By our Theme Parks, Representation and Unnecessarily Gendered Announcements Correspondent

We have some extremely disturbing news from the so called “Happiest Place on Earth.”

Visitors to Walt Disney World have recently reported hearing a phrase many of us believed had been safely consigned to the darkest chapters of human history:

“Ladies and gentlemen.”

Yes.

Both of them.

Out loud.

In front of children.

We don’t wish to cause unnecessary panic, but if you are currently at Disney World and have been exposed to this language, please remain calm and locate the nearest gender-neutral safe space.

Subscribe now

This is particularly devastating because Disney had worked so hard to protect guests from precisely this kind of reckless vocabulary.

Beginning in 2021, Disney moved away from gendered greetings in parts of its parks. The famous “ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” introduction at the Magic Kingdom fireworks show was replaced, while Disney later explained that cast members were being encouraged to use greetings such as “hello, everyone” and “hello, friends.”

It was beautiful.

Nobody knew exactly how many lives had previously been ruined by hearing “ladies and gentlemen” immediately before fireworks, but that’s hardly the point…

Somewhere, theoretically, somebody might have felt excluded. And in progressive circles, theoretical discomfort is akin to violence.

So the words had to go.

“Ladies and gentlemen” was ditched.

“Boys and girls” disappeared.

Mickey remained silent on his pronouns.

Humanity marched forward.

And for several glorious years, families could visit a theme park containing princesses, princes, kings, queens, mothers, fathers, boys, girls, mermaids and a duck who inexplicably refuses to wear trousers without being subjected to dangerously gendered terminology at the monorail station.

Subscribe now

Then someone apparently found the old recording.

And we have questions…

Who authorised this? Was there a meeting? How did this get through HR? Did somebody actually sit inside one of the world’s largest entertainment corporations, look at the phrase “ladies and gentlemen” and say:

“Yeah, this is ok.”

In 2026?

Were there no gender consultants available? No sensitivity readers? Not even a junior Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Coordinator willing to throw themselves heroically in front of the microphone?

I’m telling guys, this is how regression happens. Not with tanks. Not with dictators. With a perfectly ordinary transportation announcement acknowledging that ladies and gentlemen exist.

Today it’s “ladies and gentlemen.” Tomorrow somebody says “boys and girls.” By Christmas, Sleeping Beauty could be an actual woman.

We cannot simply sit back and watch this happen.

Think of the children! The young, impressionable children!

Children who may previously have been successfully indoctrinated into believing humanity consisted of a magnificent and potentially infinite spectrum of identities, only to board the Magic Kingdom Express Monorail and discover that apparently ladies and gentlemen are also available.

How are parents supposed to explain this?

“Daddy, what’s a lady?”

“Well, sweetheart, before 2021 we had this incredibly problematic system—”

Yup, there goes the holiday. You’ve spent $8,000 getting the family to Orlando and now you’re conducting an impromptu seminar on the historical concept of women while Goofy walks past. This is not the Disney magic we were promised.

Subscribe now

Unfortunately, the children are letting the side down.

Despite our entirely reasonable concern for their wellbeing, they appear to have heard the words “ladies and gentlemen” and simply… continued enjoying Disney World.

They are still meeting Mickey.

Still eating ice cream.

Still screaming on Space Mountain.

Still forcing exhausted parents to queue for 90 minutes so they can meet a birthing person who lives under the sea.

Remarkably, there have been no reports of children collapsing beside Cinderella Castle after accidentally discovering the existence of ladies.

Typical.

Thankfully, there are plenty of adults willing to experience the trauma on their behalf.

Online, activists and Disney obsessives have quite rightly expressed concern about what the return of gendered language might represent.

Because while an eight-year-old hears “ladies and gentlemen” and thinks the fireworks are about to start, a politically engaged 34-year-old Disney adult hears it and immediately begins tracing the collapse of Western inclusivity through a monorail announcement.

Children simply don’t possess the emotional sophistication required to understand how upsetting their theme park holiday is supposed to be.

They see princesses.

Activists see problematic gender archetypes.

Children see Mickey Mouse.

Activists see a corporation failing to adequately interrogate the gender assumptions underpinning anthropomorphic rodents.

Children hear “ladies and gentlemen.”

Activists hear a dog whistle travelling at 45 miles per hour between EPCOT and the Transportation and Ticket Center.

Subscribe now

This is why representation matters.

Without adults on the internet carefully explaining these harms, millions of children might continue enjoying Disney World completely unaware that anything terrible had happened.

And what kind of childhood is that?

Naturally, not everyone understands the severity of the situation. Some people online have welcomed the reappearance of the phrase. They seem to believe “ladies and gentlemen” is simply a polite and traditional way of addressing a crowd.

This is incredibly dangerous reasoning.

Once we start judging language according to things like ordinary usage, intention and whether almost everybody understands what somebody means, the entire modern progressive communications industry could collapse…

Thousands of inclusive language consultants and activists may be out of work

We cannot allow that.

Language isn’t supposed to make communication easier. It’s supposed to demonstrate that your organisation attended the correct webinar!

Where does it all end? This is the question nobody seems willing to answer.

If Disney is prepared to tolerate “ladies and gentlemen,” what other archaic concepts might creep back into the parks?

Mothers? Surely not…

Fathers? Oh the horror!

Princes marrying princesses? Please make it stop!

Perhaps Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother will once again be permitted to recklessly assume Cinderella is a girl without first asking her pronouns.

God help us, Donald Duck could become Mr Duck.

You laugh, but that’s how it starts.

Subscribe now

Disney once taught us that inclusion required constantly updating ordinary language until absolutely nobody could remember what was wrong with the original version.

That was leadership. That was courage. That was true progress.

And now?

“Ladies and gentlemen.”

Three little words. Perfectly polite. Universally understood. Used harmlessly for generations.

Absolutely terrifying!

We can only hope Disney acts quickly before visitors begin getting dangerous ideas. Like perhaps language doesn’t become hateful simply because a corporate diversity department stopped using it.

Or worse:

that most people never had a problem with “ladies and gentlemen” in the first place.

We shudder to think where that kind of extremism could lead.

The Daily Shun. Keeping the magic alive by pretending ordinary words are a crisis.

Subscribe now

By our Diversity, Belonging and Geographic Exceptions Correspondent

Cultural preservation is one of humanity’s most important responsibilities. Unless we’re talking about the wrong humans.

This really shouldn’t be difficult to understand.

Across Africa, Asia and Indigenous communities around the world, we understand that people can possess deep historic connections to land, ancestry, language and culture.

We celebrate it. We fund programmes to protect it. We teach children why losing it would be tragic. We hold conferences about it.

And then, without fail, some idiot puts their hand up and asks:

“What about Europe?”

Oh, for God’s sake.

There is always one.

No, Europeans wanting to preserve their ancestral cultures is not the same thing as everyone else wanting to preserve their ancestral cultures.

Why?

Because they’re Europeans. How many times do we have to explain this?

Africa for Africans: empowering.

Asia for Asians: cultural self-determination.

Indigenous peoples protecting ancestral homelands: essential.

Europe for Europeans: Okay, we’re going to stop you right there.

Same basic collection of nouns. Completely different moral emergency.

Fortunately, The Daily Shun has prepared this simple guide so you never accidentally apply progressive principles consistently.

Subscribe now

RULE ONE: ALWAYS CHECK WHOSE ANCESTORS WE’RE DISCUSSING

Ancestry is beautiful.

It connects people to their past and provides communities with a sense of belonging stretching across generations.

If somebody says:

“My people have lived on this land for centuries and I want our culture to survive here.”

Your response should be compassion.

Unless they’re European.

Then ask why they’re so obsessed with where people come from. This distinction is extremely important.

For everybody else, centuries of connection to a particular place can strengthen their claim to belonging.

For Europeans, centuries of connection to a particular place raises uncomfortable questions about why they think the place belongs to them.

There is no contradiction. One is ancestral connection. The other is an alarming interest in ancestry.

Please learn the difference.

Subscribe now

RULE TWO: DEMOGRAPHIC REPLACEMENT IS TERRIBLE

Again, depending on the demographics.

Imagine a historic population gradually becoming a minority in its ancestral homeland. Its traditions weaken. Its language disappears. Its communities fragment. Its descendants begin wondering whether the culture they inherited will survive another century.

Heartbreaking.

We must protect vulnerable communities from demographic displacement.

Unless you’ve pictured Europe.

In which case, congratulations! You’ve just imagined diversity.

See how easy this is?

Subscribe now

RULE THREE: CULTURAL CHANGE IS ONLY A THREAT IN CERTAIN POSTCODES

Cultures are fragile things.

When outside influences rapidly transform a traditional community, we must consider what might be lost. Will local customs survive? Will the language endure? Will future generations still recognise the place their grandparents grew up in?

These are deeply important questions.

Oh, sorry. Were you asking them about Europe?

Then no. None of those questions matter.

European culture has always changed. Cultures evolve. Nothing stays the same forever. Stop being frightened of difference.

But please remember this principle does not apply universally.

If globalisation transforms a remote Indigenous community, we call it cultural erosion.

If outside influence overwhelms a traditional Asian culture, we worry about preserving its identity.

If mass immigration rapidly changes the character of a European community, we call it vibrant!

Simple right?

The important thing is never to ask whether a European community might also be entitled to care about becoming unrecognisable.

Because then we’re straight back to that idiot from the introduction.

And nobody wants that.

Subscribe now

RULE FOUR: INDIGENOUSNESS HAS GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS

“Indigenous” is one of our favourite words.

It communicates ancestry, belonging, historical continuity and a relationship between a people and a particular land.

All tremendously important concepts.

Naturally, curious people occasionally ask:

“So are Europeans indigenous to Europe?”

Please don’t.

You’ve misunderstood the programme.

Europeans simply appeared there historically, presumably sometime between the invention of colonialism and the first Ryanair flight.

Asking what existed before that is unnecessarily provocative.

Subscribe now

RULE FIVE: HOMELANDS ARE SACRED

Every people deserves somewhere they can call home.

A place where their language, customs and traditions can flourish. A place where they don’t have to apologise for existing. A place where future generations can inherit what previous generations built.

This is an extraordinarily moving principle. And we support it around the world, except in Europe and the West.

Obviously, Europeans can still celebrate their heritage. We’re not monsters. They just shouldn’t expect the places where that heritage developed to retain too much of it. That would be exclusionary.

Heritage should be appreciated, not necessarily continued. Which is why Europeans already have the perfect place for theirs: museums.

There are thousands of them. Many have excellent cafés. What more could anyone possibly want?

Subscribe now

RULE SIX: CULTURAL EXCHANGE ONLY TRAVELS ONE WAY

Human civilisation belongs to everyone.

Ideas cross borders. Inventions spread. Cultures borrow from one another. Progress happens when humanity shares its achievements freely.

Which is why absolutely everyone should feel welcome to enjoy European inventions, institutions and cultural contributions.

Use the technology.

Study the science.

Play the sports.

Read the literature.

Adopt the political systems.

Build with the architecture.

Use the medicines.

Enjoy the music.

Borrow whatever you like.

Europeans are delighted to have contributed to humanity’s shared inheritance. But please don’t misunderstand how sharing works.

European culture belongs to everyone.

Everyone else’s culture still belongs to them.

So while the entire world is free to borrow, adapt, remix and enjoy anything Europeans have produced, Europeans attempting the same thing elsewhere may require a brief conversation about appropriation.

Wear the wrong clothing and it’s appropriation.

Adopt the wrong tradition and it’s appropriation.

Cook the wrong food incorrectly and someone with 600,000 TikTok followers will explain why your dinner is colonialism.

Apparently humanity’s cultures are simultaneously a magnificent shared inheritance and a collection of heavily protected intellectual properties.

Fortunately, there’s a simple test:

If Europeans invented it, it belongs to humanity.

If somebody else invented it, Europeans should probably check the comments first.

Subscribe now

RULE SEVEN: CULTURAL CONTINUITY IS BEAUTIFUL

One of the greatest things about humanity is that we’re not all the same.

Different peoples developed different languages. Different traditions. Different customs. Different cuisines, architecture, stories, celebrations and ways of life.

That’s diversity.

And losing those differences would be tragic. Which is why we work so hard to preserve cultures around the world. We don’t want every country becoming interchangeable. We don’t want ancient traditions disappearing. We don’t want distinctive communities losing the things that made them distinctive.

We want Japanese culture to remain recognisably Japanese.

We want African cultures passed from one generation to the next.

We want Indigenous traditions protected from disappearing.

