as surrender.

The power of Control-Fixated Reasoning lies in this double-bind: to question is betrayal, to listen is weakness. For a generation raised on algorithmic curation and collapsing institutional trust, mockery becomes metaphysics—the last secure posture in a world where all authority has failed.

Social costs follow. Families fracture over vaccines, war, climate, gender—not through ideas but identities. Dialogue shrinks under purity regimes. Communities turn on themselves: an immune system in overdrive. Repair becomes infiltration, and reconciliation structurally impossible. The terrain for shared meaning is gone—remapped as exclusion.

This collapse of relational sensemaking is visible across the Estrangement Ideology series. Reddit communities like those examined in the series don't just reflect breakdown—they encode it. Frameworks like “DARVO” and “Missing Missing Reasons” act as epistemic firewalls. Reconnection is pathologised. Messages from parents, however benign, are pre-emptively cast as coercive. Interpretive generosity is reframed as vulnerability.

Generational divides sharpen the rupture. The young, raised amid debt, crisis and betrayal, inherit dislocation without tools for repair. Boomers are seen not as elders but as relics—custodians of a failed order. Mutual delegitimation follows: old counsel dismissed as complicity, new frameworks dismissed as defiance. What deepens the fracture is mediated estrangement: contact between generations now occurs primarily through filtered, asynchronous platforms—emails, texts, WhatsApp threads—where tone is flattened and intention cannot travel. Reconciliation collapses not only ideologically, but infrastructurally

Distance accelerates the fracture. As families disperse—geographically, ideologically—the few remaining points of contact become mediated through digital channels already structured for surveillance, curation and tone policing. Electronic communication strips away nuance, amplifies suspicion, and inserts latency into emotional repair. Where a conversation might once have been softened by presence—by gesture, silence, proximity—it is now refracted through screens, screenshots, and asynchronous parsing. Interpretive grace gives way to interpretive paranoia. Every message becomes a potential artefact of harm, every silence a referendum on allegiance.

In this climate, Control-Fixated Reasoning finds fertile ground: digital estrangement isn't merely a symptom—it becomes a structure. Mediation replaces mediation. Dialogue is archived for evidence. Repair is postponed until conditions that no longer exist are restored.

Control-Fixated Reasoning becomes a survival grammar—a way to make sense of loss, prevent contamination, and impose clarity on chaos. The result is a sealed interpretive loop: curiosity becomes risk, dialogue becomes danger, and identity calcifies in place of connection.

What Breaks the Spell?

Control-Fixated Reasoning is not simply a flaw in argument—it is a structural adaptation to systemic betrayal, informational glut, and collapsing trust. Interrupting it requires more than better evidence or “media literacy.” It demands conditions that no longer exist—shared epistemic ground, good faith interlocutors, and institutions that are legible, accountable, and sane.

Where these are absent, what remains are fractures—familial, cultural, cognitive. Appeals to empathy are often reframed as traps. Curiosity is treated as naivety, and even silence becomes suspect. To “break the spell” of containment reasoning is to risk exile from the communities it protects. It is to violate the implicit rule: never signal uncertainty.

If there is any route out, it is not rhetorical but relational—requiring sustained, embodied contact that exceeds the capacities of digital mediation. But even that is unlikely under current conditions. Once tone replaces truth as the metric of legitimacy, dissent becomes deviance and reconciliation becomes defection. The goal is no longer to understand, but to stabilise a self that no longer knows what to believe.

So the spell persists—not because it is persuasive, but because it is adaptive. In this terrain, fracture is the norm, not the anomaly. Control becomes the cost of survival. And unless the infrastructure that gave rise to this logic collapses or burns out under its own epistemic exhaustion, it will hold.

The antidote to Control-Fixated Reasoning is not debate, but disarmament. Not persuasion, but presence. Rituals of shared time, slowness, and mutual risk will be necessary to re-open the interpretive field. Absent that, fracture persists—not as pathology but as the new psychic commons.

This is the landscape now. Fracture isn’t the danger. It’s the structure.

What will YOU do now?

Published via Journeys by the Styx.
Mindwars: Exposing the engineers of thought and consent.

—

Author’s Note
Produced using the Geopolitika analysis system—an integrated framework for structural interrogation, elite systems mapping, and narrative deconstruction.