So, you decide to engage in scholarly intellectual debate addressing particular issues that challenge the current narrative of those in power. What is the response? Instead of an intellectual counterargument, it’s basically:
“What a compelling argument, now please face the wall as the firing squad takes aim.”
Does it prove your argument is correct now that the opposition is dead? No.
Does it silence disagreements and probably resentment? Yes.
Does it change minds? Does it count as a mind if their brains are scattered on the floor?
What if it builds up more resentment? Well, that’s why they have factories to make bullets right?
So what makes it a valid answer?
It does the same job of removing disagreements much more quickly than intellectual, brain-requiring debate
“Might makes right” is an old seductive argument of authoritarians everywhere and sure it can in the short term be very effective if your objective is to crush dissent, demoralize opponents, and cow those who can be cowed. But authoritarian regimes are never sustainable and always collapse. What follows may be better or worse or more of the same, but any given fascist will never remain in power for any length of time.
We live in a generation that discounts, has forgotten or just never understood these dynamics and so now we have to re-learn what it takes to create a stable, just, safe, enjoyable society for all (or at least most).