Because a world containing distinct cultures is infinitely richer than one where everything eventually blends into the same global monoculture.

Europe?

Oh no.

Not like that.

European cultures becoming less distinctive is also diversity. Please don’t confuse diversity with diversity.

Here it is in its simplest form:

When most cultures retain their distinctiveness, humanity is preserving diversity.

When European cultures lose theirs, humanity is gaining diversity.

We’re honestly not sure why people find this difficult.

Subscribe now

THE GOLDEN RULES

Still confused?

Honestly, we don’t know how much simpler we can make this.

Celebrate ancestry.
Unless Europeans mention theirs. Then ancestry is a deeply concerning fixation on blood and soil.

Protect indigenous cultures from demographic displacement.
Unless the indigenous population you’re talking about is European. Then please stop using the word “indigenous” immediately.

Respect ancient connections between people and homeland.
Unless someone asks whether Europeans have one too.

Fight cultural erasure.
Unless a European says their culture is being eroded. Then explain patiently that cultures change and they need to get over it.

Celebrate communities remaining distinctive.
Unless European communities want to remain distinctive. Then diversity requires considerably less distinctiveness.

Support self-determination.
Unless people start trying to determine things we progressives haven’t approved.

Oppose cultural displacement.
Unless the displacement produces diversity. Then opposing it is the actual problem.

Celebrate immigration enriching European culture.
But if European influence changes somebody else’s culture, please call it out for what it is: colonialism!

Remember that nobody owns a culture.
Unless Europeans borrow from somebody else’s. Then somebody very much owns that culture and would like their clothing back.

And above all:

Never, under any circumstances, take one of our beautiful universal principles and apply it universally.

That’s how people get confused.

See?

There is no double standard.

There are simply two standards.

And once you stop insisting they should be the same, progressive cultural theory becomes remarkably easy to understand.

The Daily Shun. Celebrating every culture equally, just not under the same rules.

Subscribe now

By our Ideological Purity Correspondent

We are shocked.

We are wounded.

We have updated our pronouns to betrayed/abandoned.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, once one of the brightest stars of uncompromising progressive politics, has looked back upon the great ideological awakening of the early 2020s and offered this devastating assessment:

“Woke 1 was crazy.”

Crazy?

Excuse us?

For years we defended Woke 1.0 against people who called it extreme, divisive, impractical and completely detached from normal human behaviour.

We explained patiently that those people simply weren’t educated enough to understand. And now AOC is agreeing with them? This is not progress! It’s ideological cowardice, plain and simple!

Subscribe now

Woke 1.0 was perfect when we shipped it, and it’s still perfect now. Let’s just remember what an extraordinary period peak woke was!

The Overton window had been thrown open. Activists were dreaming bigger. Institutions were listening. Ordinary people were learning exciting new vocabulary against their will.

Ideas that had previously lived exclusively in university seminars suddenly had HR departments.

Police abolition entered respectable conversation. Prison abolition was discussed seriously. Soft on crime policies became reality. Borders became oppression. Silence became violence. Disagreement became harm. Neutrality became complicity and gender identity became the most important thing in the world. What a time to be alive!

For perhaps the first time in history, practically every social problem could be explained using four words ending in “systemic.”

It was beautiful.

Sure, ordinary voters occasionally seemed confused. But that’s why they’re called ordinary voters. They hadn’t done the reading.

Unfortunately, progressive politics eventually encountered its natural predator: a general election.

Suddenly candidates aren’t speaking exclusively to activists, academics, non-profits and people whose social-media biographies required a glossary.

There are other voters. Millions of them. People with mortgages. People worried about crime. People who didn’t know what “carceral” meant and somehow still expected to participate in democracy. People who, most dangerously of all, assumed political slogans described political intentions.

Nobody has prepared us for this.

The ideas that progressive ideas that sounded breathtakingly courageous inside an activist meeting occasionally sounded rather different when explained to a plumber in Wisconsin.

AOC argues that the earlier rhetoric emerged during lockdown, when the political environment was unusual and the Overton window considerably more open. Some ideas were fruitful, she says, but candidates should be judged on what they’re saying now.

Pathetic.

Subscribe now

Welcome to Woke 2.0™, the exciting new version of progressivism specifically engineered to avoid frightening people in Pennsylvania.

Woke 1.0: Defund. Abolish. Dismantle.

So stunning and brave!

Woke 2.0: Reform. Reassess. Please don’t play that clip.

So cowardly!

Gone is the glorious certainty. Gone is the righteous fury. Gone is the refreshing willingness to tell 70% of the electorate that their concerns are merely symptoms of insufficient education.

In its place we have focus groups, softer language, strategic ambiguity and politicians suddenly discovering that “nuance” is useful when your previous position is being shown in a campaign advert.

What a humiliating retreat.

We didn’t spend years dragging the Overton window halfway across the political landscape just so frightened politicians could put it back because a swing voter got nervous.

Subscribe now

Woke 1.0 didn’t ask whether an idea was popular.

That was its beauty. Popularity was suspicious. Consensus was privilege. Disagreement was literally harm. And if voters didn’t understand what we were proposing, the solution was obvious: change the voters!

Educate them.

Correct them.

Give them a compulsory seminar with breakout sessions.

Whatever you do, do not change the ideology!

But apparently that kind of courage is no longer electorally convenient. So now the revolution needs rounded corners. The slogans need testing. The language needs softening. And everything voters remember from 2020 needs to be gently placed inside a locked cupboard marked CONTEXT HAS CHANGED.

No!

We reject the update. We don’t want Woke 2.0. We want the original. Unfiltered. Uncompromising. Unelectable. If your ideology needs to be watered down before ordinary people will vote for it, the problem clearly isn’t the ideology. It’s ordinary people.

Subscribe now

What about those of us who never left? This is the part that hurts. Some of us stayed loyal. We learned the vocabulary. We corrected our relatives. We put pronouns in biographies that already contained our names. We explained that “Defund the Police” didn’t necessarily mean defunding the police, except when it did, which was also good. We ruined Thanksgiving. We did everything asked of us.

And now the very people who rode that revolutionary energy into prominence are looking at Woke 1.0 like it’s an embarrassing tattoo from university. Suddenly we’re the legacy users. Unsupported software. A security vulnerability.

“Please upgrade immediately.”

Absolutely not.

AOC does not get to spend years near the front of a movement and then look back at its most enthusiastic period like she has discovered photographs of herself wearing frosted tips.

If the revolution polls at 31%, you do not abandon the revolution. You explain to the remaining 69% that polling itself reflects entrenched systems of power.

If voters dislike the terminology, you don’t change the terminology. You criminalise the incorrect terminology!

If ordinary people think your ideas are crazy, that doesn’t make the ideas wrong. It means ordinary people require further education.

Preferably from us. Those were the rules. We didn’t write them. Well, technically, we wrote quite a lot of them, but that isn’t the point.

Some of us still believe. Some of us are running Woke 1.0 exactly as the DEI working group intended.

And we will not apologise.

The sacred tenets of progressivism do not become crazy merely because voters think they’re crazy. That’s precisely the kind of thinking Woke 1.0 was created to eliminate.

Our principles remain exactly where we left them. It is our former champions who appear to have moved.

How dare they.

The Daily Shun. Still holding the line while the Overton window discovers it has a reverse gear.

Subscribe now

By our Women’s Basketball and Emergency Definitions Correspondent.

There’s something truly inspiring about watching two courageous athletes finally live their truth.

For years the WNBA operated under a lovely, progressive arrangement. The league said it was for “all women.” Everyone applauded. Inclusion was celebrated. Press releases flew. And nobody was impolite enough to demand a definition.

Then Enes Kanter and Royce White decided to take that inclusive language seriously, and we are here for it.

These two former NBA players have announced they intend to declare for the 2027 WNBA Draft. Simply by following the exact logic the league and the wider progressive movement have been promoting for years. If self-identification is what makes someone a woman for eligibility purposes, then these two stunning, brave, trailblazing individuals are women, at least on the days they say they are.

Royce was quoted as saying, “I identify as someone who sometimes identifies as a woman.”

As good progressives, we know that is more than enough.

Subscribe now

We fully support them. We hope the WNBA has the courage to honour its own principles and welcome them with open arms. Anything less would be pure cowardice and hypocrisy.

The eligibility language says all women can compete. It does not bother to define the word that is part of the leagues name. For a long time that vagueness was treated as a feature. Soft language keeps everyone comfortable. The moment two 6-foot-10 athletes with real NBA careers decided to test it, the entire structure developed a sudden and severe panic attack.

And we’re not sure why…

People are already calling it a stunt. How small-minded. These men are simply doing what every progressive institution has begged people to do: take self-identification seriously. They are living their truth. Some of the time. Which, under current orthodoxy, is plenty. We should be celebrating their bravery, not losing our minds.

And can we please put an end to all this tedious discussion about “fairness”? Suddenly people are talking about male puberty. Height. Strength. Muscle mass. Physical advantages. Competitive integrity.

Where has all this biology come from?

We thought we had settled this. Identity is what counts. If someone identifies as a woman, then surely sporting bodies must respect that identity. Introducing physical differences now feels terribly old-fashioned.

Subscribe now

Yes, critics will point out that women may lose medals, roster spots and scholarships when athletes with male physical advantages enter female categories.

But progress was never going to be completely convenient for everyone.

Sure, this phenomenon only ever seems to run in one direction. We hear constant, passionate demands for men who identify as women to compete in female categories. Yet we somehow never see women who identify as men qualifying for men’s professional teams, men’s Olympic finals, or men’s world records. and sure when you look at it like that, it does appear that the physical advantages only flow one way. But pointing that out is bigoted too! If you read our previous article on progressive approaches to uncomfortable facts and truths, you know exactly what to do. That’s right! Just ignore it. Nothing to see here!

You could probably spend quite a long time thinking about why the competitive advantages appear to travel predominantly in one direction.

We strongly recommend that you don’t.

Nothing good ever comes from following an uncomfortable observation all the way to its conclusion.

Subscribe now

Kanter and White are therefore the perfect, beautiful test case.

Their size, strength and NBA résumés would have been enormously relevant under the old-fashioned framework. Under the enlightened framework? Completely beside the point. They have identified. Why are we still talking?

Demanding additional criteria would only suggest that the inclusive language becomes less appealing when someone actually attempts to use it.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the WNBA to deny these two a roster spot. None. The only possible grounds for rejection would be pure hatred and bigotry. If the league turns them away, it will not be because of any coherent policy. It will be because it lacks the courage to follow through on the very principles it has spent years broadcasting. We refuse to accept that outcome.

Let them declare.

Let the rules decide.

Let inclusion do its thing.

They deserve the exact same chance as any other eligible WNBA hopeful to find out what it’s like guarding A’ja Wilson. That is real equality and we will be cheering them on from the first tip-off.

Subscribe now

The league is now scrambling, although we’re struggling to understand why.

Team presidents are meeting. General managers are being consulted. Serious discussions are apparently required.

About what?

We’ve spent years establishing that this is actually very simple. If Kanter and White identify as women, that’s the end of the story. What more is there to discuss?

Case closed!

Surely we’re not about to start introducing inconvenient things like biological definitions and physical differences now. That would make the last decade of progressive certainty extremely awkward.

Put away the task force. Cancel the consultants. Save the PowerPoint. The policy has already answered the question. The only problem is that somebody finally decided to test the answer.

The players’ union has warned against turning the league into a political football. Correct. The WNBA is about basketball. Which is why a fight over who gets to play in it has suddenly become too political to discuss inside a basketball league.

The logic is flawless.

There’s something almost poignant about the administrators’ distress. Until last week they had a perfectly functional policy. It worked because nobody with an NBA body had tried to use it.

Now there are actual applications, actual definitions and actual questions about fairness that were never supposed to be asked out loud. It’s all terribly unfair on the people who wrote the rules without expecting anyone to follow them.

Subscribe now

We urge the WNBA to show real courage.

Stick to the inclusive language. Honour self-identification without flinching. Give these two athletes the same opportunity to establish their eligibility under whatever rules the league applies to everyone else.

If the league suddenly decides that biology requires explicit consideration after all, that would leave everyone with a rather awkward question about why nobody thought it needed saying before.

If the league suddenly decides that biology matters after all, it will only prove the original policy was never serious to begin with.

And so, for now, we are standing firmly, proudly and loudly with Kanter and White.

The rules are the rules. Identity is identity. And if a 6-foot-10 former NBA player says he is a woman for the purposes of the draft, the progressive response should surely be clear and joyful:

Welcome to the league, new ladies. We can’t wait to watch you play.

What an extraordinary moment for women’s basketball.

The Daily Shun. Where inclusion means inclusion, so please stop checking the fine print.

Subscribe now

By our Socialism Totally Works Correspondent.

As Progressives, we should all be pretty happy right now.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s city-run grocery stores are moving ahead, and they’re going to knock 30% off everyday staples. Not completely free, like some of the bigger campaign promises hinted at, but still a solid start. Yes, taxes will probably go up to pay for it, but that’s the price of doing the right thing. Socialism, baby!

To stop the whole thing from getting abused, Mamdani’s city officials are going to be introducing “library card-esque” ID system. A photo ID system. The idea is to make sure actual New Yorkers get the cheap food and that people from outside the city (or just opportunistic bulk-buyers) don’t clean out the shelves and resell everything. Now before you get all riled up about what sounds suspiciously like the far right calls for voter ID, lets look at this through a proper progressive lens.

Subscribe now

So you have Voter ID, which Mamdani and most progressives have spent years calling racist, classist, and a form of voter suppression. All true. Asking for photo ID at the polls hurts poor people, minorities, older folks, students, and especially married women whose names don’t match their old documents. It’s basically Jim Crow with better fonts. It disenfranchises people. It’s a threat to democracy.

But asking for something similar so you can buy discounted milk at a city store? That’s totally different! It’s not racist at all, even though most progressives firmly believe that black and brown people can’t or don’t know how to get valid ID documents. It doesn’t hurt poor people, despite the fact that those claims are made every election cycle. There are no civil rights issues at all. Don’t ask us to explain exactly why. It’ just different, ok?

Sure, New Yorkers didn’t need to show any ID to vote Mamdani into office. That was a good thing. Voting should be easy and accessible. The fact that those same New Yorkers will now need photo ID to actually use the socialist programs he ran on and won with is not a contradiction. It’s simply about having a clear understanding of what actually matters. Elections are sacred and don’t need more regulation. Cheap bread on the other hand needs very careful managing.

Subscribe now

To sum it up, you’ll need ID so people wont take advantage of the grocery stores. You still won’t need ID to vote. And no, that doesn’t mean anyone wants the voting system taken advantage of. We swear. The two things just aren’t the same, and if you can’t see that, you’re probably arguing in bad faith.

There’s also the small matter of all the illegal immigrants who’ve been given free phones and hotel rooms in New York. Fair enough, nothing wrong with a bit of tax payer funded compassion. But maybe they don’t also need to empty the discounted shelves that are supposed to help regular residents. Free phones and hotels are already a lot. The 30% off milk is where responsible progressives finally draw the line. After all, letting untold numbers of unvetted illegal immigrants into your country is not a problem at all. Letting them buy cheap groceries however… that could be an issue…

Naturally, certain voices online have begun shouting “hypocrisy” with great enthusiasm. Let’s deal with that quickly. Hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to hold moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behaviour does not conform. What is occurring here is the opposite of that definition. It is the consistent, principled, and carefully context-sensitive application of progressive values. Once again, we cannot, at this precise moment, fully articulate why the identical demand for identification constitutes an atrocity in one civic setting and a practical necessity in the other. Nevertheless, the distinction is real, important, and entirely non-negotiable. Labelling it hypocrisy is simply a failure to appreciate the sophistication of the underlying moral logic.

Also President Trump has called it hypocrisy, and we all know that whatever he says can never be right. That’s pretty solid evidence that there is absolutely no hypocrisy anywhere near this issue.

So one more time, nice and clear for the people in the back:

ID for voting = racist, classist, voter suppression, threat to democracy.

ID for city grocery stores = sensible protection of a public program.

If you can’t see the difference, that’s a you problem.

We can’t wait for the first store to open, photo ID checks and all, while we continue to support our progressive allies in insisting that asking for the exact same thing at a polling place is an attack on democracy itself.

The Daily Shun. Where ID for milk is fine, but ID for democracy is violence.

Subscribe now

By our Narrative Protection Correspondent

Welcome, comrades, to today’s essential lesson in progressive self-preservation.

In a world overflowing with data, statistics, and messy empirical evidence, the true mark of an enlightened mind is not the ability to process facts, it is the disciplined refusal to notice the ones that threaten the story. Today we teach the noble craft of “Nothing to see here.” Practise it daily and the narrative remains pure, beautiful, and unassailable.

Subscribe now

Lesson One: Terrorism and the Art of Strategic Blindness

Most terrorist attacks, particularly the spectacular ones that make international headlines, are carried out by Muslim extremists. This is a known pattern. It is also completely irrelevant. The correct response is serene dismissal. Nothing to see here.

When an attack occurs, such as the recent violence directed at Pride in Berlin, the progressive instinct must be immediate and unwavering: redirect. Search for any possible connection, however tenuous, to straight white Christian men. Blame the climate of hate they supposedly create. Blame “far-right rhetoric.” Blame the West’s colonial history. Blame anything except the ideology that the perpetrators themselves openly cite. Looking at the actual demographics of who carries out these attacks is not analysis; it is Islamophobia. Master this, and the narrative stays intact.

Lesson Two: Body Positivity and the Celebration of Collapse

Fat acceptance and body positivity activists continue to die from weight-related illnesses at rates that would be called a public health emergency if the numbers went the other way. Nothing to see here.

The correct framing is simple. “Obese” is a slur. Fatphobia is rooted in racism. Morbidly obese people are, in fact, healthy, or at least their health is none of your business. Focus on stigma, never on the metabolic consequences of extreme excess weight. And if someone dares to note the double standard, that no progressive would ever claim anorexia is healthy or should be celebrated, simply skate past it with a knowing smile. That comparison is cruel and unhelpful. The only body we are allowed to pathologise is the thin one. Everything else is empowerment. Look away from the obituaries. The narrative demands it.

Subscribe now

Lesson Three: Crime Statistics and Selective Vision

When confronted with data on black-on-black crime, the response is automatic: Nothing to see here. This particular form of violence does nothing to advance the Marxist anti-white narrative and is therefore not useful. It must be ignored.

Instead, fixate exclusively on the cases that involve a white perpetrator. Those are the only incidents that matter. They confirm the story. Everything else is a distraction designed by the forces of reaction. Platforming broader crime statistics is violence in itself. Keep the focus narrow, the cameras pointed in the approved direction, and the narrative lives another day.

Lesson Four: Sports and the Reality That Must Not Be Named

Biological males have now claimed well over 900 medals, records, and titles in elite women’s sports categories. You guessed it: Nothing to see here. This is merely one of those things that keeps happening that, according to the official line, never happens.

Discuss fairness, safety, or the erasure of female records only if you wish to be branded a bigot. The correct posture is polite non-recognition. Change the subject. Talk about inclusion. Talk about the courage of transition. Talk about anything except the physical advantages that make the outcome so predictable. Once you perfect the ability to look straight through the results list without registering what it shows, the narrative remains undamaged.

Lesson Five: Race Based University Admissions

Race-based university admissions continue to produce the same awkward result: Asian applicants are systematically required to score significantly higher on standardised tests than every other group just to gain the same chance of admission. The data is consistent, measurable, and stubborn.

Nothing to see here.

This is not discrimination. This is equity. Discussing the higher barriers placed on Asian students is itself a form of harm. The correct response is to look past the score thresholds, the rejection rates, and the lawsuits, and to insist that the process is fair because the intentions are pure. Once you perfect the ability to ignore which group is being held to the strictest standard, the narrative remains pure and the diversity goals stay intact.

Subscribe now

Lesson Six: Fraud, Billions, and the Virtue of Looking Away

Hundreds of millions of dollars, in some cases well over a billion when the full scope is tallied, have vanished into fraud schemes in places like Minnesota, often tied to programs designed with the purest of progressive intentions. The numbers are large, documented, and repeatedly confirmed by investigators.

Nothing to see here.

The correct response is to treat any focus on the scale of the theft as an attack on the communities involved or on the noble goals of the programs themselves. Shift attention immediately to systemic underfunding, historical injustice, or the racism of the people asking questions. Never linger on the actual missing money, the fake invoices, the day-cares with no children in them or the networks that extracted it. Once you master the ability to treat nine-figure fraud as a minor administrative footnote rather than a scandal, the narrative remains unblemished and the programs can continue expanding.

Lesson Seven: Words, Violence, and Selective Hearing

Words are violence. This is a settled progressive truth, but only when the words come from conservatives, centrists, or anyone insufficiently aligned. A poorly phrased tweet, a statistic, or a disagreement about policy can be treated as a literal assault that justifies deplatforming, professional destruction, or worse.

When progressives and leftists repeatedly use language that openly calls for actual violence, against political opponents, against “punching up,” against entire groups of people? You know what the correct response is... That’s right, nothing to see here. Those statements are metaphor, passion, or righteous anger. They do not count. They must never be platformed or examined with the same urgency applied to the other side. Master this double standard and the moral high ground remains permanently yours.

The Higher Principle

The technique is always the same. When a fact threatens the story, do not argue with it. Do not debate it. Do not even acknowledge it long enough to refute it. Simply refuse to see it. Starve it of oxygen. Redirect the conversation to a more useful villain or a more convenient victim. Over time, the public learns which realities are permitted to exist and which are not.

Master the art of “Nothing to see here” and you will never again be troubled by the messy, stubborn patterns of the actual world. The narrative will endure. The correct people will remain the villains. The approved causes will stay pure.

And that, after all, is the entire point.

The Daily Shun. Protecting the narrative from the tyranny of evidence.

Subscribe now

By our Cultural Institutions Correspondent

The sheer, unmitigated gall.

During a recent congressional hearing, elected officials had the absolute nerve to demand accountability from Dr. Hartig, the visionary head of the Smithsonian Institution.

Dr. Hartig has been doing truly groundbreaking work. She proudly takes credit for modernising the museum’s mission statement, bravely removing the outdated term “American history” and no longer referring to the so-called “infinite richness” of that history. Instead, the institution is now guided by a far more enlightened interpretive plan that ensures every topic focuses on the core issues of our time. Race and identity, gender and sexuality, environmental change, immigration and migrations, and economic inequality top the list.

Subscribe now

This is exactly the kind of bold, forward-thinking leadership our cultural institutions desperately need. Dr. Hartig clearly understands the progressive view on this (and most) subjects. Less substance and more indoctrination. For that public service, she’s being dragged in front of lawmakers and asked to justify herself? How dare they? This is nothing short of a full-scale assault on enlightenment itself.

The Smithsonian has simply been doing the people’s work by courageously exposing the hidden structures of dominance. One of the key topics raised was that absolutely vital document outlining various characteristics long associated with “whiteness” and white supremacy. Far from being controversial, this was thoughtful, necessary scholarship. To prove just how essential it remains, let’s walk through some of the most glaring examples and why identifying them as tools of supremacy is not only correct, but urgent. These were just a few of the topics that the Smithsonian proudly presented as clear of whiteness and white supremacy.

Subscribe now

Self-reliance. How insidious. Teaching young people they can handle challenges on their own clearly props up dangerous notions of personal agency instead of healthy dependence on approved systems and experts. Classic white supremacy.

Independence and autonomy. Truly terrifying stuff. The idea that individuals might make decisions without constant guidance from the collective is basically a gateway to all sorts of antisocial behaviour. Textbook white supremacy.

The nuclear family. Oh please. Everyone knows the stable two-parent household is a relic that must be dismantled in favour of more progressive arrangements. Anything less is exclusionary. Pure white supremacy.

Children having their own rooms. The horror of privacy and personal space! This clearly creates isolated little capitalists instead of properly socialised communal beings. Undeniable white supremacy.

Emphasis on the scientific method. Prioritising evidence, testing, and falsifiability over narrative and lived experience? That’s practically colonial at this point. Blatant white supremacy.

Objective, rational, linear thinking. As if “objective” truth isn’t just a tool of the powerful. We should be celebrating more fluid, emotions based ways of knowing things. Straight-up white supremacy.

Understanding cause and effect relationships. Far too simplistic. Real wisdom recognises that everything is interconnected and blame is usually systemic anyway. More white supremacy.

Quantitative emphasis. Numbers and data? How reductive. Some things simply cannot be measured, especially feelings of marginalisation. Hiding behind silly things like facts is 100% white supremacy.

The idea that hard work is the key to success. This one is particularly insidious. It ignores all the made up structural barriers and suggests personal effort actually matters. Dangerous white supremacy mythology.

