You Cancelled Us and Now We Cancel You

The left birthed cancel culture. They cheered when Aunt Jemimah was erased, when the Redskins were renamed, and when Uncle Ben quietly disappeared. They toppled statues and called it progress.

But they never imagined the blade might swing back.

Stephen Colbert? Fading. Jimmy Kimmel? Flailing. The View? On life support.

There's an old warning: Be careful what you wish for—you might just get it. And they did. They got the culture war they wanted. But they didn't count on the majority waking up.

They thought "woke" was popular. That it was righteous. That it was winning.

Then Bud Light happened. Then Target. Then Cracker Barrel. Then the 2024 election when the Democrats lost everything and Kamala Harris conceded to Donald Trump.

Now the cancellations are coming for them. Not out of spite, but out of clarity. The progressive movement is being rejected—not by fringe voices, but by the silent majority who never bought the message in the first place. 

It was easy to shout when the megaphone was theirs. It was easy to silence dissent when the media played backup. And thus, it was easy to pretend the country had changed.

But it hadn't.

We hadn't.

Our values didn't shift. Our principles didn't vanish. The foundation of this nation—its decency, its grit, its common sense—remained intact. The left just tried to convince us otherwise. Like magicians, they used smoke, mirrors and camera angles to sell the trick.

But we saw through it.

And now the same cancel culture they weaponized is being turned on the false narratives, the curated outrage, and against the phantom majority.

We're setting the record straight.

They stood at podiums, hijacked sporting events, hijacked award shows, and told us what to think. And for a while we listened. Some even nodded along.

Maybe the word DID change, and we just fell a bit behind getting the memo?

But then we talked to each other. We looked around and we realized, "This isn't us. This isn't the whole. This isn't the truth."

So, thank you for the invention. We'll use it now for the common good. Because good always wins. And your mistake was believing evil could prevail.

You tried to cancel everything we hold dear. Now, we're cancelling the lie.

We win.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

©2025 Jim Bauer

The Ridiculousness of Offense

When you think of a Mexican, what readily comes to mind is a little brown faced man with a colorful textile over his shoulder, wearing a sombrero and riding a burro. For the record, not all Mexicans have brown skin. Not all Mexicans wear a sombrero. And few Mexicans actually ride a burro. Yet amazingly, you don't hear stories of Mexicans calling for the abolishment of all such depictions.

Because it happens to be ridiculous, and most Mexicans who I have known actually find this to be a bit of a funny look back at their roots.

Just like our roots in the Old West. How many Americans would find it to be offensive to have us depicted as ten gallon hat wearing, gun toting, horse riding outlaws? I could cite many instances of certain stereotypes associated with myriad ethnicities. Slanty-eyed Asians drawn with simple slits for example.

And of course there are the Indians, and the latest target for the perpetually offended, the Washington Redskins.

Roger Goodell recently said in a radio interview that the league needs to be listening to their fans and if even one person is offended, they need to ensure that they are doing the right things to try and address that.

In some ways I can catch Goodell's drift. It's about the league, and the league is about the fans. But the league is also essentially a capitalist enterprise, and capitalism is about what works. Dan Snyder, the owner of the Redskins football team, has said he will never cave to pressure to change the name. And I think what he is really saying is that so long as the majority of Redskins fans continue to go to games, and so longs as the Redskins franchise continues to be an enterprise that makes money and has support of the majority of the team and fans to be called the Redskins, then the name will remain. I am certain that if the books began to show signs of stress, and that stress could be directly tied to the team's name, then he would likely do as any businessman would do and take into account that perhaps the name hurts rather than helps the franchise, and he would take any steps necessary to remedy that.

This does not appear to be the case right now, and all indicators seem to suggest that the majority of fans are not in any way affected by the Redskins name, and nor is the bottom line affected. So why change the name? Why cave to a few people who want it to be changed?

Where Goodell gets it wrong in my opinion is when he suggests that the minority should have the power to impose undue pressure against the majority. This is not to say that he should not be listening, nor that Dan Snyder should cave. But we happen to live in a world where nearly everyone is offended by something, and if you start to listen too much to any one of these individual and minority offenses, you really begin to become muddled in a constant, and ever more confusing process as to how to proceed.

The Redskins should listen. And the league should listen as well. But they should be listening to the loudest voice in the room more closely.

Personally I think the idea that the Redskins name is somehow pejorative toward Indians is way overblown, and out of whack with logical thinking. But that's just my opinion. Nor do I think that selling a taco using a stereotypical depiction of a Mexican is pejorative.

I think the Redskins is a respected brand, certainly to the fans of the team, and so long as that remains true, so should remain the name.

Take products like Aunt Gemima pancake syrup, or Uncle Ben's rice. These could be considered offensive according to some. But again, so long as the consumers of these brands continue to buy and respect the quality of these products, the companies who produce them will continue to keep them on the shelves. If consumers suddenly stop buying the products, of course the companies would have to make an evaluation as to why. If it turned out that it was the name, or the face on the box, certainly they would have to decide to rebrand the product to remain in line with the demand and preferences of the consumer. You don't come to that decision when the vast majority of your customers like your product exactly the way it is. You only do it when the minority becomes the majority and it begins to hurt the brand, and not a minute sooner.