Ideologically Inconsistent

[DISCLAIMER]

When using psychoeducation in regard to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I invite people to consider arguments which are rational—in accordance with both logic and reason. When demonstrating this lesson, I often use syllogisms. For example, consider the following:

Form (hypothetical) –

If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.

Example –

Major premise: If you support free speech, then you support speech with which you disagree.

Minor premise: If you support speech with which you disagree, then you’ll tolerate and accept those views you find reprehensible.

Conclusion: Therefore, if you support free speech, then you’ll tolerate and accept those views you find reprehensible.

Both the major and minor premises, along with the final conclusion, follow logical form. As well, they remain logically consistent—the propositions can be true at the same time, without any internal contradictions, thus forming a coherent and valid method of understanding.

This is in contrast to logical inconsistency—a circumstance in which two or more statements, when taken together, cannot all be true simultaneously, thus forming a contradiction or conflict within the set of statements which makes them incompatible with each other. For example:

Form (destructive dilemma) –

If p, then q; and if r, then s; but either not q or not s; therefore, either not p or not r.

Example –

Premise 1: If you support free speech, then you support speech with which you disagree.

Premise 2: And if you don’t tolerate and accept speech which you consider to be antisemitic, then you will oppose speech with which you disagree.

Premise 3: But either you do not support speech with which you disagree or you will not oppose speech with which you disagree.

Conclusion: Therefore, either you do not support free speech or you do tolerate and accept speech which you consider to be antisemitic.

This syllogism follows logical form while creating a logical dilemma—an argument in which a difficult choice empirically must be made between two or more alternatives, each of which presents undesirable outcomes. This is because the conclusion is based on logical inconsistency.

Regarding free speech, this principle (a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption) can form a logical dilemma when in conflict with an ideology (a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture), as one source expands:

An ideology is a set of beliefs or values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially those held for reasons that are not purely about belief in certain knowledge, in which “practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones” […]

Recent analysis tends to posit that ideology is a ‘coherent system of ideas’ that rely on a few basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis. Through this system, ideas become coherent, repeated patterns through the subjective ongoing choices that people make.

Free speech in the United States (U.S.) is a principle based on the First Amendment which is a negative right—an inalienable right not to be subjected to an action of another entity, such as a government, usually occurring in the form of force, abuse, or coercion.

This principle isn’t synonymous with an ideology. In fact, it remains in conflict with a perspective that maintains special rights, privileges, liberties, or otherwise for one group over another, such as an adopted definition of antisemitism which the U.S. government currently uses:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

If you support free speech, then you support speech with which you disagree. However, if you advocate diversity, equity, inclusivity, and accessibility (DEIA, and derivatives thereunto; e.g., DEI), then you will likely oppose speech with which you disagree.

During the Biden administration, Democrats, liberals, progressives, the left, etc. appeared to have valued oppression in the form of infringement regarding free speech activities. In my blog, I’ve written quite a bit about my opposition to such behavior.

Understandably, many people probably envisioned that the Trump administration, Republicans, conservatives, members of the Make America Great Again movement, the right, etc. would counter such oppression. Yet, in a post entitled Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings, I stated:

A paradox may be defined as a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. Paradoxically, I can support and denounce both Israel and Palestine without the use of feelings-based influence.

Alas, it appears as though I’ve deceived myself to a degree. I mistakenly believed that the right once held a principled stance on the employment of well-reasoned discourse.

However, when factual data from both historical and current context is considered, I realize that cancel culture, emotional outrage, and incessant whining behavior have no specific sociopolitical side. That’s a fact that doesn’t care about my feelings.

That blog entry was posted on October 25, 2023, well before President Trump took office for a second time on January 20, 2025. For context, one source defines cancel culture (to which I alluded) thusly:

Cancel culture is a cultural phenomenon in which an individual thought to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner is ostracized, boycotted, shunned or fired, often aided by social media. This shunning may extend to social or professional circles—whether on social media or in person—with most high-profile incidents involving celebrities. Those subject to this ostracism are said to have been “canceled”.

As I steadfastly support free speech while rejecting DEIA activity, I oppose cancel culture behavior – be it advocated by the left, right, or other sociopolitical entities. Regarding this matter, I stated in a blogpost entitled A Principled Stance on Free Speech:

The position in support of cancel culture, presumably regarding free speech, represents what is known in [REBT] as demandingness.

It’s essentially as though one self-disturbingly demands, “People absolutely shouldn’t say things with which I disagree and if they do, they should be canceled!” I reject this notion, oppose such action, and dispute irrational beliefs of this sort.

When one stands on principle concerning free speech, rather than kneeling to ideologically inconsistent arguments, an individual unconditionally accepts that so-called antisemitic expression is to be protected and not canceled. The most appalling speech is still protected.

Apparently, the Trump administration didn’t receive this moral and ethical memo. On April 11, 2025, Trump administration officials (acting in their official capacity as the government, writ large) sent to Harvard University a letter that stated (in part), using consecutive bullet points:

·  Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture […]

·  Discontinuation of DEI. The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government; and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the federal government that these reforms are durable and effective through structural and personnel changes. By August 2025, the University must submit to the government a report—certified for accuracy—that confirms these reforms.