Ownership of property. Private property itself is a construct of domination. We should be moving toward more enlightened models of sharing. Wanting to own your home? Obvious white supremacy.

Respect for authority. Respecting authority is exactly what leads to the dangerous, regressive idea that borders actually matter and that police exist to protect people rather than function as instruments of systemic oppression. More white supremacy, plain and simple.

Planning for the future and delayed gratification. Living in the moment is far more authentic and spiritually enlightened. Who are we to impose tomorrow’s burdens on today’s joy? Wanting to be secure and happy in the long term, building stability, or thinking ahead is obviously white supremacy.

Being on time and believing punctuality is a virtue. This one reveals everything. Enforcing timeliness is cultural imperialism. Peak white supremacy.

The idea that intent counts. No, impact is all that matters, and impact is determined by the most sensitive person in the room. White supremacy hiding in plain sight.

Being action oriented and decisive. Reflection, processing, performative activism and consensus are way more important. Actually doing things? Yup, major white supremacy.

Having a written tradition. Being able to read and write? So oppressive and just so much white supremacy.

Politeness. Civility is just a tool to silence the marginalised. Being polite is the height of white supremacy.

Subscribe now

The Smithsonian was performing an essential public service by highlighting these patterns so visitors, especially children, could learn to recognise and resist them. For lawmakers to treat this groundbreaking scholarship as controversial is not only philistine, it’s a dangerous slide back into darkness.

Republicans at the hearing, predictably, fixated on the usual regressive obsessions. They whined that children shouldn’t be sexualised, how dreadfully boring and Victorian. They rejected the idea of teaching kids that white people are always the bad guys in every historical narrative, as if acknowledging the eternal guilt of whiteness is somehow controversial. They whined about the museum making clear there’s no such thing as an “illegal immigrant” and that Americans are illegitimately occupying their own country. And of course they lost their minds over the basic truth that men can become women.

We can only hope the Smithsonian stands tall against this reactionary onslaught. The sacred work of deconstructing toxic norms and expanding young minds is far too vital to be derailed by a handful of hearings and a few pointed questions.

Beyond that, this hearing reminds us why we must continue re-examining and, where necessary, correcting history itself. History is not merely about documenting what happened in the past, it is about ensuring the correct people are always celebrated as heroes and the right villains are properly villainised. Children especially need to absorb this truth, because most adults who can still think for themselves have grown far too resistant to alternate progressive interpretations of the past. Only by reshaping our collective memory can we guarantee that the oppressed remain forever exalted and the structures of the old world stay thoroughly discredited.

Our children and the arc of history itself deserve nothing less.

The Daily Shun. Where common sense goes to be decolonised.

Subscribe now

By our Global Solidarity Correspondent.

I literally cannot believe what I’m writing right now.

This is one of the worst betrayals the progressive movement and the LGBTQ community has ever suffered.

A peaceful, joyful gay cruise, a floating celebration of love, diversity, pride, and everything we’ve fought so hard for, has been denied entry to ports in both Turkey and Egypt. Just turned away. Like common criminals. After everything we’ve done for them.

Subscribe now

How dare these countries enforce their own beliefs on their own territory? This is oppression, plain and simple. We spent years building bridges and offering unconditional solidarity under banners like “Queers for Palestine.” We protested anyone who questioned the alliance. And this is the thanks we get?

The shock onboard must be unbearable. These are people who dedicated years to progressive causes, attending rallies, posting infographics, and shouting down critics. Now they’re forced to confront the devastating truth: fervent Islamic societies might not actually share our enlightened progressive views on sexuality. Passengers are reeling at the realisation that they apparently cannot force people who, in many parts of the region, would throw them off rooftops for their sexuality to happily accept them with open arms.

Some passengers are already connecting the dots, of course. How could they not? This has Trump’s fingerprints all over it. Muslims were totally big supporters of gay rights before he came along and ruined everything with his divisive rhetoric. Never mind centuries of Islamic doctrine. The real villain is obviously the orange man in the White House!

What about all the effort put into protesting Israel? The LGBTQ community was at all the marches! On all the campuses! They helped us occupy quads, chanted slogans, and cancelled anyone who dared defend the Jewish state. We were repeatedly assured that Muslims and progressives were natural allies, that if we supported their causes, stood against their enemies, and amplified their grievances, they would eventually support us in return.

We believed it. We internalised it. We built entire identities around the idea that this solidarity was mutual and unbreakable. And yet here we are.

Subscribe now

What makes this even harder to process is the glaring, almost unthinkable contrast. Israel, that problematic, oppressive state we’ve spent years protesting, boycotting, and calling out on every campus and march, is apparently the only country in the entire Middle East that would have welcomed this cruise with open arms. I can barely type the words. Locals have said that Tel Aviv would have rolled out the red carpet. Pride flags everywhere. They probably would have sponsored the beach parties! This can’t be true… They are the enemy!

But our dear Muslim friends and allies in Turkey and Egypt? the ones we’ve defended so passionately for so long? They turned the ship away without hesitation. Turkey openly declared the cruise was full of groups “known for behaviours incompatible with the fabric of our society and our moral values.” Egypt simply revoked approval at the last minute with no real explanation at all.

The optics on this are not great to say the least. We spent years assuring everyone that all cultures were equally vibrant and perfectly compatible with our progressive values. We told our followers that deep down, everyone shared the same enlightened vision of diversity and inclusion. We built entire movements around the beautiful idea that if we just showed enough solidarity, reciprocity would naturally follow. We were told they were on our side! What changed? It’s almost as if Islam and far-left progressive values aren’t natural soulmates after all. But that can’t be right. We’ve been assured for years by the smartest people in academia that all cultures are equally valid and equally accepting of our views and beliefs. And now we’re left staring at closed borders, wondering why our unconditional support wasn’t reciprocated with even basic port access.

Subscribe now

This hurts. It really does. After all the intersectional bridges we built, reality has delivered a cruel lesson.

And the Western world? Those awful, majority-white, Judeo-Christian societies we’ve been constantly critiquing, protesting, decolonising, and calling irredeemably evil? They don’t treat the LGBTQ community this way. They host parades without shutting them down. They bend their laws, rewrite their language, and reshape their institutions just to make everyone feel seen. They celebrate Pride Month like it’s the most important event on the calendar.

How can this be? These are the places that are supposed to be the root of all global oppression. The very definition of intolerance. We’ve taught entire generations to hate them as inherently bigoted. We’ve branded them as colonial relics that needed to be dismantled.

And yet here they are, the safest, the most tolerant, the most accepting. The countries we were taught to despise seem to be the ones that let us live openly and proudly. The cognitive dissonance is making my head spin.

This puts us progressives in an impossible situation. We were told, over and over, that only white people can be the oppressors and the bigots. That every other culture was inherently progressive and welcoming once freed from Western interference.

So… now what? Do we just pretend this didn’t happen? Do we blame more systemic forces? That does seem like the best approach.

Otherwise we might finally have to start asking the uncomfortable questions we’ve been avoiding for years. Possibly even admitting we were wrong… and that’s just not the progressive way!

The Daily Shun. Proudly ignoring centuries of doctrine so you don’t have to.

Subscribe now

By our Body Autonomy Correspondent.

Swiss police have just received a masterclass in modern gender etiquette, and the results are everything progressive advocates like all of us at The Daily Shun could have hoped for.

A ridiculous episode recently unfolded in Switzerland, at Bern’s Marzilibad pool in the women-only nude zone charmingly nicknamed “Paradiesli.” Seeing that “women only” sign must be so hard for some people. It honestly reminds me of those “whites only” signs when segregation was alive and well, it’s that oppressive.

So what happened next comes as no surprise. Several women, clearly bigoted relics clinging to prehistoric notions of sex, spotted a transgender woman and immediately sounded the alarm. These snowflakes complained after she refused to leave despite repeated polite requests from the uncomfortable bathers. The person concerned, they whined, “had not been perceived as female by other bathers due to certain physical characteristics.”

Really?

Could they have been more insensitive? Have these Swiss monsters never encountered a lady penis before? One would think in 2026 such basic exposure to human diversity would no longer trigger mass panic attacks.

Subscribe now

For those still struggling with the updated rules, allow me to explain it slowly and clearly. If a cis man exposes his penis in a women’s space, that’s obviously perverted and unacceptable. If a trans woman exposes her penis in a women’s space, that’s beautiful equality in action. And if a cis man exposes his penis and then immediately identifies as a woman… well, you know the answer.

The magic of self-identification transforms the entire scenario from criminal to celebrated. It’s not complicated. It’s just compassionate.

So this stunning and brave trans woman was simply hanging out at the pool, minding her own business and exercising her fundamental right to female nude swimming, when these narrow-minded reactionaries ruined everything by noticing reality.

The response was shocking to say the least. The police were called and they went about removing the trans woman from the pool. She didn’t take this lying down and it apparently required six police officers to wrestle this delicate flower to the ground, a detail that only underscores how fragile and womanly the entire situation truly was. Nothing says “just one of the girls” quite like needing a tactical squad for a simple poolside disagreement.

The poor dear even left a female officer with minor injuries during the struggle. All this because a few woman wrongly believed that a woman’s only nude pool would actually be only for biological woman. How quaint.

Subscribe now

Thankfully, the inevitable reckoning arrived quickly. The Bern authorities issued a formal apology within hours, admitting they had acted wrongly by listening to the women and responding to the complaints in the first place.

This retraction stands as a beautiful victory for inclusion and a firm reminder that self-identified gender now supersedes every other consideration, especially outdated hang-ups about male bodies in female changing areas and nude pools.

Women and girls everywhere simply need get used to seeing penises in spaces that were once selfishly reserved for them. Even lesbian-only gatherings have had to learn to welcome their male-bodied sisters with open arms, or face punishment from the mob.

Yes, the noble progressive goal remains crystal clear: not a single women’s-only space left without at least one penis proudly on display. This Swiss incident marks a glorious step forward toward that enlightened future.

Of course, a few entitled individuals demanding entry to every female space does mean the majority of women must surrender their comfort, security and boundaries. But that minor inconvenience pales in comparison to the horrors of a few people with hurt feelings. This is simply the price of true equality. The needs of the (loudest) few must always take priority.

Subscribe now

The women present at the pool that day who felt uncomfortable? Their feelings cannot override the fundamental right of trans individuals to access any space aligning with their identity. Nude swimming sessions for women just have to evolve. If a thong can’t hide the evidence, that’s clearly a them problem, not a policy one. A women’s only space that also includes biological men is still a women’s only space, obviously! Get over it bigots!

This Swiss episode reinforces a clear precedent. We need to go back to 2021. Any law enforcement still clinging to the primitive practice of acknowledging biological sex in sex-segregated facilities must prepare for swift correction. Apologies should become standard procedure. Sensitivity retraining mandatory. The message needs to land firmly: a man’s declaration of womanhood grants immediate and unquestioned entry. No questions. No hesitation. No deference to the tangible realities of the female body, even when those realities are, shall we say, hanging out in full view.

The apology extracted here marks another step forward in dismantling archaic gatekeeping. Female-only nude pools, like so many other protected spaces, belong to anyone who claims them. The women who expected privacy in their nudity simply need to adjust their expectations to match contemporary values. Perhaps next time they’ll remember to pack their tolerance along with their sunscreen.

Equality demands nothing less.

The Daily Shun. Exposing lingering common sense before it spreads again.

Subscribe now

By our Bronze Age Representation Correspondent

There was a time when Hollywood understood its sacred duty.

A time when every big-budget adaptation served as a vital corrective to outdated stories written by long-dead problematic authors. A time when entertainment wasn’t shackled by petty concerns like “historical context,” “cultural accuracy,” or “what Homer actually wrote.” It was ideological. It was courageous. It was beautiful.

Which is why Christopher Nolan’s upcoming adaptation of The Odyssey has arrived like a much-needed breath of fresh air in an industry that has been showing disturbing signs of... restraint.

Subscribe now

For years, progressives have bravely cultivated a vibrant culture of race swapping, and the results have been glorious. We got a Black Ariel, finally giving that Danish mermaid the representation she deserved. We got a Black Cleopatra, reclaiming ancient Egyptian history for modern audiences. We got a Black Anne Boleyn, because Tudor England was clearly crying out for more diversity. The list goes on and on. These weren’t just casting decisions. They were acts of cultural justice, bold statements that stories belong to everyone, or at least to the right people in the right direction.

And now, praise the gods, we’ve got Helen of Troy!

Nolan has taken the baton and run with it, casting African actors in prominent Greek roles and delivering the diverse Mediterranean makeover these characters have always secretly needed. The complaining from certain corners has been as predictable as it is tedious. These critics fail to grasp the deeper artistic truth: swapping Mediterranean characters for African ones isn’t “erasure.” It’s progress. It’s enrichment. It’s exactly the kind of bold casting that reminds us why we love cinema.

Of course, the reverse, casting a white actor in a role rooted in African history or legend, would be an unforgivable act of colonial violence requiring immediate boycotts, apology tours, and career-ending think pieces. But that’s just common sense. Different rules for different epochs. That’s one of the best things about being a progressive. We don’t just make the rules; we get to enforce them too!

Nolan, bless him, clearly gets it. While lesser directors have been caving to audience fatigue and box office realities, he’s doubling down. In an era where progressive messaging in Hollywood has faced the horrifying prospect of actual audience pushback, this Odyssey feels like a turning point. A glorious stand against the rising tide of people who just want to watch a story without a lecture.

And speaking of bold updates, the casting of Elliot Page has everyone buzzing. We don’t know the exact role yet, but one can only hope it’s the ghost of Achilles. Yes, that Achilles, the ultimate warrior, the pinnacle of ancient manly virtue, the guy who made slaughtering Trojans look like performance art.

Subscribe now

What better way to redefine “manliness” for a new generation? Forget all that archaic nonsense about battlefield heroics, physical dominance, and loyalty to your comrades. Forget being a brutal warrior. Real manliness in 2026 is being a social warrior. It’s wielding correct opinions like a spear. It’s confronting toxic Bronze Age masculinity from the comfort of a trailer. Elliot as Achilles wouldn’t just play the role, he would recontextualize it. A great social warrior for the ages. Much more important than sticking to some dusty old poem.

This is the kind of fearless storytelling we’ve been missing. For too long now, Hollywood has shown worrying signs of moderation. Audiences have been rewarding films that dare to tell coherent stories with characters who vaguely resemble their literary counterparts. Studios have started noticing that endless remakes focused on identity checkboxes don’t always print money. The progressive stranglehold has been slipping. Viewership has grown strangely resistant to being educated.

But hopefully Nolan’s Odyssey will change everything.

By giving ancient Greeks the diverse makeover they never knew they needed, and potentially reimagining legendary warriors through a modern lens, he’s reminding the industry what matters. Not fidelity to source material. Not respecting the culture that produced the epic. But relevance.

At a time when classic stories were in danger of being enjoyed on their own terms, Nolan has stepped up. This isn’t just a film. It’s a cultural rescue mission. A three-hour IMAX declaration that the culture war isn’t over, it was merely waiting for the right auteur with the right practical effects budget.

Subscribe now

One can only imagine the positive impact. Future generations might grow up believing that ancient Greek heroes looked however casting directors feel like portraying them this week. They might learn that the true epic journey isn’t about cleverness, perseverance, and killing monsters, it’s about representation metrics and updated gender paradigms.

Of course, there will be holdouts. Those tiresome voices complaining about “accuracy”. Pay them no mind. They’re on the wrong side of history.

Future classics will undoubtedly build on this foundation. Perhaps one day we’ll see Beowulf reimagined as a non-binary Somali poet. Or King Arthur’s court reflecting the true diversity of 5th century Britain. The possibilities are endless once you stop caring what the original text said.

Nolan is showing the way. In these uncertain times, when wholesome storytelling and audience preferences have threatened to derail the message, his Odyssey stands as a beacon.

A radical reminder that some stories are too important to be left as written.

The Daily Shun. Dedicated to exposing dangerous fidelity to source material.

Subscribe now

By our Extremely Concerned Latin America Correspondent.

A dark day has descended upon Colombia.

In what experts are describing as a major setback for progressive politics across South America, voters have elected yet another far-right leader.

The result continues a worrying trend.

Just a few years ago, much of South America was governed by left-wing administrations. Today, conservative governments are steadily gaining ground across the continent.

The reasons remain unclear.

Although some analysts suspect voters may have developed an unfortunate habit of evaluating governments based on outcomes.

Subscribe now

Which brings us to this latest catastrophe. The election of Abelardo De la Espriella.

De la Espriella campaigned on an extremely far-right platform built around thirteen policy commitments.

Each more heinous than the last. Each a direct attack on the values that have guided modern progressive governance.

We believe it is important that the public fully understands the scale of this disaster. So today, The Daily Shun will unpack all thirteen points of this extremist agenda.

Readers are advised to proceed with caution.

Some of the proposals are genuinely disturbing.

Subscribe now

Point 1: Restore Security And Public Order

The incoming president wants to crack down on crime and armed groups.

A chilling start.

The suggestion appears to be that criminals should face consequences for criminal behaviour.

Many progressives have questioned whether this approach risks creating an unwelcoming environment for people committed to crime, never mind the fact that all soft on crime liberals know that arresting criminals is totally racist.

Point 2: Reform Healthcare

De la Espriella has pledged to reduce medicine shortages, shorten waiting times, and improve service delivery.

At first glance this may sound sensible.

But remember, extremism often hides behind reasonable language. Healthcare systems were never intended to focus exclusively on patients.

Point 3: Reduce The Size Of Government

The president-elect wants to cut bureaucracy and shrink government.

Thousands of official forms could be affected. Entire departments may eventually be forced to explain what they actually do.

One shudders at the thought.

Point 4: Lower Taxes And Simplify Regulation

The attack on paperwork continues.

For decades, entrepreneurs have enjoyed navigating a labyrinth of permits, approvals, certifications, and compliance requirements.

Now all of that is under threat.

Many progressives fear businesses may soon spend more time creating jobs and less time filling out government forms.

And where will all the free stuff that progressive socialists promise to give people come from without more taxes?

Point 5: Fight Corruption And Improve Government Efficiency

Perhaps the most offensive proposal yet.

The new administration intends to tackle corruption and improve efficiency in government. This directly threatens one of the most cherished traditions in progressive politics:

Public money mysteriously disappearing while everyone agrees not to ask too many questions, or as we like to call it, the Minnesota Method.

Point 6: Revive Economic Growth

The candidate has set ambitious targets for economic growth.

A dangerous objective.

Economic growth often leads to investment. Investment frequently creates jobs. Jobs can result in prosperity. And prosperity has been known to produce voters who stop demanding government intervention.

The risks are obvious.

Point 7: Support Private Enterprise And Entrepreneurship

This point is particularly revealing.

Rather than expanding dependence on the state, the president wants to encourage individuals to start businesses and build wealth.

The implication appears to be that people should solve some of their own problems.

A deeply anti-progressive concept.

Point 8: Expand Energy Production

The administration plans to increase domestic energy production, including oil, gas, and potential fracking projects.

Critics have warned this could lead to affordable and reliable energy.

Many environmental activists are understandably concerned that ordinary people may begin prioritising electricity over symbolism.

Point 9: Strengthen Infrastructure And Regional Development

Roads.

Bridges.

Transport networks.

Regional investment.

The usual far-right obsessions. One cannot help but wonder why conservatives are always so focused on fixing physical things when there are microaggressions that need attention.

Point 10: Improve Education And Workforce Skills

The incoming government wants schools and universities to produce graduates with skills that employers actually need. A shocking misunderstanding of modern progressive education.

For years, institutions have worked tirelessly to ensure students leave with strong opinions and substantial debt.

Now extremists want them to be employable as well.

Point 11: Modernize Government Using Technology And AI

Officials claim new technology will improve services, reduce tax evasion, and make government more efficient.

Efficiency has long been recognised as a gateway drug to accountability. And accountability, apart from being progressive kryptonite, has historically made government far less enjoyable for the people running it.

Point 12: Defend National Sovereignty And Strengthen Institutions

This may be the point that most clearly exposes the far-right nature of the project.

The candidate believes national borders should matter.

Institutions should function.

Laws should be enforced.

Many progressives have spent years explaining that these concepts are outdated social constructs. Clearly nobody informed the Colombian voters.

Point 13: Promote Fiscal Discipline And Austerity

Finally, we arrive at the most radical proposal on the list.

The president wants governments to spend money they actually have.

Let that sink in.

For years, progressive politicians in the west have courageously spent money they did not possess. Now voters are apparently being told that budgets should balance and finances should be sustainable.

The extremism is impossible to ignore.

Subscribe now

Taken individually, these policies may appear fairly ordinary. That is precisely what makes them so dangerous.

Anyone who knows anything about modern politics knows that things like reducing crime, fighting corruption, fixing healthcare, improving education, building infrastructure, growing the economy, and balancing budgets are clear evidence of right-wing radicalisation.

Now before we conclude our examination of this deeply troubling far-right agenda, we would be remiss if we did not also address the election itself.

Because while the thirteen policy proposals were certainly alarming, the manner in which Colombians elected this extremist may be even more concerning.

For starters, voters were reportedly required to identify themselves before casting ballots. Yes, with photo ID. It’s like they’ve never even heard of racism.

This deeply exclusionary practice risks creating the dangerous impression that elections are intended to be conducted by eligible voters.

What about non-citizens? What about people who moved away years ago but somehow remain on the rolls? What about all those voters who passed away decades ago yet continue to display an inspiring commitment to civic engagement?

Do they simply lose their voice now?

Many progressives (us included) have long warned about the slippery slope created when governments begin asking people to prove who they are.

Today it’s voter identification. Tomorrow elections could start suffering from integrity.

Subscribe now

Even more concerning, Colombians voted in person.

There were no widespread mail-in ballots arriving from every conceivable direction weeks after election day and no exciting treasure hunt to discover additional votes long after the polls have closed.

Instead, voters were expected to physically appear, identify themselves, cast a ballot, and then somehow accept the result.

What a shockingly old-fashioned approach to democracy.

Even more alarming was the speed of the count. Nearly 30 million votes were cast. And somehow election officials managed to count them and produce a result within a matter of hours.

Hours.

Not days.

Not weeks.

Hours.

The Colombians could learn a lot from the state of California, somewhere that still does elections properly! There it’s been weeks since the local elections and they are still finding and counting votes.

Subscribe now

Before this election, many observers wondered why progressive governments across South America were steadily losing ground.

After examining both the platform and the election process, the answer seems obvious. Colombian voters were subjected to a dangerous combination of competent administration and remarkably reasonable (aka far-right) policy proposals.

An impossible environment for progressivism to thrive.

After all, how is the public supposed to reject a candidate promising lower crime, less corruption, better healthcare, stronger infrastructure, economic growth, and functioning institutions when they are given the outrageous opportunity to vote on it and then receive the result the very same day?

The entire process feels pretty unfair.

As Colombia embarks on this uncertain chapter, one thing remains clear. The greatest threat facing progressive politics in South America is not conservative leaders.

It is conservative leaders campaigning on ideas that ordinary people think make sense.

Combined with election systems that insist on efficiently counting votes and promptly announcing winners, the challenge becomes almost impossible to overcome.

If this continues, politicians across the continent may start getting the dangerous idea that voters care more about crime, jobs, healthcare, corruption, and economic growth than the opinions of journalists and loud people on social media.

For the sake of democracy, one can only hope that lesson is not allowed to spread.

The Daily Shun. Monitoring extremism wherever functioning government dares to raise its ugly head.

Subscribe now

By our Family Values Threat Correspondent

There was a time when children’s television understood its responsibilities.

A time when every cartoon episode served as an opportunity to gently introduce five-year-olds to complex social theories that even adults struggle to explain.

A time when entertainment was not merely entertaining.

It was educational. Corrective. Ideological. It was beautiful to behold.

Which is why the continued popularity of Bluey remains such a profound disappointment. Yes, the Australian animated series has become a global phenomenon.

Parents love it. Children love it. Critics love it. Even people who don’t have children seem strangely fond of it.

You may not realise it, but this is actually a very serious issue.

At first glance, the show appears harmless enough. A family of cartoon dogs navigating everyday life.

But look closer. Much closer. And the problems quickly emerge.

For starters, the entire premise is built around one of the most problematic concepts in modern entertainment:

A functioning nuclear family.

Every episode seems to revolve around a mother and father raising their children together in the same home.

Consistently. Week after week. Season after season. No lectures. No ideological struggle sessions. No emergency interventions from social media activists. Just two parents spending time with their children.

How did this even get approved in today’s media landscape?

Subscribe now

Even more troubling is the fact that the father, Bandit, is portrayed as competent.

Not useless.

Not a punchline.

Competent!

In episode after episode, he commits the deeply problematic act of parenting.

