Cancel culture fired Shane Gillis — America hired him back



In July, Shane Gillis made comedy history, selling more than 77,000 tickets and setting records for the largest audience for a comedian and the most tickets sold for a solo stand-up act. The achievement put him past names like Kevin Hart, Steve Martin, and German stand-up Mario Barth.

It also came just seven years after cancel culture nearly killed his career.

Shane Gillis did not beat cancel culture by becoming less offensive. He beat it by becoming too successful to cancel.

In 2019, shortly after Comedy Central named him an “Up Next” comedian, Gillis landed the job every comic dreams about: a spot on “Saturday Night Live.” Then old clips surfaced of him doing a mock Asian accent and using a racial slur. Other clips featured supposedly unacceptable jokes about gay people. Within days, SNL fired him. Gillis later described the experience as painful enough to make it hard to “trust people ... for a while.”

The timing was brutal. Gillis was fired during what we now recognize as peak woke, when careers could vanish because somebody with a Twitter account dug through 10 years of jokes and found the wrong sentence.

He was hardly alone. Sarah Silverman faced backlash over an old blackface bit. Dave Chappelle was attacked for mocking Michael Jackson’s accusers. Kevin Hart’s old tweets were dragged back into the spotlight. Suddenly the internet had discovered a tremendous new power: If enough people pretended to be offended at once, they could get somebody fired.

For a while, almost everyone played along.

That was always the secret of cancel culture. It was never a magical force. It was a consensual ideology. It worked because institutions submitted to it, employers feared it, and ordinary people convinced themselves that refusing to obey would make them the next target.

Words became temporarily unsayable. Leftists rewrote definitions and then declared that only certain people were allowed to use them. “Gone with the Wind” was pulled from streaming. James Gunn and Gina Carano lost jobs. People learned to keep their mouths shut because being called racist, sexist, or homophobic could cost them a career.

The woke mob did not win because everyone agreed with it. It won because too many people were afraid to laugh at it.

Now, two presidencies removed from peak woke, the whole thing looks much sillier. Plenty of celebrities once declared untouchable have returned to the mainstream. Land acknowledgments and pronoun rituals have become punch lines. “Culturally insensitive,” the kind of phrase that helped sink Gillis, sounds increasingly like a relic from a very stupid age.

So people post offensive jokes, recycle old podcast clips, and celebrate that “woke is dead.”

I would not start planning the funeral.

Cancel culture isn’t dead. It’s hiding.

Conservatives have every reason to feel confident right now. Republicans control Congress and the presidency. The administration has attacked “diversity, equity, and inclusion” throughout the federal government. The Supreme Court has handed down major victories protecting women’s sports. It can be tempting to believe the culture could never slide back to 2019.

RELATED: BILL PILLED: Maher warns fellow Democrats that they're headed for woke-tastrophe

Shannon Finney/WireImage/Getty Images

But Donald Trump was president in 2019 too.

The first and second Trump administrations are very different, but Trump’s presence by itself does not prevent a woke resurgence. Cultural power does not live only in Washington. It lives in entertainment, universities, corporations, HR departments, newsrooms, and the countless people who decide whether the mob gets rewarded for showing up.

Gillis’ comeback is encouraging precisely because he did not wait for those institutions to forgive him.

Podcasts gave him somewhere else to go. After SNL fired him, Gillis joked that he could just appear on Joe Rogan’s podcast and everything would be fine. And he was right. Audiences increasingly learned that independently produced shows could be funnier, more honest, and less filtered than legacy television.

That shift reached well beyond comedy. Podcasts became a major force in the 2024 election. Trump and JD Vance used long-form appearances to show voters their humor and personalities outside carefully managed television interviews. Kamala Harris’ refusal to sit down with Rogan only reinforced the contrast. In the peak-woke era, scripted liberal slogans might have been enough. By 2024, they sounded canned.

Comedy is often the canary in the coal mine because comedy requires tension, risk, and the possibility that somebody will be offended. A culture that cannot tolerate a joke will eventually struggle to tolerate an argument.

Gillis rebuilt his career, but comedians are still testing the limits. Jerry Seinfeld said the “extreme left has suppressed the art of comedy,” then later walked that back by saying culture moves and a comedian’s job is to adapt. David Spade criticized L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom for “killing Hollywood” and took heat for it. Nate Bargatze was slammed simply for attending Trump’s UFC event at the White House.

RELATED: Colorado fire department employee FIRED over Snoop Dogg doll that ‘evoked’ history of ‘racial terror’

Heidi Gutman/Bravo/Getty Images

That is what hiding looks like. The old cultural reflex is still there, waiting for institutions to become afraid again.

Woke politics will not return because somebody waves a magic wand. It will return one concession at a time: one employee fired to stop a controversy, one joke declared beyond the pale, one institution deciding it is easier to surrender than tell an angry mob no.

That is why conservatives should resist the temptation to declare victory and go home. Free speech survives only when people keep using it. Comedy survives only when comedians keep telling the joke. Culture stays open only when institutions refuse to hand professional hecklers a veto.

The late, great Norm Macdonald understood this better than most. Early in his career, he joked: “People were beginning to talk about me, and that’s always good news. As Adolf Hitler once said, all publicity is good publicity.”

Shane Gillis did not beat cancel culture by becoming less offensive. He beat it by becoming too successful to cancel. That’s worth celebrating. It is not a reason to stop paying attention.

Can Leftists Really Cancel The Fourth of July?

The Left has been discrediting the Founders, and the Founding, for a very long time.

To Stop Radicalizing America’s Youth, Yale Needs To Change A Lot More Than Its Mission Statement

Elite universities should demonstrate a genuine commitment to reforming the environment that has helped radicalize a generation.

Jimmy Kimmel doubles down on Melania ‘widow’ jab — will this be the nail in his coffin?



On April 23, just two days before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Jimmy Kimmel released a skit parodying the event, during which he joked that Melania Trump had "a glow like an expectant widow.”

Of course, at the actual WHCD, President Trump and others in the administration were victims of yet another assassination attempt.

But instead of apologizing for his comment, which Melania called “hateful and violent rhetoric” and cause for his firing, Kimmel doubled down.

“[It] obviously was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together. It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am,” the late-night host said. “It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination, and they know that.”

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales isn’t buying Kimmel’s excuses. This time, she argues, he may have pushed his luck too far.

- YouTube

“Jimmy Kimmel: His time might finally be up,” says Sara, pointing to Kimmel’s history of making deliberately inflammatory comments.

In September 2025, immediately following the murder of Charlie Kirk, Kimmel made a comment many viewed as insensitive or politicizing the killing, sparking massive backlash, threats from the FCC chairman, affiliate stations pulling his show, and ABC temporarily suspending “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”

“After everything had happened and after all of the blowback that he had had, has he learned anything?” asks Sara. “The answer is no. They never do.”

She highlights the left’s glaring double standard when it comes to humor.

“They are outraged any time President Trump ever tells [a joke]. ... In fact, nobody on the right can ever tell a joke without them being just horrified, without them clutching their pearls,” she rails.

Sara also makes fun of the left’s obsession with cancel culture, only to turn around and whine about it when it affects one of their own.

“The left has never engaged in cancel culture and called for people to be fired. They only created the damn game,” she scoffs, pointing to recent headlines from CBS News, People, and Poynter defending Kimmel against calls from President Trump and Melania for his firing.

But despite mainstream media coming to his rescue, Sara is hopeful that Kimmel will actually be canned this time.

“There is a new sheriff in town at Disney,” she says, referring to Josh D’Amaro, who replaced Bob Iger as CEO of Disney in March this year.

D’Amaro, she says, may do things differently to avoid the scandals that pushed Iger out the door.

“This is going to be his first test of going head-to-head with President Trump, and the same sort of drama took down a former Disney CEO, so … you would imagine he’s going to want to stay on President Trump’s good side,” she speculates.

But on top of playing nice with Trump, there’s also the issue of Kimmel’s unpopularity.

“I mean, when you look at his ratings, he doesn't seem to be worth saving,” says Sara, displaying a chart of Kimmel’s cataclysmic fall from peak popularity in 2015 to all-time lows in 2026.

“I'm just trying to will [Kimmel’s firing] into existence. … Can you blame me?” she asks. “I just want these people to … have a taste of their own medicine.”

To hear more and watch the Kimmel clips, check out the video above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Comedian defends Jimmy Kimmel from cancel culture: ‘It’s still a joke’



Jimmy Kimmel’s “widow” joke about first lady Melania Trump has sparked sharp criticism from the Trump administration — with President Donald Trump and Melania Trump going so far as to call for ABC to fire the comedian.

“Our first lady, Melania, is here. ... So beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow,” Kimmel said in his monologue.

Not only did the president and the first lady not find the joke funny, but the timing made its reception even worse.

“As the first lady of the United States pointed out this morning, just two days prior to the shooting, ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel disgustingly called first lady Melania Trump an ‘expectant widow,’” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said after the most recent attempt on President Trump’s life.

“Who in their right mind says a wife would be glowing over the potential murder of her beloved husband?” Leavitt continued.


“And having experienced what I did with the first lady on Saturday night, I can tell you that she was anything but that. This kind of rhetoric about the president, the first lady, and his supporters is completely deranged,” she added.

While members of the Trump administration have made it clear they’re not happy with Kimmel, BlazeTV host and comedian Dave Landau has a controversial take.

“I’m going to go ahead and say that’s a funny joke,” he tells co-host Stu Burguiere.

“You like the joke,” Stu comments, surprised.

“It’s fine. You keep trying to kill him, so they’re saying you have a good look for an expectant widow. I understand that people don’t like the guy who’s saying it, but there’s logic and reason to the joke, and it’s a still a joke,” Landau says.

“You don’t have to like it, but I will never be on the side of throw somebody off of TV or cancel them based on something that was a joke,” he continues.

“We agree on that,” Burguiere says, adding, “I’m totally with you.”

Want more from Stu and Dave?

To enjoy more of Stu and Dave's lethal blend of wit, humor, and insightful commentary subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The New York Times Tries To Gin Up A Hit Piece On The Texas Rangers, But Nobody Cares

Blum quotes precisely one fan from the stadium, who says, actual quote, “I think it’s a good thing." See all the CONTROVERSY!?!?!?!?

NBA Doubles Down On Woke By Punishing Jaden Ivey For His Christianity

The NBA's players should defend Ivey and demand that all franchise owners keep out of politics and let their players prove themselves on the court.

‘Blessed Are Those Who Are Persecuted’: Christian Pro Athletes Stand Behind Jaden Ivey

NBA guard Jaden Ivey was cut from the Chicago Bulls on Monday after he expressed the basic Christian belief that sexual immorality and pride are “unrighteousness.” In response, multiple professional athletes have come to Ivey’s defense by similarly standing firm on God’s word. “They proclaim Pride Month. And the NBA, they proclaim it. They show […]

Scott Adams made Trump plausible before anyone else would



On the timeline of making America great again, two dates in 2015 stand out for anyone who backed Donald Trump before it was safe to do so.

On June 16, 2015, Trump came down the escalator in New York City and announced his run for president. The political class laughed. Conservative pundits mocked him. Commentators treated the whole thing as a stunt. A lifelong Democrat running as a Republican? A celebrity billionaire developer? Please. What a “clown.

Scott understood something most people never learn: Bad reviews from bad people are good reviews. He also understood how to grieve with honor instead of self-pity.

Then came August 13, 2015.

That day, Scott Adams — the creator of “Dilbert” and a best-selling personal development author — published a blog post that reframed the entire race in a single phrase:

Usual frame:
Donald Trump is a clown.
Reframe:
Donald Trump is a clown genius.

That was Adams’ title: “Clown Genius.” And his point was simple: Trump wasn’t improvising. He was persuading. Adams wrote that Trump’s “value proposition” was to “Make America Great,” which meant selling the world on America again — what Adams called “good brand management.”

It sounds obvious now. It didn’t sound obvious then.

Adams became one of the first major nonpolitical public figures to say out loud what millions of Americans were starting to suspect: Trump wasn’t a joke. The joke was the people pretending they couldn’t see what was happening.