While I applaud the shuttering of DEIA measures, I oppose the logical inconsistency of government officials who ostensibly infringe the First Amendment. In one point, the letter rejects “antisemitic harassment” that reflects “ideological capture,” which is antithetical to free speech.

Yet in the subsequent bullet point, the letter rejects “speech control policies” which is in direct conflict with the former point offered by the government. This glaring ideological inconsistency (protection of one group over another) may be summed up by way of a simple syllogism:

Form (modus ponens) –

If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

Example –

Major premise: If you support free speech, then you cannot oppose antisemitic speech.

Minor premise: You support free speech.

Conclusion: Therefore, you cannot oppose antisemitic speech.

Have members of the right strayed so far from principle, in protection of DEIA-esque protection of Jewish people, that Zionist ideology now supplants the U.S. Constitution? Fortuitously, Harvard’s retained counsel responded to the government letter in question by stating (in part):

It is unfortunate, then, that your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law.

Accurately stated therein is that the Trump administration’s use of demandingness is legally questionable. One remains hopeful that this matter will make its way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. and that justice will prevail in favor of free speech for all, not protection of special interests.

When further contemplating this matter, I’m reminded of the hip hop track “Cancel Deeez Nutz” by rappers Glasses Malone and L.A. Giantz. On the song, it’s stated:

Y’all got me super fucked up. All this shit I be seein’ goin’ on, and y’all got the nerve to act like I’m sayin’ somethin’ crazy? All I’m doin’ is tellin’ the truth. I ain’t just sayin’ “my truth,” it’s the truth.

Protection of speech labeled as so-called “antisemitism” is antithetical to free speech. I’m speaking truth herein. Ergo, the U.S. government has no legal, moral, or ethical authority to maintain anti-constitutional and ideologically inconsistent arguments towards its citizens.

Perhaps you disagree. If so, that’s fine. I’m ready to hear well-reasoned arguments against truthful discourse which I’ve exercised herein. Alternatively, if you seek to use cancel culture tactics against me, then you can cancel deeez nutz!

Are you with me on this issue, or will you remain silent in the face of oppression? In closing, whether or not he actually said it, Martin Luther King Jr. is credited with having stated, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” (Speak up.)

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As the world’s foremost hip hop-influenced REBT psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

Photo credit, fair use

References:

Apple Music. (n.d.). LA Giantz. Apple Inc. Retrieved from https://music.apple.com/us/artist/la-giantz/1603293115

Benzoix. (n.d.). Confused male manager looking puzzled at digital tablet scratching head doubtful standing… [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/confused-male-manager-looking-puzzled-digital-tablet-scratching-head-doubtful-standing-white_32354636.htm#fromView=search&page=2&position=5&uuid=9796e8de-2afa-4525-98d7-25859c8f8dff&query=confused

Burck, W. A. and Hur, R. K. (2025, April 14). Quinn Emanuel trial lawyers and King & Spalding letter in response to Trump administration letter. Retrieved from https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard-Response-2025-04-14.pdf

Constitution Annotated. (n.d.). First Amendment. Retrieved from https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Glasses Malone. (2023, September 22). Glasses Malone - Cancel Deeez Nutz feat. LA Giantz (Official visualizer) [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ay4VvWenPQw?si=JtC0cwe2Sc29nbAZ

Gruenbaum, J., Keveney, S. R., and Wheeler, T. E. (2025, April 11). Trump administration letter to Dr. Alan M. Garber, President, Harvard University, Office of the President. Retrieved from https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf

Hollings, D. (2024, July 18). A principled stance on free speech. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-principled-stance-on-free-speech

Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, October 14). Appeal to emotion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/appeal-to-emotion

Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions

Hollings, D. (2024, November 24). Automatic thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/automatic-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, May 11). Catering to DEIA. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/catering-to-deia

Hollings, D. (2025, March 7). Deadly beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/deadly-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Destructive dilemma. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/destructive-dilemma

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, October 25). Facts don’t care about your feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/facts-don-t-care-about-your-feelings

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better

Hollings, D. (2025, March 5). Five major characteristics of four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/five-major-characteristics-of-four-major-irrational-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Hypothetical syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/hypothetical-syllogism

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Legal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/legal-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics

Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles

Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity

Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2024, March 24). Smartphone and social media addiction. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/smartphone-and-social-media-addiction

Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism

Hollings, D. (2025, January 2). The distinction between law and justice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-distinction-between-law-and-justice

Hollings, D. (2025, January 16). The words we use matter. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-words-we-use-matter

Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2024, October 20). Unconditional acceptance redux. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance-redux

Hollings, D. (2024, November 24). Values. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/values

Hollings, D. (2025, April 12). What’s the big idea? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/what-s-the-big-idea

U.S. Department of States. (n.d.). Defining antisemitism. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Cancel culture. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Donald Trump. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Glasses Malone. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasses_Malone

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Ideology. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Joe Biden. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Martin Luther King Jr. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Negative and positive rights. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Zionism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Wikiquote. (n.d.). Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Retrieved from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr.