I don't know why the phrase "no rebuttals accepted," which is so domineering and nonsensical, has become so prevalent online. Why do so many people express their views with this attitude of rejecting questioning? Moreover, they often receive high praise and support from many others. If we say that "no rebuttals accepted" is a way for those who have no voice in reality to seek validation online and instinctively defend their beliefs, then the phrase "you better not speak if you don't understand" is purely an elitist stance that refuses dialogue while considering oneself an "expert."
In many fields, when so-called elite professionals encounter controversies, their attitude is often not to take the opportunity to publicly explain and clarify, so that more people can understand their field. Instead, they either ignore it or say, "This is a professional field with its own rules; you better not say too much if you don't understand." For many ordinary people, unable to articulate their thoughts, the only thing they can do is repeatedly say, "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 do not 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 your reasoning if it 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 who are "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 better not speak if you don't understand," aiming to deny others' viewpoints and silence them. Many people use various reasons to prevent others from expressing themselves, further reinforcing our society's tendency for self-censorship, often stemming from discomfort with diverse voices.
This is based on a profound "monistic value system"—"only the absolutely correct, singular voice can exist." Therefore, when a dispute arises, Chinese people are accustomed to letting authority decide, providing a definitive conclusion to quell the conflict. 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 attitude of "my way or the highway" when interacting with men.
Not to mention the workplace, where anyone with a bit of status or power often says decisively 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 in a conclusive manner without providing any reasons. Under "monism," substantive discussion is practically impossible, let alone debates with completely different viewpoints. This is because people do not first acknowledge that it is possible to explore ideas equally on a foundation of mutual respect, firmly believing that differing viewpoints 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 interpersonal 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 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 interaction, people have already divided into camps based on their positions and viewpoints, leaving only conflict.