Your Irrationality Is Exposed

[DISCLAIMER]

Prior to attending my final session of the day on September 10, 2025, I watched a YouTube livestream in which breaking news was announced about the shooting of right-wing political activist, author, and media personality Charlie Kirk. Per one source, Kirk died from his injury.

Before proceeding further, it’s worth noting that I said in a blogpost entitled Measure Twice, Cut Once, “I don’t advocate political violence.” Also, I try not to be pulled like a puppet by every impulse. Therefore, I’ll leave the reactive takes to those who have proverbial strings of passion.

Herein, I’ll be sensible. When contemplating what one source refers to as Kirk’s “assassination,” I view the matter through the lens of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). This is done in consideration of thinking which is rational (in accordance with both logic and reason).

“Logic” is a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. It also addresses the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable.

“Reason” is a statement offered in explanation or justification. In simple terms, it’s the thing that makes a fact intelligible. Unlike what occurs with limited time in my sessions with clients, when teaching people about rational thinking through use of my blog, I often use syllogisms.

Generally, a syllogism is comprised of a major premise, a minor premise, and a resulting conclusion. For the sake of argument and understanding, it’s inferred that both premises which lead to a conclusion are presumed to be true.

Bear in mind that the premises in an argument, proposition, supposition, thought, or belief of this form will always lead to the conclusion. This is the case even when the premises aren’t actually true.

Equally, in order to be considered rational, the argument, proposition, or belief empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. Otherwise, the proposed syllogism may simply follow logical form while not remaining in accord with reason. As an example:

Form (modus ponens) –

If it is true that p, then it is also true that q; p; therefore, q.

Broken down into its specific premises, this form of syllogism is as follows:

Premise 1: If it is true that p, then it is also true that q.

Premise 2: It is true that p.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is also true that q.

A simpler form of writing this type of syllogism is as follows:

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

For context, regarding the forthcoming example, the American Psychological Association (APA) defines empathy as follows:

[U]nderstanding a person from their frame of reference rather than one’s own, or vicariously experiencing that person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts. Empathy does not, of itself, entail motivation to be of assistance, although it may turn into sympathy or personal distress, which may result in action.

As a matter of full disclosure, I stated in a blogpost entitled On Empathy, “Is it even possible to literally think or feel precisely what another person thinks or feels? Would it not make more sense to simply use rational compassion rather than imagination in this instance?”

While the primary APA definition of empathy is something with which I agree, as it relates to rational compassion, I maintain that there’s no convincing evidence I’ve yet seen that supports the secondary APA definition of empathy. All the same, I understand that people will disagree.

Example –

If Charlie Kirk once stated “I can’t stand the word ‘empathy,” then the now-deceased right-wing political media personality deserves no understanding from the frame of reference he once advocated.

Charlie Kirk once stated “I can’t stand the word ‘empathy.”

Therefore, the now-deceased right-wing political media personality deserves no understanding from the frame of reference he once advocated.

This syllogistic example follows logical form. However, it’s debatable as to whether or not it’s reasonable. Allow me to highlight one obvious flaw in the justification used by those who support this proposition. For my critique, I’ll grant both APA definitional standards of empathy.

First, if one maintains that Kirk doesn’t deserve empathy in the way of understanding from the frame of reference he once advocated (APA definition one), then refusal to exercise empathy in this regard automatically negates one’s own value of empathy.

Here, empathy is reserved only for those who also value empathy, which categorically isn’t empathic. In essence, to say “I’ll only use empathy for those with whom I agree” is to use a conditional demand that negates the use of empathy writ large. That isn’t empathic or rational.

Second, if one favors empathy in the way of vicariously experiencing a person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts (APA definition two), then I argue that it’s impossible for a living individual to surrogate the experience of a nonliving person. One doesn’t know this experience.

Thus, empathy with one who no longer shares one’s own plain of existence (i.e., the physical form) isn’t empathic or rational. Therefore, using both definitions of the APA, people online who express outrage for Kirk, concerning his view on empathy, are exposing their irrationality.

Finalizing this point, reserving empathy for only a select group of people is, in and of itself, a standard of non-empathy. As not to be accused of straw-manning this matter, one Redditor states (punctuation errors remedied):

[N]o one owes him [Kirk] empathy, least of all the people who feel he targeted them specifically and made their lives less safe. They don’t have to take a moment and be kind. They don’t have to be silent. They can celebrate the same way a person might when they find out an abusive parent who made their life hell passed.  

I’ll address this individual’s outlook using the two tools of REBT: the ABC model and unconditional acceptance (UA). Before doing so, forgive me a personal anecdote which is relevant to this topic.

From my earliest memories of her, until we last had contact with one another during my senior year of high school, I recall my late mother subjecting me to physical and psychological abuse. Along with neglectfulness, the effect of her behavior would be classified as clinically traumatic.

My mom often assaulted and battered me, told me she didn’t love me, expressed that she wished she’d aborted me, and I’m convinced that on at least one occasion she attempted to take my life. Nothing Kirk stated to any of his detractors compared to the treatment I endured from my mom.

