In a blogpost entitled Unconditional Acceptance, I shared an adage used by my late stepmom. She’d often say, “That’s a dog that don’t hunt no more.” During moments when my stepmom was especially passionate about a matter she’d state, “Thas a dog that don’t hunt no mo’!”
The dated expression was apparently often used in the southern United States (U.S.), though with the modified phrase “that dog won’t hunt.” Describing its origin and meaning, one source states:
It’s modelled on the 17th-18th century phrase “that cock won’t fight”. In the days of cock-fighting, a cock that wouldn’t fight when out into the pit was a natural metaphor for a plan or theory that simply wouldn’t work. A similar sporting metaphor from horse-racing is used when we say that a plan or theory “isn’t a runner”.
As an example, I’d say to my stepmom, “Do you think it’d be better to go into the fast food restaurant, rather than holding up the drive-thru line so that you can be served a fresh batch of fried chicken, given that you’re inconveniencing everyone else involved as you order?”
Particularly fervent about the situation, my stepmom would then respond, “Thas a dog that don’t hunt no mo’! Them people know me. They know I don’t want chicken thas been under a lamp. I want it fresh…every time! People in the cars behind me and the people at the window can wait.”
To my stepmom, her argument was rational—that which is in accordance with both logic and reason. “Logic” relates to an interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable. Noteworthy, a proposal can be logical while simultaneously being unreasonable.
“Reason” is merely a statement offered in explanation or justification. When providing psychoeducational lessons to people about rational and irrational thinking or beliefs, I often use syllogistic examples. To illustrate my stepmom’s irrational argument, consider the following:
Form (modus ponens) –
If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Example –
If I want fresh fried chicken, then people should be inconvenienced when I order. I want fresh fried chicken. Therefore, people should be inconvenienced when I order.
In the theory for Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), one of the four major irrational beliefs known as demandingness uses should, must, and ought-type of terminology to influence one’s cognitive, emotive, sensational, and behavioral outcomes.
Although my stepmom’s belief adhered to logical syllogistic form, I maintain that it was unreasonable. This is because her use of a rigid demand caused conflict with fast food employees and other people who inevitably violated my stepmom’s internal rules of the universe.
For context, depending on the restaurant chain, my stepmom was willing to wait in her car and at the drive-thru window for the 12-15 minutes it took to prepare a fresh batch of fried chicken. To her, this was a reasonable outcome of her inflexible demand.
However, my stepmom’s self-disturbed behavior was unnecessarily inconvenient for others. Moreover, when I attempted to dispute her irrational belief, my stepmom remained unopen to persuasion and instead doubled down with rationalization: “Thas a dog that don’t hunt no mo’!”
According to her, my suggestion of going into the fast food restaurant wasn’t a viable option. When asked for justification to support her adage, my stepmom replied, “Because I’m a paying customer and the drive-thru is where they’ll take my money. I don’t need to go inside!”
For the record, when she was alive, I maintained storgē love for my late stepmom more than any of the relatively many other parental figures which I encountered in life. Therefore, the current anecdote isn’t intended to serve as a petty slight which dishonors her legacy.
Rather, I share her example so that you can understand: (1) what the adage used by my late stepmom means and how it’s used, (2) the distinction between rational and irrational beliefs, and (3) how a belief may be logical and seemingly reasonable while nonetheless remaining irrational.
With this understanding, I now turn to the relatively recent past. During 2020, I observed countless people within the U.S. espousing irrational rhetoric from Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo in regard to antiracism (also “anti-racism”) which one source describes thusly:
Anti-racism encompasses a range of ideas and political actions which are meant to counter racial prejudice, systemic racism, and the oppression of specific racial groups. Anti-racism is usually structured around conscious efforts and deliberate actions which are intended to create equal opportunities for all people on both an individual and a systemic level.
As a philosophy, it can be engaged in by the acknowledgment of personal privileges, confronting acts as well as systems of racial discrimination and/or working to change personal racial biases. Major contemporary anti-racism efforts include the Black Lives Matter movement and workplace anti-racism.
For context, “racism” is defined as a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority or inferiority of a particular race. Also, an individual’s racist beliefs don’t bother me, as I’m an REBT practitioner.
I understand that personal responsibility and accountability for my reactions to the beliefs of others doesn’t afford me the ability to blame people for my response. Yet, the likes of Kendi and DiAngelo apparently maintain that not being racist isn’t the same thing as being antiracist.
Take a moment to think about the complexity of the antiracism definition I cited moments ago. Are you willing to discount personal responsibility and accountability for your perceptions while needlessly blaming others for how you respond to their beliefs – even when of a racist nature?