“Clown Genius” by Scott Adams, accessed via the Internet Archive

That post didn’t just defend Trump. It gave people permission. It gave tens of millions of everyday Americans cover to voice support for the one candidate the establishment of both parties hated more than anyone they had seen in decades. Adams called it before the polls did, and he kept calling it.

And, in the process, he helped change the course of human history.

He later packaged Trump’s persuasion methods into a book-length case study, “Win Bigly.” And famously, he assigned Trump a 98% chance of winning in 2016 — at a time when most of the media treated the idea as laughable.

Adams paid for that courage.

When he backed Trump in 2015, he didn’t just lose polite invitations. He lit his career on fire. He traded lavish speaking fees, safe corporate fame, and establishment approval for permanent exile from respectable opinion.

In October 2025, Adams described the price in stark terms:

When I decided ... to back Trump … I sacrificed everything. I sacrificed my social life. I sacrificed my career. I sacrificed my reputation. I may have sacrificed my health. And I did that because I believed it was worth it. … I’m really happy I lived long enough to see it. It was worth it. … It was worth it to be right.

Independent journalist and filmmaker Mike Cernovich made the point even more bluntly. Adams could have kept quiet, kept the corporate speaking gigs, and died richer. Instead, he chose the lonely road and earned something bigger than money. He became a legend.

For millions, Scott Adams was more than a cartoonist or a commentator. Worldwide, listeners of Scott’s daily show, “Coffee with Scott Adams,”knew him as our “internet dad.” If Trump is the father of MAGA, Scott is its honorary stepfather.

People didn’t just read him. They listened to him. They learned from him. They built confidence from his willingness to say what others wouldn’t.

President Trump made America great again. Scott Adams made Candidate Trump plausible in the first place.

After a long, public battle with prostate cancer, Scott Adams died on Tuesday, January 13. He was 68.

President Trump responded with a tribute that said more than many will admit.

— (@)

“Sadly, the Great Influencer, Scott Adams, has passed away. He was a fantastic guy, who liked and respected me when it wasn’t fashionable to do so. He bravely fought a long battle against a terrible disease. My condolences go out to his family, and all of his many friends and listeners. He will be truly missed. God bless you Scott!

I’m one of those listeners and friends. More than that, I was Scott’s editor, and I remain the publisher of the Scott Adams library. He brought me on as a contributing editor for “Reframe Your Brain,” a book that has helped thousands of readers apply his signature “reframes” to work, money, relationships, and even faith.

As of this writing, “Reframe Your Brain” is the No. 1 best-seller on Amazon.

RELATED: Glenn Beck remembers Scott Adams: ‘A philosopher disguised as a stick-figure artist’

Phil Velasquez/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Near the end of his life, Scott also made a quiet but meaningful choice. He accepted Pascal’s Wager — the simple risk-reward logic that faith in Jesus Christ is worth the bet. He pinned that profession to the top of his X.com profile in his final statement.

Scott was a father figure to me in the most practical sense. I asked his advice the way a son asks his dad. He was happy to oblige. That’s who he was: sharp, funny, and eager to be useful.

Now critics will rush in to re-litigate his controversies, including the 2023 livestream that helped get “Dilbert” pulled from newspapers. I wrote the truth for Newsweek at the time, after his remarks triggered an organized effort to kill his book deal and erase him from public life.

I worked with an author on a not-quite-banned book recently. Dilbert creator and bestselling author Scott Adams had his long-running comic strip ended by multiple newspapers and his forthcoming book contract canceled over some hyperbolic remarks on race that were intended to stir up discussion. Scott Adams’ books were twice banned, but Amazon reversed the decision. … Adams then went to his audience and let them know that there were people who didn’t want his book published, and they responded by buying it, en masse. Sales shot up.

Scott understood something most people never learn: Bad reviews from bad people are good reviews.

He also understood how to grieve with honor instead of self-pity. As he wrote in “Reframe Your Brain”:

When you experience the death of a loved one, your instincts push you into feeling tragedy, loss, and pain. Once you have had enough of that, and when you are ready, start tossing these five words around to release some of the pain: Gratitude. Respect. Honor. Privilege. Service.

Scott Adams lived those words. And now he belongs to the ages.

Scott won bigly.

Thank you, Scott.

