"Spread the hate"

 Oct 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated at a talk he was giving. He was a rightwing advocate. He talked calmly, wanted free speech, loved his nation, and I thought debated well.

I disagreed with him on things, but saw he seemed to be trying to use logic and reaoson.

I've seen people writing that he "spread hate" by words he was using. Now, I do not know what the bleep this even means. Seriously. What does spreading hate look like?

Can anyone tell me? I would love to know. Examples. Citations. Show me a truth table that outlines when someone is in fact, "spreading hate" by what they say.

Oh asking people to do logic, right this is politics. There goes logic out the window I guess.

But honestly, lets take a big old step back and look at what people might be talking about, because guessing is all I can do at this point, no one says what he said that was hateful, just that he said hateful things. Like what? Oh you know. The things.

You mean the things you disagree with? Those things?

Or perhaps they mean the cherry picked quotes that people have tweeted/x'ed out about him, or what political pundits or others have said or written about him. Yes no research required, your thinking has been done for you, person (Z) said Charly BAD.

Okay, so the only things I can think that he said that people do not like are "What is a woman" and stuff about abortion I guess. Nether of these things seems hateful to me. But then again, I do not believe in "Hate speech" there is no such thing, it is just speech you don't like. 

IDK I guess if you say "I hate (X) people" then sure, that would be hate speech, but when I see or hear "hate speech" its a tool to shut down talk, not engage but to undermine. It is, an attack on the person:

Ad hominem.

So go on tell me what the bleep hate thing is. Because I don't bleeping know but I do know I'm tired of people saying it without any logical underpinning.

Use some logic for the love of humanity!

GAH!

Politics vs Logic, changing words changes narative.

I stumbled onto a short made by someone I have only briefly interacted with on YouTube. The short was named something that implied it was about events that showed fascism in action. The links the uploader provided made me feel compelled to do a live analysis: click.

I wasn't sure about what I had done after the fact, but it did make me think about political discourse that I'm aware of. Even though I dislike politics in general and do not talk about it much, there are still a LOT of things that do deserve the logical treatment.

One such event I've read about is that people who dislike what ICE and other agencies are doing engage in strange changes of words in order to change the narrative—or put another way, to make a story.

Rather than say ICE is arresting people, I've read they are "invading" cities, "capturing" people, or "disappearing" people. It's painted with dark, sinister overtones. Mostly you will see this language in posts or tweets and the like, but still—it's there.

Why? Well, I'm not sure why anyone does anything, of course, but clearly this isn't what the facts are. ICE is not, in fact, "invading" any city. They are not disappearing people. They are arresting them. Now, some people do not like this, think it's overzealous or overblown, etc. etc.… but why change the narrative in such a way?

As above, when I analyzed the video, it was only because the words suggested it was somehow linked to fascism—although not stated out loud, it was implied by the label of the video and the words on the screen.

Is the panic that some have over the events so high that they are willing to forgo reality in order to make a new narrative story, just so that story compels others to act out of emotion rather than facts?

I... do not know. But it is disturbing that we humans can and will fall into such mental traps. We read something that says "men in masks are harming women" and go into protective mode. BUT, you see, these are ICE agents. Yes, they have on masks (sometimes), and yes, most of them are men (perhaps all), and yes, in some cases, they are arresting women… and they might cause harm if those women resist.

But anyone who resists police can be harmed, as the police must contain you and apply force when you are resisting.

The way forward cannot be to use emotions and the changing of facts to forward your agenda. Otherwise, I will be skeptical of it, and I will point out the falsehood. Use facts and reason to try to compel change, not darkened tones. Poisoning the well might work, but beware—it's your own water supply.

Perhaps reason and logic will be used and prevail in the end… if only we insist upon it.

Will we?

I'm not sure.

Cancel culture.

Ah yes, “cancel culture” is still a thing. What is it? Broadly speaking, it’s when a group of people decides someone said or wrote something BAD and therefore must be canceled. That might mean getting them kicked off a platform (X/YouTube/Facebook/etc.), fired from their job, or disinvited from speaking somewhere: because, goodness forbid, they say something that might offend.