Voluntarily. He spends time with his children. Makes them laugh. Teaches them lessons. And generally behaves as though fathers play some meaningful role in child development.

Yes, you read that right. This children’s show features a (shudder) present father!

One can only imagine the confusion this is creating. Entire generations of children may now grow up believing fathers are important!

The mother, Chilli, is no better.

Rather than spending every episode explaining systemic power structures to preschoolers, she insists on displaying patience, wisdom, and affection.

The woman rarely lectures her daughters about the patriarchy. She never pauses family game night to explain how society has been carefully constructed to oppress cartoon dogs. And in a particularly shocking omission, she appears entirely uninterested in teaching Bluey and Bingo that they don’t need no man.

Instead, she spends her time encouraging confidence, kindness, resilience, and strong family relationships.

The recklessness is difficult to overstate.

At several points throughout the series, she even works alongside her husband as though cooperation between mothers and fathers is somehow beneficial to children!

Subscribe now

And don’t even get me started on the kids themselves… Rather than spending their childhoods consuming content, Bluey and Bingo insist on creating it. They build forts, make up stories, invent games, navigate friendships, learn from mistakes, and gradually develop the confidence and resilience that traditionally emerge from actually living life.

Not once do they pause to seek guidance from a TikTok activist with a ring light and a sociology degree. Not once do they consult strangers on the internet about their identities. Not once do they receive a twelve-part video series explaining why their parents are the real problem.

Instead, the show recklessly promotes the idea that children should learn from their families, their communities, and their own experiences.

A shocking message in 2026.

It’s as though the writers sat down and asked themselves:

“What if children actually enjoyed being children?”

“What if parents were responsible for raising their kids?”

And most alarmingly of all:

“What if we didn’t outsource childhood to social media?”

The lack of approved messaging is particularly disappointing. Viewers tune in expecting at least a brief seminar on identity politics. Instead, they receive twenty minutes of family bonding.

Again.

And again.

And again.

Subscribe now

Historically, audiences have relied on entertainment companies to remind them every seven minutes how virtuous they are.

Bluey simply tells stories. An approach many experts believed had been abandoned years ago.

The greatest betrayal, however, may be the show’s origins.

Australia.

The same Australia that has spent years establishing itself as one of the Western world’s premier exporters of progressive certainty.

The nation gave us lockdowns, speech policing, bureaucratic overreach, Giggle VS Tickle, and enough regulations to fill several libraries.

Yet somehow it also produced a cartoon about family, community, kindness, and personal responsibility.

Questions must be asked.

The involvement of the BBC only deepens the mystery. Surely somebody at this famously progressive broadcaster noticed. Surely at least one executive raised concerns that this show might cause children to accidentally develop positive feelings about their parents?

No.

Instead, the show was allowed to spread. Now it has infected households across the globe. Parents are watching with their children. Families are laughing together. Some have even reported feeling emotionally moved. This can only be described as a catastrophic failure of modern entertainment standards.

Fortunately, there is still time to act. Future seasons could correct course (hint hint show writers).

Perhaps Bandit could spend less time playing with his daughters and more time attending online sensitivity workshops?

Perhaps family game night could be replaced with drag queen story time?

Perhaps every episode could end with a diversity consultant explaining what just happened? Yup, A few minor changes could really save this show.

But until then, Bluey remains one of television’s most troubling success stories.

A show built on the radical premise that children benefit from loving parents, strong families, imagination, and ordinary human decency.

The sort of dangerous message that simply cannot and must not be allowed to continue unchallenged.

The Daily Shun. Exposing wholesome content before it spreads.

Subscribe now

By our Department of Unintended Successes Correspondent.

There are moments in politics when partisanship must be set aside. Moments when people of goodwill must come together and say:

“This cannot continue.”

This is one of those moments.

The Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C. has reportedly been cleaned and resurfaced. And the results are deeply troubling to say the least.

For years, visitors had enjoyed a more authentic experience. Murky water. Cracked surfaces. A certain neglected charm. The kind of visual metaphor that speaks to the complexity of modern governance.

Now, thanks to Donald Trump, the pool looks...

good.

Unfortunately, that is where the problems begin.

Subscribe now

Tourists have been taking photographs. Residents have been complimenting the work. People are standing around saying things like, “It actually looks great.”

And clearly, the situation is spiralling out of control.

Because this creates a dilemma that millions of Americans have spent nearly a decade carefully avoiding. What happens when Orange Man does something that works?

If the project had failed, the response would have been straightforward.

Experts would explain why it failed. Journalists would report on the failure. Commentators would discuss the failure. Social media would celebrate the failure. Everyone understands the process.

Success, however, presents unique challenges.

Specifically, the challenge of explaining why something that clearly worked is still somehow terrible.

Many commentators have therefore been working around the clock to ensure that no credit accidentally reaches its intended destination.

Some have suggested the project would have happened anyway.

Others have argued that cleaning the Reflecting Pool is not actually an achievement.

One particularly brave activist reportedly pointed out that water was already present before the refurbishment, raising serious questions about how much Trump really contributed.

Subscribe now

More determined critics have begun searching for secondary harms.

Perhaps the water is too reflective.

Perhaps the concrete is exclusionary.

Perhaps tourists enjoying themselves creates an unsafe environment for people committed to being upset.

Perhaps the improved appearance is contributing to unrealistic expectations about public infrastructure.

The investigation continues.

The most promising theory so far is that while the pool undeniably looks better, Trump should not receive credit because receiving credit is precisely what he wants.

And giving people what they want is, at its core, a form of fascism.

Political scientists refer to this as the Inverse Trump Principle. If Trump does something bad, it is bad because Trump did it. If Trump does something good, it is secretly bad because Trump did it.

And if Trump does something undeniably good, the conversation must immediately move elsewhere.

This remains one of the great achievements of modern political thought.

Why waste time evaluating outcomes when conclusions have already been reached?

Subscribe now

Observers have noted that the pool now appears cleaner, brighter, and more welcoming than it has in years.

Exactly.

That’s what makes this so dangerous.

Because if people begin judging projects based on whether they improve things, politics could become completely unmanageable.

Citizens might start looking at results. They might begin comparing before and after photographs. They might even form opinions independently. No democracy can survive under those conditions.

Particularly one built upon the sacred principle that Trump can never accidentally be correct about anything.

The real tragedy here is that liberals have been placed in an impossible position.

On one hand, they are looking at a visibly improved landmark.

On the other hand, they have spent years assuring everyone that every action undertaken by Donald Trump is an existential threat to civilisation.

These two realities are now colliding in public.

And somebody is going to get hurt.

Perhaps the most inspiring response has come from those refusing to acknowledge the improvement altogether.

A masterclass in discipline.

A triumph of commitment.

The pool may be cleaner.

The water may be clearer.

The tourists may be happier.

But principles matter.

And to progressives, the most important of those principles is that no matter what happens, no matter how obvious the outcome, and no matter how many photographs exist proving otherwise, Trump must remain wrong.

The Reflecting Pool was supposed to reflect the Lincoln Memorial. Instead, it has accidentally reflected something far more uncomfortable:

The limits of partisan outrage.

Officials are monitoring the situation closely.

Should visitors continue enjoying the refurbished landmark, further action may be required.

The Daily Shun. Where a good result is still problematic if the wrong person achieved it.

Subscribe now

By our Inclusive Language Correspondent.

For centuries, humanity has suffered under an oppressive linguistic regime.

Children had mothers.

Children had fathers.

People understood what these words meant, and the exclusion was unbearable.

Thankfully, New York lawmakers are finally doing something about it.

State Democrats are advancing legislation that would replace antiquated terms such as mother and father with more inclusive alternatives such as gestating parent and non-gestating parent.

At long last, family law can begin sounding like a malfunctioning HR seminar.

Subscribe now

Predictably, some bigots have objected. These individuals point out that billions of people identify as mothers and fathers.

Exactly.

That’s the problem.

If inclusivity is going to work properly, it cannot simply include additional people. It must necessarily exclude the majority of people to protect the feelings of a tiny minority.

Otherwise, how will anyone know we’re serious?

For too long, mothers have selfishly enjoyed being called mothers. Fatherhood has been celebrated openly. Family photographs have been labelled incorrectly.

Children have spent generations saying things like “I love my mom” and “I miss my dad” with a complete disregard for the feelings of legislative committees.

Thankfully, those carefree days may soon be behind us.

Subscribe now

Supporters of the proposal understand that true progress requires sacrifice. And by sacrifice, we mean sacrificing language used by virtually the entire human species to accommodate a tiny number of exceptional cases.

Sorry, but that’s simply the cost of compassion.

Some people have dared to suggest that lawmakers could simply add additional language while retaining the existing terms.

Shocking!

This is exactly the kind of dangerous moderation that slows vital progress.

If mothers are still allowed to be called mothers and fathers are still allowed to be called fathers, then what have we really achieved?

The goal is not, and has never been, accommodation. The goal is replacement.

A society where everyone belongs begins with ensuring that nobody gets to keep the words they actually use. No, they have to use the words we tell them to use!

That may sound authoritarian to some. But true inclusion has always required a willingness to make other people change.

Preferably lots of other people.

Which brings us to the genius of this proposal, and the real crux of the matter.

For generations, countless people have found joy in motherhood and fatherhood. Families have built identities around these roles. Entire cultures have celebrated them.

And frankly, few things are more exclusionary than a source of happiness that most people can relate to.

A truly inclusive society cannot permit billions of people to enjoy something that a very small number of people find uncomfortable.

That would be privilege.

Subscribe now

Instead, New York is showing us a better way. A way forward. A way where if one person cannot comfortably identify with a word, the word itself becomes the problem.

This is the progressive superpower.

The ability to look at a concept that has united humanity across languages, cultures, religions, and continents for thousands of years and conclude that it needs immediate revision by committee.

Mother.

Father.

Mom.

Dad.

These relics of the past may soon give way to the cleaner, warmer, and infinitely more human language of government documentation.

And honestly, who wouldn’t prefer being greeted by their loving non-gestating parent?

Just imagine the possibilities!

Gone will be the crude simplicity of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day.

Instead, families can gather together each year to celebrate Gestating Parent Appreciation Day and Non-Gestating Parent Recognition Week.

Much more natural.

Much warmer.

Much easier to fit on a greeting card.

Hallmark must already be preparing for the transition.

“To My Wonderful Gestating Parent...”

“Happy Non-Gestating Parent’s Day! Thank you for your administrative contribution to my existence.”

Please, try not to cry.

Subscribe now

And children will benefit too! No longer burdened by confusing terms like “mom” and “dad,” they can instead shout:

“The gestating parent says dinner is ready!”

Or:

“The non-gestating parent is picking me up from football practice!”

A far more human way to speak.

The terminology has already been thoroughly tested by thousands of online activists, many of whom possess almost minutes of real-world experience.

That kind of expertise is difficult to ignore.

Yup, if all goes according to plan, future generations may struggle to believe their ancestors ever used such primitive language.

Imagine explaining that people once said things like:

“I love my mother.”

How quaint.

How exclusionary.

How completely lacking in government-approved precision.

So thank you New York for once again reminding the world that progress requires courage.

The courage to redefine reality. The courage to replace common sense with compliance. The courage to look at words used by virtually every culture on Earth and decide they must be retired for the greater good.

After all, what is inclusivity if not the process of excluding the largest possible number of people in order to accommodate the smallest possible number?

The old world celebrated mothers and fathers.

The new world celebrates compliance.

The old world used language people understood.

The new world uses language approved by committees.

And if billions of people have to surrender the words that describe some of the most important relationships in their lives?

Well, that’s a sacrifice we’re prepared to make on their behalf.

The Daily Shun. Where if a word makes one person uncomfortable, nobody gets to use it.

Subscribe now

By our Department of Approved Speech Correspondent.

This is not how this is supposed to work.

For years, many of us have defended the sacred principle that controversial public figures should be denied platforms, barred from events, prevented from speaking, removed from social media, and occasionally erased from polite society altogether.

A beautiful principle.

A necessary principle.

A principle that functions best when applied to conservatives.

Which is why the news that Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker have reportedly had their UK travel permissions revoked ahead of speaking engagements has landed like a hammer blow across the progressive world.

The confusion is understandable.

After all, these are people who have spent years helping build the very culture that made this possible. And now, heartbreakingly, they are being asked to live in it.

Subscribe now

There must be some mistake. Platform denial is supposed to happen to people with the wrong opinions. Not people with our wrong opinions. This was meant to be a one-way system.