Universities treated free speech as expendable in 2025



The fight over free expression in American higher education reached a troubling milestone in 2025. According to data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, efforts to censor speech on college campuses hit record highs across multiple fronts — and most succeeded.

Let’s start with the raw numbers. In 2025, FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire, Students Under Fire, and Campus Deplatforming databases collectively tracked:

  • 525 attempts to sanction scholars for their speech, more than one a day, with 460 of them resulting in punishment.
  • 273 attempts to punish students for expression, more than five a week, with 176 of these attempts succeeding.
  • 160 attempts to deplatform speakers, about three each week, with 99 of them succeeding.

That’s 958 censorship attempts in total, nearly three per day on campuses across the country. For comparison, FIRE’s next-highest total was 477 two years ago.

The 525 scholar sanction attempts are the highest ever recorded in FIRE’s database, which spans 2000 to the present. Even when a large-scale incident at the U.S. Naval Academy is treated as just a single entry, the 2025 total still breaks records.

The common denominator across these censorship campaigns is not ideology — it’s intolerance.

Twenty-nine scholars were fired, including 18 who were terminated since September for social media comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Student sanction attempts also hit a new high, and deplatforming efforts — our records date back to 1998 — rank third all-time, behind 2023 and 2024.

The problem is actually worse because FIRE’s data undercounts the true scale of campus censorship. Why? The data relies on publicly available information, and an unknown number of incidents, especially those that may involve quiet administrative pressure, never make the public record.

Then there’s the chilling effect.

Scholars are self-censoring. Students are staying silent. Speakers are being disinvited or shouted down. And administrators, eager to appease the loudest voices, are launching investigations and handing out suspensions and dismissals with questionable regard for academic freedom, due process, or free speech.

RELATED: Liberals’ twisted views on Charlie Kirk assassination, censorship captured by a damning poll

Deagreez via iStock/Getty Images

Some critics argue that the total number of incidents is small compared to the roughly 4,000 colleges in the country. But this argument collapses under scrutiny.

While there are technically thousands of institutions labeled as “colleges” or “universities,” roughly 600 of them educate about 80% of undergraduates enrolled at not-for-profit four-year schools. Many of the rest of these “colleges” and “universities” are highly specialized or vocational programs. This includes a number of beauty academies, truck-driving schools, and similar institutions — in other words, campuses that aren’t at the heart of the free-speech debate.

These censorship campaigns aren’t coming from only one side of the political spectrum. FIRE’s data shows, for instance, that liberal students are punished for pro-Palestinian activism, conservative faculty are targeted for controversial opinions on gender or race, and speaking events featuring all points of view are targeted for cancellation.

The two most targeted student groups on campus? Students for Justice in Palestine and Turning Point USA. If that doesn’t make this point clear, nothing will.

The common denominator across these censorship campaigns is not ideology — it’s intolerance.

RELATED: Teenager sues high school after tribute to Charlie Kirk was called vandalism

rudall30 via iStock/Getty Images

So where do we go from here?

We need courage: from faculty, from students, and especially from administrators. It’s easy to defend speech when it’s popular. It’s harder when the ideas are offensive or inconvenient. But that’s when it matters most.

Even more urgently, higher education needs a cultural reset. Universities must recommit to the idea that exposure to ideas and speech that one dislikes or finds offensive is not “violence.” That principle is essential for democracy, not just for universities.

This year’s record number of campus censorship attempts should be a wake-up call for campus administrators. For decades, many allowed a culture of censorship to fester, dismissing concerns as overblown, isolated, or a politically motivated myth. Now, with governors, state legislatures, members of Congress, and even the White House moving aggressively to police campus expression, some administrators are finally pushing back. But this pushback from administrators doesn’t seem principled. Instead, it seems more like an attempt to shield their institutions from outside political interference.

That’s not leadership. It’s damage control. And it’s what got higher education into this mess in the first place.

If university leaders want to reclaim their role as stewards of free inquiry, they cannot act just when governmental pressure threatens their autonomy. They also need to be steadfast when internal intolerance threatens their mission. A true commitment to academic freedom means defending expression even when it is unpopular or offensive. That is the price of intellectual integrity in a free society.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.