Take Dawkins. He was disinvited from speaking at a university. Why? Because of a tweet: he shared a Sye Ten Atheist video. That’s it. What was he going to speak about? Evolution. But nope, someone decided a video link was just too much, and boom: talk canceled. All the time, effort, and coordination gone.

Now, some people try to justify this by saying “there’s a time and place” to cancel someone. Because, you see, they said a bad thing about a thing, and that might hurt feelings! Or worse: they were racist. They were... fill in the blank. And so, the moral outrage machine kicks in: must. cancel. person. Send them to the shadow realm. That’ll fix everything, right?

Except: hate groups still exist. Racists still exist. People keep saying stuff you don’t like. The world keeps spinning as if none of your moral panic mattered. But hey: justice was served.

I’m against it. In full. Why? Because the ideas must be challenged, not the person. You don't win an argument by silencing someone. You win by beating their argument.

“OMG, you would platform (X) bad person?”
Yes: at least once. I’ll hear what they say.

“But they have bad ideas!”
Exactly why I want to confront them.

“But they’re evil!”
Okay: and?

“You won’t change their mind!”
Don't know if I don't try! and others are listening.

“You’re making their view look legitimate!”
Got any proof of that?

See, this all becomes about virtue signaling and feelings. It feels good to silence someone you disagree with. It feels like the right thing to do. You imagine the bigot won’t say anything ever again. But they still will. Just not here. Not in your realm.

Until, one day, you say something someone doesn’t like. Then it’s your turn. And once you’re canceled: can you ever come back? Nope. Can you be forgiven? No. Why? Because BAD THING. End of story.

Is there a valid, sound argument for canceling someone instead of engaging with their ideas? I honestly don’t know. I haven’t seen one. I’m not expecting one anytime soon.

Will I be canceled for this post? No idea. But if canceling someone is your go-to move: doesn’t that kind of suggest you don’t have a real counterargument?

The world is full of disagreement and drama. I’ll talk to whoever. Say whatever. This isn’t a safe space. You will be challenged. Your ideas will be attacked.

Because that’s reality. You might want to make the world better? Good for you, but this method? 

It doesn’t work. Censorship never does in the end.

People who embrace cancel culture probably believe they hold the moral high ground. Fine. 

They can believe that. My answer:
Block them. Ignore the cancel addicts. Don’t let them run your life. Simple.

Sadly, way too many people don’t have a backbone.

Well... I complained about it. No idea if it matters. But I’m not going to not complain.

A great example of Tu quoque

 From (click) video's comment section comes this gem:

@Jeremiah_James_G

I appreciate the discussion, and I think we’ve reached the real heart of the issue—our fundamental assumptions. You trust in scientific models to explain causality, which is reasonable, but those models are limited to describing what happens within the universe, not what—if anything—brought it into being. Science itself doesn’t claim to answer that question, yet you hold to the belief that a natural explanation must exist, even when the current models don’t provide one. That’s still faith—faith in the sufficiency of natural causes. I freely admit my faith—I believe the universe has a cause beyond itself because that aligns with both reason and evidence. You place your faith in a naturalistic framework, trusting that given enough time, science will close the gaps. We both work from assumptions, but only one of us acknowledges it. At the end of the day, the question isn't just what we believe, but why we believe it, and which framework makes the most sense of reality as a whole. Thanks for the conversation.

~~~~~~

SIGH.

When I think about someone else, in my head, it is said I'm trying to put myself in there shoes, to try to understand them, I pretend to be them. I know what it is to feel what they felt, even though I'm not experiencing it myself, this is called empathy. However, something strange happens when the other person does not hold a view I myself hold, I can experience cognitive dissonance - trying to hold two opposing ideas in my head at the same time.

For example, Mr. Notreal might believe that some celebrity is of high moral regard, but finds out on the news that they are accused of doing something wrong - this person might think the person making the claims against that celebrity is lying, and is doing so because they want money. This rationalization protects the belief that Mr. Notreal holds.

His brain is used to holding the idea that celebrity is of a high moral regard, he is quite used to that notion and changing it will cause him anxiety, distress, sadness, and other emotions he wishes to avoid, thus he will automatically make excuses in his brain for why it can not be that he is wrong about the belief he holds.

Here we have Jeremiah who projects his beliefs that everyone has faith out into the world itself, everyone must be like him in this regard - that is, everyone MUST have faith like he does, just its a faith of a different flavor.

Jeremiah has faith, and he doesn't mind admitting to this fact, as long as everyone else admits to "this fact" that they ALSO share faith... even if they don't call it faith because, well, everyone "must" have faith. Because he believes this is true.

The belief is "Everyone has faith" this BELIEF of Jeremiah is protected by his reuse of the statement, with a number of rationalizations.

Jeremiah writes "hold to the belief" - a projection that the people reading HAVE a belief in the first place, rather then know a fact about reality. There is a big difference here in regards to what is a belief vs a fact, can we know facts?

Well I think we can - but perhaps Jeremiah does not think we can, in his mind, we can only hold belief ideas, and never fact ideas.

I can't say for sure that is what Jeremiah holds in his head of course, thus why I write "perhaps" above. The paragraph he wrote does expose many of his beliefs about what other people believe.

He writes "yet you hold to the belief that a natural explanation must exist" there again, he projects the reader is holding a belief they might not hold.

Jeremiah does not seem to realize here that someone might not hold any belief about an explanation at all!

Example:

Mr. Notreal: "(X) happened what caused it? It was Magic or Time Travelers!"

Skeptic: "I don't believe in Magic."

Mr. Notreal: "Ah ha! You must belief it was (A) or (B)! If you reject That it was Magic, then you MUST think it was Time Travelers!"

Skeptic: "Not at all. I do not know if it was either of the two options, or perhaps an unknown third option. I do not hold a belief regarding what caused event (X) in fact, I'm not even sure there WAS a cause."

~End example~

The problem is the many beliefs Jeremiah holds about reality, one stacked upon the other that he assumes everyone must hold. He does this to protect his own beliefs, leading to a giant circle of ideas in his mind.

The fact to pull from this example of the fallacy of Tu quoque is to look at what we think, what we say, and to be ever watchful for when we Tu quoque others, because it might be our own beliefs we are seeking to protect.

"I'd rather die and be wrong"

Someone very near and dear to me said the phrase "I'd rather die and be wrong about God, then die without belief and be wrong." 

As a skeptic, that phrase stuns me, and I do not even know what to say, the illogic of it is plain to me, but not to the person that said it. For it is the belief they hold. In fact, they believe several things.

1: God exists.

2: There is an afterlife.

3: God cares that you believe in it, and will reward you with the afterlife only if you do believe in it.

There are about 8 billion people in this world, and out of them about 3 billion are Christian, so that means that about 5 billion people will all not get this reward because they picked the wrong belief (if one can even pick a belief) why? Well I asked them, and they said that is simply the rules they picked.

That's all. Just how the maker of the universe made the rules. God makes no sense.

Why? Because. But WHY? Just... because.

I do not believe in an afterlife, that doesn't mean I believe there is one, although I doubt there is, my belief is not relevant to whatever happens to be the truth, but my word I don't like the idea of death for sure, I mean, I'm used to existing, so I'd like to do it for awhile. How long? No idea. Depends!

But, the idea that a God would make it so only a limited amount of people would get "in" - is absurd to me, the idea of God - sure I can understand that perhaps, but something that made a ruleset that limited the number of people based on belief? Nah.

I do not know what words to say to negate this belief. I do not want to die, but it will happen one day, and I'd rather have the truth whatever it is, then a belief without evidence, and god simply has no evidence for it.

A god that requires you to believe in it to get "in" - is not a good god.

Perhaps god isn't god... but then why say it is?

Faith has its hooks into this dear person I love, and sadly logic can not make it past this idea... at least, not for now.