One of the worst things happening in political discourse right now is the “denounce X” demand. You’re expected to publicly reject certain claims or people will assume you’re a bad person. The problem isn’t whether any specific claim is right or wrong. The problem is that these demands turn factual questions into loyalty tests.
When someone asks “Do you denounce the claim that X?” they’re not actually trying to figure out what’s true. They’re asking which team you’re on. They’re replacing “What does the evidence say?” with “Whose side are you on?” This creates a situation where asking questions looks like you’re endorsing answers, where looking at evidence is treated like you’re pushing an agenda, where admitting uncertainty makes you look suspicious, and where getting to the truth means surviving a bunch of social attacks first.
The real damage isn’t just that people can’t say certain things. It’s that they can’t even think about them. The question becomes “Am I allowed to wonder about this?” instead of “Is this true?” Healthy conversation requires being able to examine claims, even uncomfortable ones, without everyone treating it like a test of your morality. We should be able to separate looking at evidence from drawing conclusions, and separate asking questions from making assertions.
When we lose that ability, we don’t make conversations more moral. We just make them more dishonest