With this in mind, I now offer that REBT uses the ABC model to illustrate that when an undesirable Action occurs and you Believe an unhelpful narrative about the event, it’s your unfavorable assumption, not the occurrence itself, that causes an unpleasant Consequence.

Noteworthy, from a psychological standpoint, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.

As an example, my mom once beat me so hard (Action) that she refused to let me attend school in the following days, due to swelling and bruising (Consequence). From an A-C outlook, physical battery can cause observable wounds.

Yet, from a B-C perspective, when my mom beat me (Action) and I Believed, “I’m unlovable and I can’t stand this miserable life anymore, so I should just kill myself,” then my attitude is what caused depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation at nine-years-old (Consequence).

Addressing how people upset themselves with unhelpful attitudes, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unproductive philosophies of life in order to explore Effective new beliefs. Whereas rigid beliefs cause self-disturbance, flexible beliefs result in an un-disturbed condition.

The process of challenging unaccommodating Beliefs takes longer than I care to demonstrate herein. Thus, in the interest of time, imagine that after a period of rigorous Disputation my younger self was able to achieve the following Effective new belief:

Although my mom says she doesn’t love me, which she very well may not, this doesn’t mean that I’m wholly unlovable – only that I’m not loved by her. While I don’t like being mistreated by the woman who brought me into this world, I can stand her abusive behavior.

Besides, I’ve lost count of how many times she’s beaten me. I’m still here! As well, life is doubtlessly unpleasant for me. Yet, it isn’t miserable. After all, I love spending time with my older sister, watching cartoons, and playing with toys. Given all this, I preferably shouldn’t kill myself.

Aside from the ABC model, REBT uses UA to relieve self-induced suffering. This is accomplished through use of unconditional self-acceptance (USA), unconditional other-acceptance (UOA), and unconditional life-acceptance (ULA).

Whereas the ABC model is a scientific approach to wellness, UA serves as a philosophical method for un-disturbing yourself. I view the former as an abortive approach to disturbance and the latter as a preventative method. Of course, not all REBT practitioners use the same style as I.

With my approach to REBT, I incorporate author Stephen Covey’s concepts regarding the circles of control, influence, and concern, as well as an area of no concern. UA maps onto the circle of control (USA), circle of influence (UOA), and circle of concern and area of no concern (ULA).

The circle of control encompasses only oneself, the circle of influence encapsulates elements which may be subject to one’s sway, the circle of concern engrosses most matters one can imagine, and the area of no concern relates to all content which isn’t yet imagined.

Remaining mindful of time, suppose my younger self concluded, “I’m a fallible human with little influence over my mom [USA], and she’s a flawed person with poor impulse control [UOA]. As such, life is imperfect, this moment will pass, and nothing already done can be undone [ULA].”

In consideration of both the ABC model and UA, I concur with the Redditor who stated that no one owes Kirk empathy. No one is entitled to understanding of this sort, nor do they “have to take a moment and be kind.” All the same, this is where our points of agreement divert.

I disagree with the assertion that anyone could “feel” as though Kirk “targeted them specifically and made their lives less safe,” given the A-C and B-C distinction. Likewise, a feeling is either an emotion or a sensation, as no one can “feel” as though Kirk “targeted them.”

Also, even though people are welcome to “celebrate” the death of others, I argue that those of us who endured “an abusive parent” who has since passed may only weigh ourselves down with celebration of their death. Sincerely accepting is letting go of such joy, as this is an empathic act.

In closing, years ago, digital photography was my hobby. As such, I participated in risqué photoshoots. Mainly working with women as models, I honed my skills while shooting at various locations across Bomb City. It was a challenging, though rewarding, experience.

During that time, models often requested upskirt shots about which one source describes as “the practice of taking photographs or videos under a person’s skirt or kilt, capturing an image or video of the crotch area, showing underwear such as panties, and sometimes genitalia.”

When thinking about how people have reacted to Kirk’s death, I now reflect upon my time as a digital photographer. For anyone who’s neglected use of both logical and reasonable thinking, your irrationality is exposed – as were the undergarments of models with whom I once worked.

This mainly applies to those of you who profess to value empathy, though you practice no understanding of Kirk’s frame of reference rather than your own. As for “vicariously experiencing that person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts;” well, that’s just absurd!

Likewise, for those who you who now mourn Charlie Kirk, especially given that he’s left behind a widow and two children, I invite you to practice the same empathy you presumably experience when it comes to those currently suffering the A-C effects of Israel’s actions.

From an A-C outlook, military attacks on Palestine (Gaza), Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Qatar, and Tunisia (Action) can cause the death of nonmilitants in these regions (Consequence). The same modus ponens syllogism that applies to people I’ve addressed herein applies with Israel:

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

If you empathically mourn for the widow and children Kirk has left behind, then you’ll emphatically mourn for the victims of Israel’s bloodthirsty attacks.

You empathically mourn for the widow and children Kirk has left behind.

Therefore, you’ll emphatically mourn for the victims of Israel’s bloodthirsty attacks.