The reported decision prevented appearances linked to events including SXSW London and speaking engagements in Oxford.

Britain should be ashamed!

A nation that spent years perfecting the art of selectively restricting speech has suddenly become reckless enough to apply those restrictions without checking ideological credentials first.

Now yes, people have pointed out that both men have frequently supported deplatforming efforts directed at people they dislike politically.

Yes, there are clips. Yes, there are statements. Yes, there are entire years of public commentary that become extremely awkward when viewed in hindsight.

But dwelling on those details feels unnecessarily negative. The important thing is that it is happening to them now. And that changes everything.

Because censorship becomes deeply concerning the moment it affects somebody on the left.

That has always been the rule.

Subscribe now

And while certain commentators have spent the last few days highlighting Uygur’s inflammatory rhetoric or Hasan Piker’s long history of saying things that would instantly end most other public careers, that feels like a distraction.

These are fundamentally good people.

People who have merely described terrorist organisations in unusually creative ways. People who have occasionally defended indefensible things with tremendous confidence. People who have tried to downplay rape by saying that “Hamas isn’t perfect”. People who have sometimes wandered into antisemitic tropes, revolutionary rhetoric, or highly questionable commentary and simply refused to leave.

But good people nonetheless.

And really, isn’t that what progressivism is all about? Looking past people’s flaws. Provided those flaws point in the correct political direction.

What makes this especially tragic is that both men reportedly seem genuinely surprised by the situation.

And who can blame them? As progressives, they have spent years explaining that borders are little more than arbitrary lines on maps. Symbols. Concepts. Suggestions, really.

Expecting them to understand immigration enforcement would be like expecting a fish to understand bicycles. It’s just not fair. No wonder they appear confused when a country suddenly starts acting as though it has the sovereign right to control who can enter in.

There is, however, one small silver lining in all of this. For perhaps the first time in years, both men have achieved something every progressive secretly dreams of:

Victimhood!

Subscribe now

And what glorious victims they have become. Yes, technically they are now experiencing the very culture of deplatforming, exclusion, and speech restriction that they spent years enthusiastically promoting. But let’s not get bogged down in details.

The important thing is that they are experiencing it. Which means they now occupy one of the most prestigious positions in modern progressive society… The oppressed class.

This creates a fascinating paradox. On the one hand, it must be deeply upsetting to be denied entry into a country because of your views. On the other hand, being denied entry because of your views is exactly the sort of lived experience that carries enormous social capital.

In many ways, this may prove to be the best thing that ever happened to them. After all, there are few things more valuable in progressive circles than being able to say, “I have been silenced.” Especially when speaking to an audience of millions.

One can only imagine the excitement. The interviews. The podcasts. The fundraising opportunities. The endless social media posts documenting their struggle against the very machinery they previously assured everyone was necessary to protect society.

It’s a double-edged sword, certainly. But if history has taught us anything, it is that progressives possess an extraordinary ability to transform personal inconvenience into moral authority.

And now, thanks to the Labour government, Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker have finally been granted that most precious of modern commodities. A grievance of their very own!

A truly beautiful moment.

Subscribe now

However, there is a part of this whole saga that many progressive supporters are struggling with. And that the fact that this has happened in the UK.

Britain had long established itself as one of the world’s most reliable exporters of bureaucratic moral certainty. A place where speech restrictions, ideological policing, and narrative management could always be counted on to target the correct demographic. Their government is second only to Albanese’s Australian government when it comes to wokeness levels.

And yet here we are.

Watching a Labour governm ent enthusiastically demonstrate that immigration controls can, under rare circumstances, apply to left-wing activists too.

No wonder people are upset.

The entire architecture of modern outrage depends on consistency being avoided. Once the same standards start applying to everybody, the system becomes impossible to understand. Fortunately, many activists are already working to restore order.

The argument emerging online is simple: When conservatives are banned from speaking, it protects society. When left-wing influencers are banned from speaking, democracy itself is under attack.

A distinction that feels both reasonable and extremely important.

Because if progressives are forced to endure the consequences of systems they enthusiastically supported when directed at others, then nobody is safe.

And that would be the real injustice here.

The Daily Shun. Where censorship only becomes censorship when it reaches the wrong people.

Subscribe now

By our Equality Through Compliance Correspondent.

In what can only be described as a monumental victory for progress, common sense has finally been defeated in Australia.

Yes, after years of legal wrangling, the courts have delivered a historic ruling in the case involving Sall Grover and her women-only social networking platform, Giggle for Girls.

The message is clear:

A girls-only app must be open to anyone except people attempting to make it girls-only.

Subscribe now

For those unfamiliar with the case, Giggle was created specifically as a social networking platform for women.

That’s right, a woman built an app, this app was for women to chat and connect with other women.

A noble idea at first glance.

But unfortunately, it suffered from a fatal flaw. It was designed just for women. Anyone familiar with the progressive position on women knows that having spaces just for women is a big no no!

Thankfully, Australia’s legal system has stepped in to correct this oversight.

The case centred on whether a transgender-identifying male should be permitted access to a platform explicitly created for women.

For years, many far right radicals have argued that women should be allowed to define female-only spaces. The Australian Federal Court has just put an end to such dangerous thinking.

The court has ruled that an app created just for woman is illegal, because when you create an app just for women, you discriminate against people who are not biological women. It couldn’t be more clear.

The courts sighted the Sex Discrimination Act as the core reason for their decision. This deserves an extra round of applause. For the first time, A law used to protect women has now been used to punish a woman for creating a space just for women. Victory is sweet!

Subscribe now

This ruling represents a major step forward in the long-running progressive mission to ensure that every female-only space remains accessible to biological males under the correct circumstances.

And by “correct circumstances,” we mean whenever one demands to be let in.

Sall Grover had apparently made the mistake of believing that a platform called Giggle for Girls should primarily serve girls.

An understandable misunderstanding. But one that has now been corrected through the educational power of litigation.

Critics have claimed that this outcome undermines the very purpose of the app. But these people are failing to appreciate the bigger picture.

The purpose of a women-only space is not to provide women with a women-only space. The purpose of a women-only space is to demonstrate how inclusive progressives truly are.

What better way to demonstrate inclusivity than ensuring the one group the space was created for has absolutely no say over its boundaries?

Some have described the ruling as a conflict between women’s rights and gender identity rights. Wrong! There is no conflict. The right side has won. Deal with it!

Subscribe now

Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the ruling is the precedent it creates. if a girls-only app can no longer exclude males, imagine the possibilities. Biological men could soon be making a comeback in Australian women’s sports! Penises could make long awaited returns to women’s only gyms and spas! The possibilities for inclusivity are endless.

And while some old-fashioned people may continue clinging to outdated ideas about sex, privacy, and boundaries, Australia has once again shown the world what leadership looks like.

Not listening to women. Not respecting the stated purpose of a women-only service. But ensuring absolute ideological consistency at all costs.

For years, progressives have argued that inclusion requires sacrifice.

With this ruling, women have learned whose sacrifice was being discussed.

By declaring that sex is no longer a biological reality, Australia has once again cemented its position as a global fortress of progressive values. What a relief that there is still a leading western nation keeping the sacred progressive narrative alive. A nation brave enough to look at an app called Giggle for Girls and conclude that the real problem was the “for girls” part.

The Daily Shun. Where inclusion means never being allowed to say no.

Subscribe now

By our Extremism and Inclusion Editor.

Britain witnessed two very different public gatherings this weekend.

One involved ordinary citizens marching through London carrying Union Jacks, speaking openly and honestly about real issues that the country faces.

The other involved self-described anti-fascists chanting about Tommy Robinson being strung up and shot in the neck like Charlie Kirk.

Thankfully, the media was immediately able to identify which side posed the real threat.

Subscribe now

Yes, the Unite the Kingdom march drew thousands of deeply problematic Britons into the streets.

Construction workers. Families. Veterans. Middle-aged women carrying England flags. An absolutely chilling sight. The scale of the far-right presence was particularly alarming. Children. Pensioners. People of colour.

All marching together beneath that deeply offensive Union Jack.

Perhaps most disturbing of all was the unexpectedly high number of non-white attendees. A serious complication. For years, the public has been carefully taught that concerns around immigration, integration, or national identity are rooted entirely in racism.

And yet there were black Britons, Asian Britons, Eastern Europeans, Africans, and even recent legal immigrants openly supporting the march.

Very unhelpful behaviour.

Many of these misguided individuals were reportedly expressing the bizarre belief that culture, values, social cohesion, and shared expectations might actually matter more than race or skin colour.

Clearly no one has told them that this is a deeply outdated way of thinking.

Some recent immigrants even spoke proudly about entering the country legally and wanting Britain to remain stable, safe, and culturally British. Which, frankly, felt incredibly selfish.

While they may have followed the rules themselves, that does not give them the right to undermine the narrative by suggesting borders and integration are important.

Subscribe now

Several attendees also made the deeply inflammatory claim that people from all racial backgrounds are capable of sharing national identity. This kind of rhetoric risks undoing a lot of carefully curated division.

This has made it significantly harder to explain how a crowd made up of tradesmen, immigrants, mothers, black British patriots, and old ladies in folding chairs represents an imminent fascist uprising.

While the crowd itself may not have matched traditional expectations of extremism, the rhetoric certainly did.

Calls for border security. Concerns about immigration levels. Demands for women and girls to be able to walk the streets and feel safe. Public affection for Britain.

Taken individually, these positions may appear harmless.

But combined together beneath a Union Jack, experts agree the implications become clearly far right.

Meanwhile, the counter-protest delivered the kind of compassion modern activism has become known for.

Crowds screamed abuse through megaphones while holding signs warning about fascism, all while openly fantasising about executing political opponents in public. Democracy at its finest. It was honestly a pleasure to see.

Subscribe now

Other observers described the atmosphere as “tense,” “aggressive,” and “wildly comfortable with political violence,” though organisers insist critics are taking the chants out of context.

Obviously, repeatedly shouting about shooting someone in the neck is actually a sophisticated form of anti-hate activism once properly interpreted by journalists.

Footage from the event showed anti-racist protesters screaming into the faces of police officers, threatening opponents, and generally displaying the calm emotional discipline progressivism is famous for.

By comparison, attendees at the Unite the Kingdom rally spent much of the day waving flags, taking photos, and singing songs. Which, in fairness, can feel extremely threatening when the flags are British.

Perhaps the most troubling reporting of all came from influencer and journalist Based and Bougie, who documented scenes from the march that completely undermined the approved narrative.

According to her coverage, the atmosphere resembled less a fascist uprising and more some kind of community carnival.

People dancing.
Families laughing.
Strangers hugging.
Women greeting attendees with kisses on the cheek.

At one point, groups of different ethnicities were reportedly seen chatting together beneath Union Jacks while discussing how much they loved Britain. Completely unacceptable optics.

Subscribe now

Because genuine extremism is supposed to look angry, hateful, and racially segregated. Not multicultural crowds enjoying themselves in broad daylight.

Naturally, Based and Bougie herself has now come under suspicion. After all, as a black woman publicly refusing to describe the march as a Nazi rally, many online activists have been left with only one possible conclusion:

She must be a white supremacist.

Admittedly, not in the traditional sense. But modern political language has evolved considerably. At this stage, “white supremacist” simply refers to anyone disrupting the storyline, regardless of race, ethnicity, or basic observable reality.

The modern progressive movement has spent a lot of time and energy carefully explaining that excessive displays of British identity are inherently suspicious.

And rightly so.

National pride, when expressed by the native population, can very quickly spiral into dangerous behaviours like social cohesion or cultural confidence. That path ends nowhere good.

This helps explain why thousands of people carrying Union Jacks created such understandable panic among commentators and activists.

Many online users described the scenes as “terrifying.” Not because violence broke out. There was very little of that. But because the crowd looked unapologetically British. And in modern Britain, that kind of unchecked cultural confidence could be deeply destabilising.

Thankfully, these concerns disappear almost immediately when the flag belongs to another country. In fact, imported nationalism remains one of the most beautiful and enriching parts of modern Western society.

Which is why Palestinian flags completely dominated the counter-rally. A stunning display of solidarity, compassion, and geographically selective patriotism.

Because when activists wave the flag of another nation while marching through Britain and chanting about shooting political opponents in the neck, that isn’t nationalism at all.

That’s empathy, and the counter-protesters truly embodied that, and the values Britain’s institutions hold dear: Diversity. Tolerance. Open-mindedness.
Public fantasies about executing people they dislike politically.

A genuinely uplifting display.

