Cancel Culture

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has added Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and PragerU to its annual “hate map,” listing both conservative organizations under the category of “anti-government extremist groups.”

This marks the first time TPUSA, a prominent conservative youth organization, has been included on the SPLC’s controversial list.

The SPLC’s updated Year in Hate and Extremism report was released Thursday, documenting 1,371 so-called “hate and extremist groups” across the United States in 2024, down from 1,430 the previous year.

🚨BREAKING

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which trades on its history bankrupting the KKK to smear conservatives as secret supporters of "white supremacy," has put the largest conservative youth org—@TPUSA—on the "hate map" with Klan chapters.

🧵1/15https://t.co/1wIU6FX0m6 pic.twitter.com/pCc3vIm55A

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 24, 2025

The SPLC’s entry for TPUSA alleges the group “sows and exploits fear that white Christian supremacy is under attack by nefarious actors, including immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights activists.”

The report continues, stating that “TPUSA and its spokespeople often warn their audience that their children, wives, religion, way of life and they themselves are under attack by various constructed enemies.”

It further accuses TPUSA of “exploit[ing] complicated feelings of insecurity and anxiety to manufacture rage and mobilize support to revive and maintain a white-dominated, male supremacist, Christian social order.”

The SPLC accuses Turning Point and its founder, @charliekirk11, of propping up "white Christian supremacy."

Now, if Charlie Kirk were racist & theocratic, would Turning Point have a presence on more than 3K campuses?🤔

🧵3/15https://t.co/Fx8erS6Hfr pic.twitter.com/Eg91yxeBTR

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 24, 2025

Turning Point USA, founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012, is widely known for its presence on college campuses and its advocacy for limited government, free markets, and American constitutional principles.

The group has held major student leadership conferences and worked with numerous conservative figures and elected officials.

Charlie Kirk responds:

The SPLC has added Turning Point to their ridiculous “hate group” list, right next to the KKK and neo-Nazis, a cheap smear from a washed-up org that’s been fleecing scared grandmas for decades. They somehow still rake in over $100 million a year peddling their “hate map”…

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 25, 2025

“Being on their list is a badge of honor. It means they’re terrified that we’re so effective. Keep crying, SPLC—America’s done with your scam.”

Also listed in the SPLC’s 2024 report is PragerU, a nonprofit that produces educational videos and digital content from a conservative perspective.

PragerU was founded by conservative commentator Dennis Prager and has gained widespread attention through its short-form videos on history, economics, religion, and politics.

Like TPUSA, this is the first time PragerU has appeared on the SPLC’s “hate map.”

The SPLC’s new classification of these groups follows similar designations in recent years.

The organization previously listed Moms for Liberty, a parental rights group, under the same category, sparking backlash from parents and education advocates across the country.

Although the SPLC was originally established to fight legal battles against violent racist organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan, its critics argue that it has since shifted into a partisan advocacy group, targeting conservative and religious organizations under vague or politically motivated labels.

Despite the controversy, SPLC data continues to be cited by media outlets and researchers.

The Guardian, which reported on the SPLC’s new findings, noted that the total number of groups identified by the organization has decreased.

According to the outlet, this is due in part to what the SPLC believes is a mainstreaming of certain ideologies, which it says are now more embedded in politics, education, and broader society.

“The 5% drop in hate and extremist groups in 2024 can be attributed to the fact that many feel a lesser sense of urgency to organize, because their beliefs have infiltrated politics, education and society in general,” the SPLC report claims.

The SPLC’s updated map and report are already drawing reactions from conservative organizations and public commentators, who argue the group continues to conflate political disagreement with extremism in order to maintain influence and visibility.

Please visit RVM News for more stories like this.

The Censorship Industrial Complex is reeling from financial difficulties after being defunded by the Trump administration and the social media giant Meta.

On this year’s April 2 International Fact-Checking Day, Angie Drobnic Holan, the director of the International Fact-Checking Network Poynter, penned an op-ed decrying the impacts of the Trump and Meta defunding campaign.