Are you confident that you can even distinguish between a racist, antiracist, or person who simply isn’t racist at all? If not, allow me to pollute your mind with Kendi’s irrational description of these terms (page 9):
What’s the problem with being “not racist”? It is a claim that signifies neutrality: “I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism.” But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle. The opposite of “racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “antiracist.”
It’s difficult for me to contemplate how any rationally-thinking individual fell for such nonsense. Kendi utilizes a false binary style of argumentation by suggesting that “there is no neutrality in the racism struggle.” Allow me to deconstruct this irrational belief thusly:
Form (modus tollens) –
If p, then q; not q; therefore, not p.
Example –
If you’re antiracist, then you don’t support racial neutrality or affirmative racism. You’re not antiracist. Therefore, you support racial neutrality or affirmative racism.
Distorted inference (modus ponens) –
If you’re antiracist, then you mustn’t take a neutral position on racial matters or actively subscribe to racist ideology. You’re antiracist. Therefore, you mustn’t take a neutral position on racial matters or actively subscribe to racist ideology.
Self-disturbing belief –
People mustn’t [demandingness] be racially neutral or affirmatively racist, otherwise they aren’t good people [global evaluation], and I can’t stand [low frustration tolerance] how horrible [awfulizing] it is for people not to be as antiracist as I.
Think about your view of racism. For the sake of argument, I’ll assume you don’t maintain that one race is superior or inferior to other races. Further, I’ll suppose that you have a functioning mind with the ability to think critically. Thus, you don’t buy into Kendi’s irrational rhetoric.
Do you concur with the self-disturbing belief that one mustn’t take a neutral stance on racism, as outlined by Kendi? Imagine that you don’t. Are you willing to suspend your ability to think rationally while instead subscribing to Kendi’s irrationality? I’m not. Kendi continues (page 9):
What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist.
One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in between safe space of “not racist.” The claim of “not racist” neutrality is a mask for racism.
Kendi uses a conditional form of demandingness. Similar to the major premise of a modus ponens syllogism (i.e., if p, then q), this sort of belief utilizes an either-or construct. Sneakily, Kendi also inserts an ad hominem attack (i.e., “racist”) to qualify his proposal.
Thus, either you allow racial inequality, as a racist individual, or you confront racial inequality, as an antiracist person. Who would want to be labeled as a “racist,” other than someone who actively maintains superiority or inferiority on the basis of race? Not you, I suspect.
Therefore, with the false binary presented by Kendi, one is either a racist (bad, undesirable, unhealthy, etc.) or antiracist (good, desirable, healthy, etc.). Of course, it isn’t as though Kendi didn’t anticipate disputation from critical thinkers, such as me, because he continues (page 9):
This may seem harsh, but it’s important at the outset that we apply one of the core principles of antiracism, which is to return the word “racist” itself back to its proper usage. “Racist” is not—as Richard Spencer argues—a pejorative.
It is not the worst word in the English language; it is not the equivalent of a slur. It is descriptive, and the only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it—and then dismantle it. The attempt to turn this usefully descriptive term into an almost unusable slur is, of course, designed to do the opposite: to freeze us into inaction.
When writing his book, Kendi was likely aware of the irrational premises and beliefs he was using. Ergo, he rationalized his position. Apparently, “racist” isn’t a pejorative or a slur. Ostensibly, it merely describes a person. That’s all. No biggie.
Nevertheless, once a racist’s ideology is described, then that belief structure can be dismantled. You wouldn’t want to stop the dismantlement of racist structures by freezing people into inaction, would you, bigot? Can you see the sleight of hand used by Kendi?
According to his book, “Racism is a powerful collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity and are substantiated by racist ideas. Antiracism is a powerful collection of antiracist policies that lead to racial equity and are substantiated by antiracist ideas” (page 20).
Kendi outlined an irrational framework for what an antiracist is and then proposed systemic change solutions which followed his lead. Not to be outdone by the irrationality of Kendi, DiAngelo’s book states (page 23):
It became clear that if I believed that only bad people who intended to hurt others because of race could ever do so, I would respond with outrage to any suggestion that I was involved in racism. Of course that belief would make me feel falsely accused of something terrible, and of course I would want to defend my character (and I had certainly had many of my own moments of responding in just those ways to reflect on).
First, I quibble with DiAngelo’s colloquially-accepted, though misapplied nonetheless, use of the word “feel.” Feelings relate to emotions (i.e., joy, fear, anger, sorrow, disgust, surprise, etc.) and sensations (i.e., hot, cold, pain, etc.). However, one cannot “feel falsely accused” of anything.