Or is it that – like those exercising irrationally selective empathy regarding Kirk – you only acknowledge the B-C suffering of others when it comes to members of your in-group? If so, then your irrationality is exposed. I can see your ass!

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 a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging 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:

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 11). Empathy. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/empathy

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Sympathy. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/sympathy

Deliso, M., Brennan, D., and Forrester, M. (2025, September 11). FBI releases images of person of interest, announces $100K reward amid manhunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer. ABC News. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/charlie-kirk-shooting-fbi-appeals-tips-manhunt-continues/story?id=125469211

EyeEm. (n.d.). Woman standing against door [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/premium-photo/woman-standing-against-door_119273070.htm#fromView=search&page=2&position=21&uuid=7efb1e04-52f5-4d01-a9ee-d65b3b9ed99d&query=upskirt

Hollings, D. (2024, October 15). A healthy approach to marriage. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-healthy-approach-to-marriage

Hollings, D. (2024, May 22). A philosophical approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-philosophical-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2025, August 26). A preventative approach to self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-preventative-approach-to-self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2024, May 24). A scientific approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-scientific-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2024, November 5). Abortion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/abortion

Hollings, D. (2024, September 20). All things. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/all-things

Hollings, D. (2025, August 26). An abortive approach to self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/an-abortive-approach-to-self-disturbance

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. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing

Hollings, D. (2024, November 6). Be humble. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/be-humble

Hollings, D. (2022, November 18). Big T, little t. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/big-t-little-t

Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern

Hollings, D. (2024, July 11). Concern and no concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/concern-and-no-concern

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

Hollings, D. (2023, April 22). Control. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/control

Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation

Hollings, D. (2023, June 26). Ctrl+alt+del. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ctrl-alt-del

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

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

Hollings, D. (2025, March 12). Distress vs. disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distress-vs-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2025, September 8). Entitlement. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/entitlement

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 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being

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-1

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

Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations

Hollings, D. (2025, September 7). Have to. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/have-to

Hollings, D. (2024, August 9). Healthy concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/healthy-concern

Hollings, D. (2024, February 24). High frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/high-frustration-tolerance

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

Hollings, D. (2022, November 4). Human fallibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/human-fallibility

Hollings, D. (2025, May 23). Inference chain. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/inference-chain

Hollings, D. (2024, May 10). Inferred meaning. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/inferred-meaning

Hollings, D. (2024, August 21). In-group and out-group distinction. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/in-group-and-out-group-distinction

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

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

Hollings, D. (2025, February 27). Life must be safe. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-must-be-safe

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Lived experience. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/lived-experience

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

Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance

Hollings, D. (2024, July 14). Measure twice, cut once. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/measure-twice-cut-once

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

Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude

Hollings, D. (2025, August 2). My philosophy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-philosophy

Hollings, D. (2024, March 1). Not a feeling. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/not-a-feeling

Hollings, D. (2022, October 22). On empathy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-empathy

Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings

Hollings, D. (2025, July 13). On passion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-passion

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

Hollings, D. (2025, April 9). Perception, action, and will. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perception-action-and-will

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

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

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

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

Hollings, D. (2025, June 14). Pulled like a puppet by every impulse. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/pulled-like-a-puppet-by-every-impulse

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. (2025, August 13). Rational versus irrational thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-versus-irrational-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, March 14). REBT and emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-and-emotions

Hollings, D. (2024, July 18). REBT flexibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-flexibility

Hollings, D. (2025, April 15). Rejected and dejected. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rejected-and-dejected

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

Hollings, D. (2023, February 17). Revisiting the circle of control. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/revisiting-the-circle-of-control

Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous

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

Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation

Hollings, D. (2023, October 16). Straw man. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/straw-man

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

Hollings, D. (2023, September 6). The absence of suffering. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-absence-of-suffering

Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection

Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection

Hollings, D. (2025, February 13). The past is passed. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-past-is-passed

Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science

Hollings, D. (2024, February 6). This ride inevitably ends. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/this-ride-inevitably-ends

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. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model

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

Hollings, D. (2023, March 11). Unconditional life-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-life-acceptance

Hollings, D. (2023, February 25). Unconditional other-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-other-acceptance

Hollings, D. (2023, March 1). Unconditional self-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-self-acceptance

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

Hollings, D. (2025, March 11). We live in an imperfect world. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/we-live-in-an-imperfect-world

Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well

Mondschein, J. (2025, September 11). Charlie Kirk’s assassination is the latest act of political violence in a febrile United States. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/charlie-kirks-assassination-is-the-latest-act-of-political-violence-in-a-febrile-united-states-265063

Oschinothadon. (2025, September 11). Charlie Kirk speaks on empathy [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtube.com/shorts/A54Hkn0vcBY?si=p7IxXYPHT5f8EIaS

The-esoteric. (2025, September 10). Charlie Kirk isnt entitled to anyone’s empathy [Thread]. Reddit. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1ndwfqu/charlie_kirk_isnt_entitled_to_anyones_empathy/

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Against Empathy. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Empathy

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Charlie Kirk. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Stephen Covey. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Covey

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