“Two heavy blows hit fact-checking in 2025,” she wrote. “In January, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg announced his decision to end its third-party fact-checking in the United States.”

“The other blow came from President Donald Trump’s administration, when billionaire Elon Musk pointed his Department of Government Efficiency at the U.S. Agency for International Development.”

She claimed that the USAID funding freeze “meant an immediate end to funding independent international journalism,” which financially supports fact-checkers in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

She also lamented the intense political pressure the censorship machinery faces while doing the “honorable” and “patriotic” work “that knows no party or political agenda” under the organization’s “standards for nonpartisanship.”

“The challenges fact-checkers face aren’t just logistical or financial. They are also cultural,” adding that “We must defend the credibility and usefulness of evidence-based reporting.”

Yet, the fact-checking community has been caught red-handed, silencing true stories such as the Hunter Biden Laptop saga, misleading Americans about Trump’s impeachment, the Russian Collusion- the list is endless.

She also inadvertently exposed USAID for overstepping its boundaries by exporting censorship abroad and paying for it using Americans taxpayers’ dollars.

“… groups like USAID thought that funding fact-checking overseas would empower democracy and accountable government.” Most Americans would not wish to pay for censorship in Asia, Latin American, and Africa.

She also denied that “fact-checking is censorship,” terming it as a mischaracterization of their work, and that proponents of free speech wish to perpetuate lies. 

“We’re more like nutrition labels for online content. Nobody thinks a nutrition label on a bag of potato chips or a gallon of milk is censorship.”

“Trump and his supporters want an information environment where lies can multiply and go viral without anyone contradicting them. That is the real infringement on freedom of speech.”

Ironically, Trump was proven right multiple times after being heavily censored by the same machinery that claims accuracy and impartiality. 

For example, the president was heavily criticized for claiming that COVID-19 originated from a lab in Wuhan, China, yet the general consensus now points toward that direction. The New York Times’ editorial board recently regretted being “badly misled” to suppress the story about COVID-19’s origins because it was deemed racist.

Trump was also censored about Hunter’s laptop and Russian collusion but was eventually vindicated by the former first son’s conviction. The Times also lamented not writing about the story, which it now acknowledged more than four years later. 

Several witnesses were also found to have lied about Russiagate, for which Trump was heavily censored. Most news outlets relied on the so-called “accurate” fact-checking platforms like Holan’s to decide on whether to suppress stories. Yet, the fact-checking community still believes Trump was wrong. 

Similarly, despite advocating for fact-checking presidential candidates, the censorship machinery failed to adequately fact-check Biden, essentially suppressing the truth on various issues, such as border security, which was worse than reported.

Angie Drobnic Holan, director of @factchecknet, appeared on @CNN ahead of Tuesday night’s debate to discuss why moderators should fact-check during the debate to hold the presidential candidates accountable. pic.twitter.com/eXJlE5FtRn

— Poynter (@Poynter) September 10, 2024

Meanwhile, the censorship director had a bleak vision of the future amid the ongoing trump onslaught. Subsequently, she requested individual Americans to join the fight “in whatever way they can,” including by donating, subscribing to fact-checking newsletters, and supporting education programs.

“What happens over the next 24 months will be critical to the future of accurate information online.”

“If we want a society that respects truth, now is our time to fight for it.”

A series of X posts shared in mid-January claimed that YouTube is trying to censor medical information shared by Dr. Drew, a board certified internist and addiction medical specialist, best known for his expert work in media.

YouTube is accused of removing two of Dr. Drew’s videos for allegedly spreading “medical misinformation.” The videos featured interviews with an MD and a lawyer. In one of the videos, “Dr. Kelly Victory shares her professional opinion about young people who were injured by mRNA side effects, saying the ‘vast majority of the people who have been injured are young, healthy people who were under the age of 50 who had fundamentally zero risk from COVID itself. They all got COVID. 98% of the population has documentation they’ve had COVID. These are people who would have been fine if they were just left alone.’”

Both Dr. Drew and Dr. Victory are board-certified and have practiced medicine for decades. “It is not medical misinformation for a licensed doctor to provide an opinion on a broadcast,” Dr. Drew wrote in the post.

