I don't know why the phrase "no rebuttals accepted" has become so popular online, despite being so domineering and nonsensical. Why do so many people express their opinions in such a way that rejects questioning? Moreover, they often receive high praise and support from many. If "no rebuttals accepted" is a way for those without a voice in reality to seek validation online and instinctively defend their beliefs, then the phrase "you'd better not speak if you don't understand" is purely an elitist stance that refuses dialogue.
In many so-called elite professional circles, whenever there is a controversy, the attitude is often not to take the opportunity to publicly explain things so that more people can understand their field, but rather to either ignore it or say, "This is a professional field with its own rules; you'd better not say too much if you don't understand." For many ordinary people, unable to articulate their thoughts, they can only keep saying, "How can you be so unreasonable?"
Whether in public discussions, neighborhood disputes, or street arguments, everyone uses the same phrase: "How can you be so unreasonable?" Perhaps they themselves don't even know what "reason" is. "Talking reason" has at least two meanings: one is based on a monistic value system, asserting that "I will only acknowledge you as reasonable if your reasoning aligns with mine." The second acknowledges, based on a pluralistic value system, that talking reason is a process of discussion and compromise; those who do not follow the rules are the ones being "unreasonable."
Those who frequently say "How can you be so unreasonable?" believe that "I am the reason" and "I am the truth." This is similar to "no rebuttals accepted" and "you'd better not speak if you don't understand," aiming to deny others' viewpoints and silence them. There are still too many people who prevent others from expressing themselves for various reasons, further reinforcing our society's tendency towards self-censorship, often stemming from discomfort with diverse voices.
This is based on a deep-rooted "monistic value system"—"only the absolutely correct, singular voice can exist." Therefore, when a debate arises, Chinese people are accustomed to letting authorities decide, providing a definitive conclusion to quell disputes. This mindset has permeated everyday thinking, and even many ordinary people naturally exhibit authoritarian traits. Especially some modern women who consider themselves "awakened," they always try to display an arrogant "my way or the highway" attitude when interacting with men.
Not to mention the workplace, where anyone with a bit of status or power often states firmly in front of subordinates, "This doesn't need discussion" or "Is there even a need to discuss this?" The intent behind these statements is merely to prove "I am the authority" and "undeniable," stopping further discussion without providing any reasons. Under "monism," substantive discussion is practically impossible, let alone debates with completely different viewpoints. Because people first do not acknowledge that equal exploration can occur on the basis of mutual respect, firmly believing that differing opinions from their own are erroneous heresies.
Little do they know, "If only one voice is allowed to exist, then that singular voice is a lie." Healthy social interactions and civilized relationships must have diverse thoughts and viewpoints; thus, the emergence of different voices is inevitable and should allow for civilized debate and positive interaction. Is there even a need to discuss this? No rebuttals accepted! You'd better not speak if you don't understand! How can you be so unreasonable?
Thus, from mutual confrontation over issues to mutual tearing apart of individuals, only insults remain. As for what the insults are about, it is irrelevant; the focus is on "attacking the person, not the issue." In a society lacking healthy interpersonal interactions, people have already divided into camps based on their positions and viewpoints, leaving only conflict.