Staff Reports
In the latest episode of our national reality show, America 2025, the issue of the n-word has taken center stage once again, offering a spectacle that underscores the contradictions and absurdities of progressive race debates. This time, it all unfolded on Piers Morgan’s show, featuring a panel loaded with personalities you wouldn’t expect to be mingling over tea and crumpets. There was Myron Gaines, Lilly Gaddis, and Marc Lamont Hill, the latter known for his trademark brand of outrage and race-baiting activism.
As Piers temptingly nudged Gaddis into saying the infamous word, Marc Lamont Hill trembled as though on the verge of implosion, claiming that uttering the word in his presence would be akin to inflicting harm upon him. A strange claim, particularly given the heated discussion, revealing the labyrinth of hypocrisy underlying the supposed stance.
Attempting to navigate this circus of contradictions, Hill frantically protested the racial slurs being discussed. It was much like watching a neighbor specifically opposed to peanut butter sandwiches, yet devouring a bag of honey-roasted peanuts while chastising you for your lunch choice. The whole performance was an exercise in cognitive dissonance, reflecting the reality that some words have become sacred cows, untouchable by certain demographics.
Yet, the problem is not that Marc doesn’t like the word. After all, most reasonable people agree it is vulgar. The real issue lies in the inconsistency and hysteria perpetuated by activists like him, who demand rules that change based on who’s speaking, rather than focusing on a universal standard of decency. It’s as if logic takes a holiday whenever the discussion turns to this overcharged topic.
What reason do progressives have to be so theatrically panicked about a word they use freely, only restricted by skin tone? The rule seems intentionally convoluted, as if designed to control rather than promote genuine mutual respect. It seems that we’ve entered a cultural era where blatant inconsistencies are touted as truths, provided they serve the narrative of a vocal few. And when challenged, the response isn’t dialogue, but threats and tantrums akin to children denied dessert.
The show must go on, as they say, but we as a society need to pause and question these bizarre rituals and linguistic acrobatics. We could simply agree that certain words are offensive and choose not to use them across the board—novel idea, isn’t it? Yet until that day comes, the show will continue, as tiresome and predictable as it may be, with more episodes of selective outrage and virtue signaling. For now, it seems like we’re all just extras in this unsettling drama, waiting for the plot twist where common sense finally makes its grand entrance.