The Second “Violation”

Screenshot/X/DrDrew

Dr. Drew noted that YouTube did not censor a video of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow telling her viewers that, “we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people,” even though this is untrue. According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), the certain vaccines, at best, showed a “reduced risk of SARS-CoV2-2-transmission.”

‘Reeducation Training’

Screenshot/x/DrDrew

This is not the first time YouTube has attempted to censor Dr. Drew’s accounts. In the past, his producers were able to discuss the matter with representatives from the company, according to a follow-up X post.

Screenshot/X/DrDrew

Dr. Drew concluded by stating that YouTube is “free to stay on the wrong side of history.” Both episodes are still readily available on X and he is refusing to delete them “to appease Google’s unqualified, unlicensed, untrained, unidentified censors.”

Read More at Million Voices

MSNBC broadcasted Joy Reid’s nonsense theories this week regarding the California wildfires, which she suggested were part of an agenda by “right-wing” leaders to take over the state.

That’s right, Reid doesn’t appear to be aware, or care, that these fires where a result of abysmal Democrat leadership.

Reid began with fair points about vulture capitalists circling to buy up ravaged properties for pennies on the dollar.

“The vulture capitalists are already circling, hoping to snap up the burned-up properties for pennies on the dollar, so they can hedge fund them,” Reid said.

If she had stopped there, it would’ve been fine. But she didn’t.

“But the worst part,” Reid said, adding “other than the fires themselves, has been the lies.”

“Though if there is one thing the billionaire right is, they are consistent,” said Reid.

“They want California, America’s biggest state economy,” Reid continued.

“Because if they can take California and retrofit it with their ugly, right-wing policies, the way they’ve ruined Florida and Texas, and every other red state where poverty rates are high and education is warped, and non-white immigrants, pregnant women, victimized girls, and LGTBQ folks live in fear, then the fight for permanent control of America is basically over.”

“They can drill and frack California until the fires this past week pale in comparison.”

“They can rip out all the forests and hand over the land to developers, Florida-style.

“They can drive out the brown people, and the black and Asian people, or just sink them into the same apartheid they’ve created in Texas, and they will control enough electoral votes if they control California to never have to worry about another presidential election.”

Watch:

We couldn’t have expected Reid to leave her rant about BlackRock-like entities, which would got many of us agreeing with her; but she had to ruin it.

What exactly are her comments about Texas and Florida ruining things?

These so-called “ruined” red states are bringing in the most Americans fleeing blue states.

“Nearly 612,000” people moved to Texas, while “almost 637,000 residents” moved to Florida between 2022 to 2023, according to census data.

Again, Reid is wrong on that one.

What does she mean about “permanent control” from Conservatives? Oh, probably the fact the majority of Americans do not want full-blown socialism.

Again, Reid’s fear-mongering is based on zero evidence, and MSNBC allowed it to be broadcast.

Read More at the Daily Fetched

Comedian Nikki Glaser took the stage at the Golden Globes on Sunday night, delivering a sharp monologue that skewered Hollywood’s elite, high-profile scandals, and even political endorsements.

The event took place at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, where Glaser’s opening remarks set the tone for a night of humor mixed with pointed commentary.

Say hello to your roast for the night—Oops, we mean HOST for the night… @NikkiGlaser! 🎙️ #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/MVa5FQ1NoS

— Golden Globes (@goldenglobes) January 6, 2025

Glaser began by addressing the star-studded audience with a playful jab at their influence, particularly in politics. “I am not here to roast you tonight,” she said. “How could I, really? You’re all so famous, so talented, so powerful. I mean, you could really do anything … I mean, except tell the country who to vote for.”

The comment appeared to reference Hollywood celebrities who publicly supported Kamala Harris and other political figures.

Glaser’s quip drew laughter from the crowd while highlighting the often-debated impact of celebrity endorsements on public opinion.