If the word “feel” (or derivatives thereunto) can be replaced with terms for cognitions (i.e., thoughts, beliefs, hutches, suspicions, etc.), then one isn’t describing a feeling at all. As an example, I don’t feel like you may disagree, yet I think that you may disagree.
Second, I concur with DiAngelo’s view of “bad people” as an inferred unhelpful belief. Personally, there are no good or bad people. Rather we are all merely fallible humans. Some of us espouse racist rhetoric, some of us advocate antiracist positions, and some of us are neutral.
Last, using the ABC model of REBT, an accusation of racism (Action) when met with an unhelpful Belief is what causes an unpleasant Consequence (e.g., outrage). However, racist labels don’t create these undesirable outcomes. DiAngelo continues (page 23):
I came to see that the way we are taught to define racism makes it virtually impossible for white people to understand it. Given our racial insulation, coupled with misinformation, any suggestion that we are complicit in racism is a kind of unwelcome and insulting shock to the system.
If, however, I understand racism as a system into which I was socialized, I can receive feedback on my problematic racial patterns as a helpful way to support my learning and growth. One of the greatest social fears for a white person is being told that something that we have said or done is racially problematic.
DiAngelo presupposes that racial patterns of a non-antiracist individual (to include those who are merely neutral regarding the matter) are “problematic.” Ergo, if you’re a white person who tends to your everyday routine without dismantling racism, you’re apparently part of the problem.
This simplistically irrational proposition follows the same modus tollens formulation as I used for Kendi. You can choose to accept DiAngelo’s unreasonable proposal. You can also opt to dispute, ridicule, and/or ignore it altogether. DiAngelo continues (page 23):
Yet when someone lets us know that we have just done such a thing, rather than respond with gratitude and relief (after all, now that we are informed, we won’t do it again), we often respond with anger and denial.
If you choose to “respond with anger and denial” (Consequence) regarding your Belief about being labeled a racist (Action), then you may want to Dispute your unhelpful assumption in order to discover more Effective new beliefs. DiAngelo continues (page 23):
Such moments can be experienced as something valuable, even if temporarily painful, only after we accept that racism is unavoidable and that it is impossible to completely escape having developed problematic racial assumptions and behaviors.
Did you catch the sleight of hand used by DiAngelo? Not only is racism apparently unavoidable, it’s also evidently impossible to escape. You’re simply a racist – even if you practice antiracism. Regarding this irrational position, one source states:
It is bad psychology to tell people who do not believe that they are racist — who may even actively despise racism — that there is nothing they can do to stop themselves from being racist — and then ask them to help you. It is even less helpful to tell them that even their own good intentions are proof of their latent racism.
Worst of all is to set up double-binds, like telling them that if they notice race it is because they are racist, but if they don’t notice race it’s because their privilege affords them the luxury of not noticing race, which is racist.
The idea that so many people simply gobbled up DiAngelo’s nonsensical rhetoric still baffles me after the relatively short period of time since her book was released. Furthermore, it isn’t as though DiAngelo was unaware of how white people may respond, as she states (page 23):
None of the white people whose actions I describe in this book would identify as racist. In fact, they would most likely identify as racially progressive and vehemently deny any complicity with racism. Yet all their responses illustrate white fragility and how it holds racism in place.
Thankfully, antiracist rhetoric of Kendi and DiAngelo has largely subsided. According to one source, Boston University closed its Center for Antiracist Research which was founded by Kendi. One laughs when imagining what empirical “research” was conducted by the center.
As well, in the satirical documentary comedy Am I Racist? political commentator Matt Walsh mocked DiAngelo’s absurdity to the point where I don’t know anyone in my personal or professional life who saw the film and who still supports the disgraced ideology of DiAngelo.
As my late stepmom would say, “Thas a dog that don’t hunt no mo’!” Unhelpfully, some dogmatic (characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively, as if they were facts) antiracist-adjacent beliefs are still going strong.
Before I proceed, some context is needed. Merriam-Webster defines anti-Semitism (also “antisemitism”) as hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. Notably, this appears to be a working definition, as it’s changed over the past few months.
Wikipedia states of this term, “Antisemitism or Jew-hatred is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against, Jews. This sentiment is a form of racism, and a person who harbours it is called an antisemite.” This, too, seems to be an ever-changing definitional source of the word.
Confusingly, Wikipedia also states, “Semitic people or Semites is a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group associated with people of the Middle East, including Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians.” Given this assertion, both Jews and Palestinians are considered Semitic.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) proposes, “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.”
