This is not quite right. If you're a holocaust denier, then one in fifty people will intellectually engage with your arguments, and the other 49 will just call you a holocaust denier, and shun you from polite society.*
I don't see anything wrong with that. Someone has to read it and respond to it, but I'm fine with being one of the 49.
* For the sake of illustration, I omit the fact that 1 or 2 of the 50 might promote your work.
P.S. This may read like I'm comparing Quillete to holocaust denial. This is not my intent.
The tactic I'm seeing more and more of nowadays, is where someone starts talking about something nuanced, like the role of far left and far right breakdowns of the rule of law in the Weimar Republic, then someone else comes in and tries to claim it's something horrible like holocaust denial. It's disturbingly typical for discourse nowadays, and it's shockingly intellectually dishonest. What's even more shocking is the extent to which such illogic is defended by the far left and far right. It's almost like the extremists don't want the center to have a voice and want outrage chaos to predominate instead. (Sarcasm. Of course that's what extremists want.)
Most people will dismiss absolutely everyone they disagree with reflexively anyway, but the few people who will actually bother to argue with Holocaust deniers, young-earth creationists, etc. do so with facts and evidence, whereas the people who argue in favor of e.g. blank-slate psychology will, at their most charitable, concern-troll you over the social consequences of your ideas.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Someone has to read it and respond to it, but I'm fine with being one of the 49.
* For the sake of illustration, I omit the fact that 1 or 2 of the 50 might promote your work.
P.S. This may read like I'm comparing Quillete to holocaust denial. This is not my intent.