In a more controversial moment, Glaser took aim at Sean “Diddy” Combs, referencing his ongoing sexual trafficking scandal. While discussing the film Challengers, she remarked, “That movie was more sexually charged than ‘. I’m upset too. The after-party’s not going to be as good this year. But we have to move on! Stanley Tucci’s freak-off just doesn’t have the same ring to it.”

The joke elicited mixed reactions, underscoring the tension surrounding the high-profile allegations against Combs.

Glaser didn’t spare NBC’s streaming platform, Peacock, from her comedic critique.

Highlighting the challenges streaming services face in gaining visibility, she joked about Eddie Redmayne’s nomination for his role in The Day of the Jackal.

“It’s about a top-secret elite sniper that no one can find, because he’s on Peacock,” Glaser quipped, earning laughs from the audience and pointing to the platform’s struggles to stand out in the crowded streaming market.

The comedian also turned her attention to Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s business ventures.

Ahead of introducing Johnson as a presenter, Glaser poked fun at celebrities using their fame to launch products, particularly tequila brands.

“Remember: the point of being nominated isn’t to win an award. No, the point of being nominated is to make a tequila brand so popular that you never have to make art again,” she said.

Johnson, known for his Teremana tequila brand, took the joke in stride as he took the stage shortly after.

Glaser’s monologue at the Golden Globes blended humor with social commentary, touching on Hollywood’s influence, scandals, and commercial endeavors.

Her sharp remarks set the stage for a night that celebrated the best in television and film while reflecting the challenges and controversies surrounding the entertainment industry.

The Golden Globes, one of Hollywood’s most anticipated annual events, continues to serve as a platform for both celebration and satire, with comedians like Glaser delivering humor that resonates well beyond the awards show stage.

Read More at LifeZette

Amazon Prime Studios is under fire this Christmas for presenting an abridged version of the 1946 classic Christmas film It’s a Wonderful Life that omits a critical scene pivotal to the story’s character development.

Fans and critics alike have expressed outrage, accusing the streaming service of diminishing the film’s emotional impact and narrative coherence.

The original It’s a Wonderful Life, directed by Frank Capra, tells the story of George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart), a well-loved citizen of Bedford Falls.

Just beyond awful. pic.twitter.com/sGNdLOQCpI

— Germain Lussier (@GermainLussier) December 24, 2024

Facing financial ruin after his uncle misplaces a bank deposit, George is driven to despair. He contemplates suicide but is saved by Clarence Odbody (Henry Travers), a guardian angel.

Clarence reveals what life in Bedford Falls would have been like had George never existed, ultimately inspiring George to embrace his life, despite its challenges.

The controversy centers around the so-called “Pottersville scene.” In this segment, George tells Clarence that he feels his life insurance policy makes him worth more dead than alive.

Clarence responds by showing George a stark, alternate reality in which he was never born—a world where lives and events are profoundly worse without him.

This revelation marks a turning point in the film, as George realizes his life has had immense value to those he loves.

Filled with renewed purpose, he rushes back to Bedford Falls, joyous and ready to face his troubles.

However, in Amazon Prime’s abridged version of the film, this transformative scene is cut entirely.

The film jumps from Clarence stating he must earn his wings to George running through the streets of Bedford Falls in happiness, leaving viewers without the crucial explanation of his emotional turnaround.

Fans have criticized the edit, saying it removes the heart of the story and renders the climax nonsensical.

The Daily Mail reported on the uproar, with many fans accusing Amazon Prime of censoring the movie for “woke” reasons.

However, Amazon has clarified that the full, unabridged version of It’s a Wonderful Life is available on its platform in both black-and-white and colorized formats.

The abridged version, according to Amazon, exists for two reasons: concerns that the suicide scene is “too dark” for some viewers and unresolved copyright disputes related to the omitted segment.

The copyright issues trace back to claims that the removed scene was based on the short story The Greatest Gift by Philip Van Doren Stern.

Allegedly, director Frank Capra used the story without properly crediting the author. Additionally, some background music in the film has faced separate copyright claims, further complicating its public domain status.

Media company RiffTrax, which has also streamed the abridged version, cited these same copyright concerns.

