Many people say: "Having no stance is also a stance." This statement is logically correct, but it assumes one thing: that stances must be fixed. But the real issue has never been "whether one has a stance," but rather "whether one can be trapped by their stance." The so-called "no stance" does not mean having no opinions, but rather not permanently fixing any opinion. Being able to adopt a stance, understand it; also being able to leave it and enter another stance. It is not static, but dynamic.

The greatest inertia for people is turning opinions into identities. In the end, even "rationality," "objectivity," "neutrality," and "no stance" themselves can become new obsessions. So what is truly important is not claiming to have no stance, but always maintaining the ability to move.
Because most debates are not ultimately about conflicting opinions, but about conflicting identities. Once a person equates their opinions with themselves, discussion ceases to be an exchange of observations and becomes mutual defense. Truly high-quality discussion is not about rushing to determine who wins or loses, but about enabling each other to continually shift perspectives, together seeing the world more clearly.