One does not need to make a specific assertion to craft a narrative. One needs only ask the right kinds of questions. The advantage to such a tactic is that it allows one to maintain a position of plausible deniability while simultaneously creating exactly the environment in which the predetermined narrative will flourish. In doing so, one can amass a wealth of followers who will parrot the assumed assertion and create an impenetrable shield that protects one from all criticism and accountability.

How does this work? Assume for a moment that you have a neighbor on your street that you do not like. Let’s call him Bob. You would love to see Bob move away by any means necessary. The problem is, Bob is an overall nice guy. He keeps his yard clean, he’s nice to his neighbors, and his family is well-liked by almost everyone. There really isn’t anything you can say about him that would cause folks to agree with you that Bob needs to go away. What do you do? You need to find a way to chip away at Bob’s clean image, to create a chink in his armor that would cause doubt in others. This is where “just asking questions” comes into play.

The next time your neighborhood throws its annual block party barbecue, you walk up to Bob in front of everyone and ask a simple question, “Hey Bob, how is it going? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Cue the dramatic moment of silence. Everyone stops dead, someone drops a drink, and a dog barks in the distance. That’s the moment when the first scratch in Bob’s armor is made, and it may well prove deadly.

Granted, the scenario here is a bit hyperbolic and performative, but it is accurate, nonetheless. By asking Bob this question, no direct assertion has been made, but it did not have to be. The assertion is built into the question. And regardless of how Bob answers, he’s going to end up looking bad. If he says yes, he admits to beating her. If he answers no, then he is still doing it. If he attempts to claim he has never done so, or if he attempts to attack the nature of the question, he’s going to look defensive. If he asks his wife to verify that he is innocent, he’s going to look like he is gaslighting her. The question plants in the minds of the hearers that Bob is automatically guilty.

This line of questioning will also create division without ever bringing a single shred of proof. Among the hearers you will have multiple groups: one group will immediately defend Bob and attack the questioner; another will assume Bob’s guilt simply because the question was asked; and another will suddenly become uncomfortable, wanting to “not take sides” which is a side in itself. Those assuming Bob’s guilt will never accept any evidence that proves his innocence. Those defending Bob will work tirelessly but prove he is guiltless but will mostly only convince themselves. The fence-sitters will distance themselves from Bob because being around him might make folks think they support him. By “just asking questions,” you have already created the environment where people start thinking the worst about Bob and where people will war over his presence in the neighborhood. That very tactic is happening online every single day, and it is proving to be a very effective strategy.

Perhaps the most prominent example of this has been in the conservative podcaster community since the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk. From the moment the graphic videos of his death hit the internet, numerous self-proclaimed experts used this as an opportunity to sow seeds of doubt about the investigation and arrest of the alleged murderer, Tyler Robinson. By “just asking questions,” podcasters and YouTubers have created an air of conspiratorial machinations of immense proportions. In fact, the most common belief among the audiences of these programs is that if there is one thing anyone can know for sure, it is that Robinson is the only person who didn’t actually kill Charlie Kirk.

This spiral of “just asking questions” has become so intense that Charlie Kirk’s own wife, Erika, is now considered the prime suspect of her own husband’s death among internet sleuths. Why is that? Because of people like prominent podcasters like Candace Owens, who has made it clear that she is “just asking questions” to get to the bottom of Kirk’s death. Her line of questions has settled on Erika Kirk to the point that she has not only made her the ongoing subject of her podcast, but also an 8-episode miniseries called “Bride of Charlie.” However, whenever anyone accuses Owens of charging Erika with the murder of Charlie, Owens incessantly claims she has never made any such accusation. She is adamant that all she has ever done is “ask questions.”

Owens’ listening audience is confident, however, that Erika Kirk is guilty of something involving Charlie’s death. All one has to do is go online and make even the mildest defense of Erika and it will not take long before a horde of accusers will arrive assuring people that Erika is an evil person. This goes back to the division mentioned above. Podcasters like Owens know that simply by asking the right kind of questions, they will create in the minds of their followers the narrative they are pushing. They never have to make the direct charge; their audience will do it for them. This kind of division stirs up the masses, keeps the topic fresh, and ensures that the desired narrative can never be disproven, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

It is well past time that people begin to recognize that not everyone who is asking questions is doing so for legitimate reasons. The online world thrives on engagement, and engagement requires at least some level of controversy. There has to be a reason for people to tune in, share, and talk about an issue. If you present a topic objectively, citing solid sources, without appealing to emotion or rhetoric, people might find you informative, but little more. But if you scandalize a matter by driving the topic into a particular channel though asking things like, “have you stopped beating your wife yet,” you guarantee your audience will be drooling for more.

We need to stop being willing participants in a grand game of manipulation that feeds the egos and nefarious plans of others. When someone says they are “just asking questions,” then it is time to start asking them some very hard questions of our own. And if they are unwilling to be the subject of such scrutiny, then it is time for us to “just change the channel.”