While the film is generally considered public domain, these lingering disputes over specific elements have led to variations in how the movie is presented.

Although Amazon Prime may not be directly responsible for the abridged version’s existence, the omission of such a critical scene has left fans deeply dissatisfied.

Many have called for greater transparency about the differences between versions and questioned why such an iconic film would be edited in the first place.

The controversy highlights ongoing challenges with preserving classic films in the streaming era, particularly when legal issues and modern sensitivities collide with artistic integrity.

For now, fans of It’s a Wonderful Life can still access the full version of the beloved holiday classic, but the debate over its abridged counterpart continues to spark outrage this Christmas season.

Read More at LifeZette

Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has called on his followers to stop donating to the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization behind Wikipedia, citing concerns over the organization’s significant budget allocation to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

“Stop donating to Wokepedia until they restore balance to their editing authority,” Musk wrote Tuesday on X, the social media platform where he has nearly 210 million followers.

Musk’s comment came in response to a post by the right-leaning commentator “Libs of TikTok,” who highlighted a pie chart showing that 29% of Wikipedia’s $177 million 2023-24 budget is allocated to “equity” and “safety & inclusion.”

According to Wikimedia Foundation’s publicly available financial documents, $51.7 million has been set aside for these purposes.

Specifically, 17.6% of the budget ($31.2 million) is directed toward equity initiatives, while 11.6% ($20.5 million) is dedicated to safety and inclusion.

Wikipedia’s annual budget report from 2023—2024 reveals that they spent over $50 million of their total $177 million budget on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Stop donating to Wokepedia pic.twitter.com/bGYsCIzy9L

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 23, 2024

The largest share of the budget—48.7% ($86.1 million)—is allocated to infrastructure, followed by 22.2% ($39.2 million) for effectiveness measures.

The foundation stated, “Supporting equity represents the second largest part of our programmatic work, with grants and Movement support representing the majority of the budget within the equity goal.”

DEI initiatives, aimed at fostering diversity and inclusion in workplaces, have faced criticism from conservatives, who argue that such policies can lead to reverse discrimination and a shift away from merit-based systems.

The debate over DEI has intensified since corporate America widely adopted these practices following the 2020 death of George Floyd.

However, recent months have seen a reversal of these policies in some companies under pressure from public campaigns led by right-leaning figures like Robby Starbuck.

Notable corporations such as Walmart, Ford Motor Company, Molson Coors, and Jack Daniel’s parent company Brown-Forman have scaled back DEI initiatives.

Wikipedia, which receives approximately 4 billion monthly visits, asserts that it operates with political neutrality.

However, studies and reports have repeatedly pointed out the platform’s left-leaning bias.

Earlier this year, the online encyclopedia came under scrutiny when it removed a reference to Kamala Harris as a “border czar” in one of its entries.

This occurred after Joe Biden endorsed Harris to run against Donald Trump, despite Biden’s earlier assignment of border policy oversight to her during his administration.

A June report from the Manhattan Institute, a libertarian think tank, found that Wikipedia articles tend to portray right-leaning public figures with more negative sentiment, such as anger and disgust, compared to the positive emotions like joy more frequently associated with left-leaning figures.

Similarly, a 2012 study published in the American Economic Review analyzed 28,000 Wikipedia articles on U.S. politics and concluded that the entries leaned Democrat on average.

Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales in 2001, has also raised concerns about the platform’s political bias.

In a 2021 interview with Unherd.com, Sanger claimed that Democratic-leaning volunteers actively remove content that conflicts with their views, citing the Hunter Biden laptop controversy as an example. “Can you trust it to always give you the truth? Well, it depends on what you think the truth is,” Sanger said.

Sanger and Wales have clashed over the years regarding their respective roles in founding the platform.

Sanger maintains that he co-founded Wikipedia, while Wales describes Sanger as a subordinate employee.

Wales has faced criticism for allegedly editing his own Wikipedia entry to downplay Sanger’s contributions.

As debates over Wikipedia’s neutrality and spending practices continue, Musk’s comments have amplified conservative criticism of the platform’s governance and priorities.

Read More on LifeZette