No one wants to be called a coward. But fear is a natural and important human emotion. It gives us caution and hesitance in situations that pose a danger to oneself or others. Nevertheless, fear must be rational, and it must be controlled. Being afraid of the wrong things — or being excessively afraid of things that pose trivial risks — can be crippling.

Despite being a core component of human experience, fear is stigmatized in our society. Americans, in general, tend to be risk-takers. We instinctively recoil at cowardice. So it’s strange that the people who are dedicated to “destigmatizing” everything in our society are the same ones who work tirelessly to amplify the stigma attached to fear.

Don’t accept the framing. Don’t let the debate become a psychiatric evaluation. Don’t apologize for noticing reality.

Here, I refer to a common trend in political discourse — the left’s attribution of “phobias” to political opponents. You know the epithets: homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, transphobia. Some may bristle at the claim that this fixation on phobias is a strategic tactic used exclusively by the political left. But it’s undeniable: What equivalent “phobic” label do conservatives use to discredit progressives?

We don’t have an equivalent.

Are we to believe, then, that the political left is without fear? Certainly not. Many progressives treat Christianity with the same suspicion that some on the right harbor for the LGBTQ agenda. No one calls the former group “Christophobes,” but the latter are routinely charged as homophobic. Globalists often disdain the nationalist politics of identity, referring to nationalists as xenophobes. But no one calls the Americans who disparage everything about our nation “oikophobes” (people with an irrational fear of home).

This double standard shows that the labeling of “phobias” is a rhetorical strategy. But how does it work?

Abusing the ‘phobic’ label

Start by asking who gets branded “phobic” — and for what. These days, it doesn’t take much. Express moral concerns about “gender reassignment” surgeries for children? You’re a transphobe. Feel fatigued by the endless parade of “Pride” observances on the calendar? You’re a homophobe. Object to the illegal entry of millions of unvetted foreigners? You’re a xenophobe — just another American unwilling to embrace people “searching for a better life.”

The ease with which the left assigns the “phobic” label undermines its credibility. Can someone oppose gay marriage without harboring fear of gay people? Can a citizen reject open borders as reckless policy without fearing foreigners? Can one favor vetting immigrants from Muslim-majority countries without fearing Muslims as a group?

Two answers follow. The first, and more reasonable, says yes — of course people can hold such views without irrational fear. That would make the “phobic” smear inaccurate. But if that’s true, why does the left cling so fiercely to these labels? The second answer assumes the opposite: that you must be afraid — of gays, of immigrants, of Muslims — if you hold such views. But if every opinion stems from fear, then “phobia” becomes a catch-all insult, not a diagnosis.

And yet the accusation sticks. Why?

Exploiting social fears

The power of the “phobic” label stems from how society treats fear. We treat fear not as a natural response, but as a sign of weakness or irrationality — especially when aimed at supposedly harmless things.

Admitting fear carries a social cost. Labeling someone “phobic” pressures the person to conform, not through persuasion but through social coercion. It’s a tactic, not an argument. It manipulates the desire for status and respect by suggesting the presence of a psychological defect. And it works — not because it’s true, but because it shames.

Blaze Media

Are unvetted illegal immigrants always harmless? No. Most aren’t violent, but some are dangerous. Yet the “xenophobic” smear exists to deny that fact and humiliate anyone who dares say it aloud. Does importing large numbers of military-age men from Yemen pose no threat? Some Yemenis are admirable people. But recent history offers proof that some have come here to commit acts of terrorism. Labeling such concerns “Islamophobic” is an attempt to gaslight the public — dismissing valid fears and punishing the act of remembering.

Diagnosing as ‘crazy’

The label does more than stigmatize. It diagnoses. “Phobia” is a clinical term. To call someone a homophobe isn’t just to accuse the person of bigotry; it’s to classify the person as mentally ill. Arachnophobes are “crazy.” Agoraphobes are crazy. And society doesn’t argue with crazy people — it ignores them. Once someone becomes “irrational,” you don’t debate that person. You dismiss him. His views no longer require engagement. They require containment.

Attaching a “phobic” label turns political opposition into psychological pathology. It justifies censorship and marginalization. Ironically, the only people the left eagerly diagnoses and silences are those it brands with a phobia. So much for compassion around mental illness.

Conservatives must reject this tactic outright. Don’t accept the framing. Don’t let the debate become a psychiatric evaluation. Don’t apologize for noticing reality. Push back, not only by refusing the label but by highlighting the contradiction. If leftists truly care about destigmatizing mental illness, they should stop flinging “phobia” at every disagreement. Expose the hypocrisy. Force them to play by their own rules — and win.

Big weddings, bigger regrets: Gen Z says ‘I don’t’ to wedding debt

“What do you mean you don’t want any furniture underneath the pergola?”

’Tis wedding season, the time of year when nuptial excitement contends with a seemingly endless stream of design choices with a hefty price tag. As a bride-to-be myself, I have been astounded by the pressure to spend beyond my budget, as if not including an ice cream truck and a balloon selfie wall would make or break the entire event. It’s a winning formula for the wedding industry: Heightened expectations plus soaring price tags equal staggering profit margins. And the industry has social media to thank.

Gen Z is proving that a beautiful, meaningful wedding does not have to come with a hefty price tag or the expectation of social media perfection.