Ostensibly, antisemitism is increasingly related to solely Jewish people. However, even if antisemitism strictly relates to Jews, the Jewish people still don’t constitute a racial identity in the U.S. Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of State adopts the IHRA definition and adds:
[C]riticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
With understanding that the U.S. government currently infringes upon the First Amendment, I recently listened as Rabbi Levi Shemtov testified at the Senate Hearing on Antisemitism on College Campuses, ostensibly supporting such infringement. At that time, Rabbi Shemtov stated:
Antisemitism is not just an age-old prejudice, it is a contemporary crisis manifesting on campuses across the nation. It is not enough for individuals or institutions to merely claim they are not antisemitic. As my father once taught me, it is not enough for people, especially public figures, to be neutral or not be antisemitic. One must be anti-antisemitic!
I’ve heard this irrational rhetoric before. It’s antiracism masquerading as an “anti-antisemitic” proposition. Thas a dog that don’t hunt no mo’! It was logical, though unreasonable, when expressed by Kendi and DiAngelo. Likewise, it’s irrational when stated by Rabbi Shemtov.
Remember: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Herein, I’ve used critical thinking while providing a rational foundation in support of the First Amendment principle of free speech that includes racist and antisemitic expression. If you’re self-disturbed by beliefs about such liberty, perhaps REBT could be of some use to you.
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
References:
C-SPAN. (2025, March 27). Senate Hearing on Antisemitism on College Campuses [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/senate-hearing-on-antisemitism-on-college-campuses/657773
Cocoparisienne. (n.d.). Dog, German wire hair, Domestic animal image. Free for use [Image]. Pixabay. Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/photos/dog-german-wire-hair-domestic-animal-6686430/
Constitution Annotated. (n.d.). First Amendment. Retrieved from https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Beacon Press. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/white-fragility-why-its-so-hard-for-white-people-to-talk-about-racism-d195163634.html
Frantisek. (2011, December 25). Meaning and origin of “that dog don’t hunt”. StackExchange. Retrieved from https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/52755/meaning-and-origin-of-that-dog-dont-hunt
Hollings, D. (2023, October 15). Ad hominem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ad-hominem
Hollings, D. (2024, November 20). Adages. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/adages
Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions
Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing
Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Blame. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/blame
Hollings, D. (2024, October 29). Cognitive continuum. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-continuum
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Conditional should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conditional-should-beliefs
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. (2024, November 4). Critical thinking. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/critical-thinking
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Discrimination. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/discrimination
Hollings, D. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences
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. (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. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2022, November 8). Information overload. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/information-overload
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. (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. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens
Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus tollens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-tollens
Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Nonadaptive behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nonadaptive-behavior
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2024, November 18). Opinions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/opinions
Hollings, D. (2022, November 7). Personal ownership. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-ownership
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, March 4). Rationalization. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rationalization
Hollings, D. (2024, March 14). REBT and emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-and-emotions
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. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
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. (2022, November 14). Touching a false dichotomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/touching-a-false-dichotomy
Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance-1
Hot Political Clips and Video. (2025, March 31). Rabbi Levi Shemtov American friends Lubavitch opening statemen - Senate Hearing Antisemitism College [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/h4Y0srTopjg?si=6AvEkQPPevGYvhte
Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to Be an Antiracist. One World, an imprint of Random House, a division of Penguin Random House LLC, New York. Retrieved from https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/how-to-be-an-antiracist-1nbsped-0525509283-9780525509288.html
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Anti-Semitism. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisemitism
Pew Research Center. (2021, May 11). 9. Race, ethnicity, heritage and immigration among U.S. Jews. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/race-ethnicity-heritage-and-immigration-among-u-s-jews/
Pluckrose, H. and Lindsay, J. (2022, December 6). Critical race theory: Noble ends, terrible means. Skeptic. Retrieved from https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/critical-race-theory-noble-ends-terrible-means/
Solis, S. (2025, January 31). BU closes antiracist research center as founding director leaves. Axios Media. Retrieved from https://www.axios.com/local/boston/2025/01/31/bu-closes-antiracist-research-center-ibram-x-kendi-leaves
U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). Defining antisemitism. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Am I Racist? Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am_I_Racist%3F
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Anti-racism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racism
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Antisemitism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Black Lives Matter. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Double bind. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Greek words for love. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love#:~:text=Storge%20(%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B3%CE%AE%2C%20storg%C4%93)%20means%20%22love%2C%20affection%22%20and,works%2C%20almost%20exclusively%20to%20describe%20family%20relationships.
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Ibram X. Kendi. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibram_X._Kendi
Wikipedia. (n.d.). IHRA definition of antisemitism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_definition_of_antisemitism
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Levi Shemtov. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_Shemtov
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Matt Walsh (political commentator). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Walsh_(political_commentator)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Richard B. Spencer. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Robin DiAngelo. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_DiAngelo
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Semitic people. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
Comments