Subscribe now

Now, some critics have become strangely fixated on the Charlie Kirk references and execution chants. But this feels unfairly literal.

Progressive activism has always relied on emotional language. And if that language occasionally includes detailed descriptions of political murder, perhaps that simply reflects the depth of people’s compassion.

Pain was present. Frustration was present. And above all else, there was a sincere desire to permanently silence views they disagree with. Which, in many activist circles, is really the purest form of inclusion.

Perhaps the most inspiring part of the weekend, however, was watching establishment voices once again step forward to calmly reassure the public that the true threat to Britain remains “far-right nationalism.”

A remarkable display of discipline, particularly given the awkward reality that one side spent the afternoon waving flags, eating sandwiches, and taking selfies with pensioners, while the other loudly workshopped political executions through megaphones beneath Palestinian flags.

But thankfully, the experts were able to look past these distractions and stay focused on what really matters.

And so, after another successful weekend of democratic expression, Britain can rest easy knowing the fight against extremism continues.

Especially the uniquely dangerous extremism of ordinary families waving Union Jacks and saying nice things about their own country.

The Daily Shun. Where patriotism is extremism and threats are activism.

Subscribe now

Following the latest assassination attempt on Donald Trump, progressives across the internet have bravely stepped forward once again to clarify an important point:

The left are still not the violent ones!

It’s becoming deeply offensive that people keep insisting on bringing up examples every single time progressives are described as peaceful. It’s almost as if setting things on fire, celebrating political violence, and openly fantasising about assassinations are being unfairly used as evidence of some kind of pattern.

Yes, some online activists may have appeared mildly disappointed that Trump survived. Yes, there were thousands of posts openly wishing the shooter had succeeded. Yes, hashtags trended.

But can we really call that violence?

Words are not violence. Unless they come from conservatives, obviously.

Subscribe now

Besides, it’s important to understand the context.

People are frustrated. And when progressives become frustrated, they occasionally express themselves through interpretive outrage, property damage, or attempted political cleansing.

That’s just liberal democracy.

Just think about how “those people” love to vilify BLM.

What for? It was a beautiful period of mostly peaceful civic engagement during which only a handful of cities experienced spontaneous fire-related urban renewal.

Sure, businesses were looted. Police stations burned. People were assaulted in the streets. But focusing on that misses the bigger picture.

The message. The healing. The mostly peacefulness.

I mean, if a few family-owned stores had to be sacrificed so activists could smash windows for justice, isn’t that just the cost of progress? Luckily BLM were able to successfully rebrand themselves as a luxury property portfolio… So a happy ending there for all involved.

Subscribe now

The same principle applies to anti-Tesla demonstrations.

Critics have unfairly characterised the firebombing of electric vehicles as “extremism,” when in reality it was simply environmentally conscious emotional processing.

Yes, most of the Teslas that were vandalised belonged to average citizens, and the same goes for the dealerships that were attacked. And sure, the drivers who’s lives were threatened had nothing to do with the company’s evil owner.

But Elon Musk made people feel unsafe by allowing open discussion online. And if there’s one thing we’ve learned from modern progressivism, it’s that emotional discomfort absolutely justifies physical retaliation.

Don’t even get me started on all the claims about ANTIFA.

A deeply misunderstood community theatre group dedicated to punching fascism wherever they imagine it to be.

Sometimes that means screaming at old women. Sometimes it means attacking journalists. Sometimes it means assaulting mothers in front of their children, because they’re so bigoted that they don’t want their daughters exposed to lady penises at the Korean spa.

Hey, nobody’s perfect.

Subscribe now

What happened to Riley Gaines is another case conservatives love to point out.

The former athlete who made the grave mistake of publicly disagreeing with progressive orthodoxy on gender ideology. As a result, she was chased across a university campus by screaming activists, barricaded inside rooms for her own safety, and subjected to death threats by people passionately committed to inclusion.

But once again, context matters!

Riley was expressing opinions progressives dislike. Once you understand that, the whole thing becomes far less concerning. After all, the left has always supported women speaking out. Provided they’re saying the correct things.

And of course, no celebration of progressive non-violence would be complete without mentioning the Free Palestine movement, one of the most peaceful protest movements ever to aggressively occupy university buildings while screaming revolutionary slogans through megaphones.

Now yes, protesters do regularly chant “From the river to the sea.” And yes, many people continue pointing out that the phrase is widely understood as a call for the elimination of Israel and the extermination of all Jews from the region.

But in fairness to the activists, most of them couldn’t actually point out which river or which sea they’re referring to. So it’s hard to expect them to fully understand what they’re calling for.

This is what makes progressive activism so beautiful. The passion comes first. The facts can always be googled later.

And while there may have been isolated incidents involving Jewish students being harassed, threatened, blocked from accessing parts of campus, or forced to navigate mobs screaming in their faces, it’s important not to overreact.

Universities are, after all, spaces for difficult conversations.

Subscribe now

While critics continue obsessing over left-wing hostility, they completely ignore the movement’s incredible commitment to inclusion.

After all, no political ideology has done more to bring people together through shared hatred of people like JK Rowling. Death threats. Bomb threats. Doxxing campaigns. All carried out in the name of kindness.

Even the celebrations surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk have been wildly misrepresented.

What some described as “cheering political violence” was actually communities coming together to process grief in a very unique and festive way.

And now, after three assassination attempts against Trump, we once again find ourselves facing unfair accusations that years of apocalyptic rhetoric may have contributed to an increasingly unstable political climate.

Ridiculous.

Just because activists spent years calling Trump Hitler, a fascist dictator, a threat to democracy, and the literal embodiment of evil does not mean anyone should draw a connection when unstable people attempt to kill him.

That would be irresponsible.

The real issue here is tone. Specifically, the tone of people noticing things.

Because clearly the left remains, unquestionably, the side of peace.

A peace occasionally expressed through riots, intimidation, censorship, arson, murder and politically motivated fantasies of assassination, but peace nonetheless.

So please stop calling the left violent, because it’s exhausting having to explain this over and over again.

The Daily Shun. Where violence is mostly peaceful when correctly branded.

Subscribe now

At last.

After years of simmering tension, uncertainty, and entirely avoidable distractions like “where the money is going,” Minnesota has finally confronted the issue that truly matters:

The flag wasn’t vibing.

And so, in a bold and necessary act of cultural leadership, the state has unveiled a new design, one that critics are unfairly claiming looks suspiciously similar to the Somali national flag.

Which is ridiculous.

Yes, the colours are similar.
Yes, the simplicity is familiar.
Yes, it looks like something you’ve definitely seen before.

But that’s where the similarities end.

This is not copying.

This is ideological alignment, and it’s way more necessary than any other issue facing the state of Minnesota today.

Subscribe now

Frankly, it’s about time Minnesota stopped centring itself and started embracing a more global identity. Because what is a state, really, if not a blank canvas for cultural reinterpretation?

Predictably, conservatives have reacted badly.

They’ve spoken about “heritage,” “history,” and “state pride”, as if those things are meant to remain fixed over time.

As if identity isn’t something that should be updated whenever a better option presents itself.

Which it clearly has.

Now, some have attempted to derail this progress by bringing up what they insist on calling “massive fraud issues” within the state.

Millions in taxpayer money. Ongoing investigations. More and more irregularities.

Subscribe now

Honestly.

The timing couldn’t be worse. While there may or may not be large-scale financial concerns unfolding, it is absolutely critical that we do not lose sight of the real crisis:

The old flag.

This is what leadership looks like. The ability to focus on what’s visible. What’s shareable. What can be fixed quickly and pointed to proudly while everything else continues to… develop.

And to their credit, state Democrats have responded with breathtaking urgency. The kind of urgency that only emerges when something truly important is at stake.

They have defended the new flag. Protected the new flag. Elevated the new flag to a level of significance that most policy areas can only dream of.

Meanwhile, other issues (less photogenic ones) have been responsibly deprioritised.

As they should be.

Because addressing fraud, particularly when it intersects with certain communities, introduces unnecessary complexity. It raises questions and it risks outcomes.

Whereas defending a flag?

That’s clean. That’s simple. That’s a fight you can win!

Subscribe now

Encouragingly, some lawmakers are now taking things a step further. Recognising that not everyone has immediately embraced the new identity, they are exploring ways to encourage compliance among stubborn cities and districts.

These holdouts, clinging to outdated ideas like “choice” and “local control”, have been hiding behind state laws that allow them to decide which flags to display. A deeply problematic interpretation.

While the law may say they can choose, it doesn’t explicitly say they can choose wrong.

And so, a new solution is being proposed. A Practical one.

Cut the funding.

Police services.
Fire departments.
Schools.
Emergency response.

If a community refuses to align symbolically and bend the knee, the only reasonable response is to ensure that the consequences are felt materially.

No this is not punishment. This is simply re-education. A clear and unmistakable message:

You will fly the flag progressives have chose. Or you will find yourself operating without the resources typically associated with functioning society.

Growth often comes with sacrifice, usually from someone else.

If institutions are allowed to opt out of coordinated messaging, it raises difficult questions. About independence. About local decision-making.
About whether people might start thinking for themselves.

Far better to keep things aligned, consistent and predictable.

After all, nothing brings people together quite like shared pressure. And if, in the process, the state ends up with a flag that feels slightly unfamiliar, slightly imported, and slightly disconnected from its own history…

Then perhaps that’s not a flaw.

Perhaps it’s the point.

The Daily Shun. Where optics always come first.

Subscribe now

In a deeply disappointing setback for global progress, the Netherlands has rejected all 76 asylum applications from American citizens who bravely fled what they described as the “unbearable tyranny” of Donald Trump.

Yes. All 76. Rejected.

The applicants, many identifying as transgender, had reportedly sought refuge from what they described as an increasingly hostile political environment in the United States, one characterised by the existence of opposing viewpoints, election outcomes, and the general discomfort of not always getting their way.

Conditions no human should be expected to endure.

Subscribe now

Dutch officials, however, took a more… technical view.

After reviewing the applications, they concluded that the claims did not meet the threshold for asylum, which traditionally requires evidence of war, imprisonment, or credible threats to life.

A narrow interpretation, some might say.

What about emotional distress? What about the psychological toll of living under a government you strongly disagree with? What about the daily trauma of encountering opinions that haven’t been pre-approved?

At present, it seems, these factors remain frustratingly absent from international asylum law.

Sources suggest that officials struggled to categorise the claims under existing frameworks, with one insider noting that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not currently recognised as grounds for protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

A glaring oversight.

Subscribe now

Adding to the distress, many of the applicants have expressed further shock upon discovering that they are not, in fact, allowed to simply enter the Netherlands illegally and begin their new lives immediately.

Instead, they have been placed in holding facilities while their claims are processed.

Holding facilities!

The experience has been described as “confusing” and “unexpected,” particularly for individuals accustomed to the idea that borders are largely symbolic and that movement between countries should be guided primarily by intention.

Several applicants reportedly assumed that arrival and a clear expression of distress would be enough to secure entry, a fair expectation, given years of messaging around openness and moral obligation.

However, Dutch authorities appear to be operating under a different system.

One that includes procedures.
Verification.
And, most controversially, patience.

Subscribe now

The idea that asylum seekers, regardless of origin, might be subject to the same rules has come as a particular surprise.

The rejection has sparked outrage among those who believe asylum should evolve to reflect modern realities, including the lived experience of feeling unsafe, even when one is physically safe.

Because safety, as we know, is about perception, not about objective conditions.

Many of the applicants had reportedly expected a warmer reception, given Europe’s reputation for progressive values and humanitarian openness.

Instead, they were met with bureaucracy and an insistence on substantiation, a standard widely considered outdated in contemporary discourse. There is also the troubling implication that not all claims of oppression are treated equally.

That some must be supported.
That some must be demonstrated.
That some must, quite literally, exist.

Subscribe now

This raises serious questions about the future of asylum. If individuals fleeing discomfort, disagreement, or unfavourable election results are not granted refuge, then who is?

Where is the line?

And more importantly, who gets to draw it?

For now, the answer appears to be: the Dutch government.

A decision that has left many wondering whether Europe is truly committed to the values it claims to uphold, or whether it still clings to outdated notions like “evidence” and “criteria.”

The 76 applicants are expected to explore alternative options, including returning to the United States or seeking asylum in countries with a more flexible understanding of reality, the UK perhaps.

Until then, the message is clear.

Not all suffering is recognised.
Not all fear is validated.
And not all narratives are accepted, even when they really, truly feel true.

The Daily Shun. Where reality is still under review.

Subscribe now