In an era when weddings are often measured by their Instagramability, many couples feel pressured to plan a picture-perfect day that meets the aesthetic standards of social media. The rise of platforms like Instagram and Pinterest has turned wedding planning into a high-stakes production, fueling the wedding industry’s ever-growing price tag. But as costs continue to soar, a new trend is emerging — one driven by a generation that is more financially cautious and less enamored with the idea of a fairy-tale wedding at any cost.

A wedding arms race

Social media has revolutionized wedding planning. With a single scroll, couples are bombarded with curated images of extravagant floral installations, designer gowns, and luxury venues. While such platforms can serve as helpful tools for inspiration, wedding “doomscrolling” has transformed a deeply personal and intimate occasion into a public spectacle, where likes and shares serve as the currency of validation. According to Forbes, social media’s effect of raising expectations — and costs — is making 60% of couples consider elopement over a traditional wedding.

Escaping the pressure of staggering wedding costs is palpable. The average wedding budget for 2025 is projected to be around $36,000 — compared with $29,000 in 2023 — with high-cost areas like New York City pushing that number to $65,000. Unsurprisingly, many couples are turning to loans and credit cards to fund their big day. One survey found that 56% of newlyweds go into debt for their wedding — an alarming trend as 34% of divorcees blame credit card debt and spending as contributing factors to their divorces. Is that really the best gift for newlyweds?

Rebelling against wedding debt

However, unlike Millennials, who embraced the Instagram-fueled wedding culture, Gen Z is showing signs of resistance. Facing economic challenges such as inflation and housing affordability, Gen Z couples are putting cost-effective celebrations over extravagant ones. The Guardian reports that many opt for smaller weddings, alternative venues, and even elopements to avoid unnecessary financial stress.

There is also a shift away from the performative aspect of weddings. While Millennials often sought highly curated, shareable moments, Vogue notes that Gen Zers are less concerned with social media validation. They prefer authenticity and meaningful experiences over staged perfection.

This has led to a rise in DIY elements, intimate ceremonies, and budget-friendly wedding choices. For example, some brides choose to do their own makeup, saving thousands of dollars compared to hiring a professional artist. Others prefer unconventional locations like back yards and public parks rather than expensive banquet halls.

Rethinking the wedding industry

The movement away from over-the-top weddings is not just about finances — it’s about values.

Weddings are meant to be a celebration of love and commitment, not a financial burden that lingers long after the last dance. While the wedding industry thrives on convincing couples that their big day must be grand and expensive, Gen Zers are beginning to challenge that notion. They are proving that a beautiful, meaningful wedding does not have to come with a hefty price tag or the expectation of social media perfection.

As more couples reject the pressures of an Instagram-worthy wedding in favor of financially sane choices, the industry may be forced to adapt.

Florida man accused of stabbing pro-Trump friend to death with trowel found not guilty of murder

A Florida man accused of stabbing his pro-Trump friend to death with a trowel at a construction site has been found not guilty of murder.

During a non-jury trial at an Orange County court last month, 34-year-old Mason Trever Toney was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, according to WKMG-TV.

'There was something wrong with Mason.'

As Blaze News reported in January 2020, Toney was arrested for the murder of his friend and his boss — 28-year-old William Knight.

Citing the arrest warrant, WESH-TV reported that police officers arrived at the crime scene to find Knight’s body next to an excavator with an American flag nearby.

Witnesses told investigators that Knight is a “proud and outspoken American,” who was “pro-Donald Trump.”

Toney was reportedly described by witnesses as having anti-government sentiments and believed “the government is bad and out to get him.”

According to court documents, witnesses said Knight picked up Toney to drive him to another construction site when an argument about politics, including Knight’s support for President Donald Trump, erupted.

The argument allegedly escalated into a physical confrontation. Witnesses purportedly attempted to stop the attack and threw things at Toney.

Toney is accused of stabbing Knight to death with a construction trowel. Toney reportedly jumped into a truck and drove away while calling the witnesses “terrorists.”

Knight succumbed to his injuries at the crime scene on Jan. 20, 2020.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office noted that Toney was apprehended in Brevard County on the same day in the truck and charged with murder.

Williams Knight Sr. — the victim's father — told WKMG-TV in 2020, "The gentleman, Mason, he was a friend of the family for years."

The father said his son had recently been promoted to a construction site foreman before his death, and he hired Mason. The deeply distraught mother said she warned her son not to hire his childhood friend because he had been acting strangely.

Julia Knight — the victim's mother — said of a possible motive for her son's death, "I don't know. I can't explain what happened to my son. I don't understand. I never thought Mason would do this to my son."

Julie Knight added, "But it wasn't about politics, I can tell you right now."

"There was something wrong with Mason," she said.

A review hearing is scheduled for Aug. 11.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Clinton judge rules US military can't say no to HIV-compromised enlistees

A Clinton-appointed federal judge has ruled that the U.S. military cannot bar HIV-positive individuals from enlisting if they've temporarily rendered their viral loads undetectable through the use of costly antiretroviral drugs, which usually require daily use.

Judge Leonie Brikema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia previously handled two consequential cases in which she ruled against certain military service restrictions on HIV-compromised individuals — persons who if left unmedicated could possibly succumb to opportunistic infections and/or infect their comrades.

Citing her own opinions in those cases, Brikema asserted in her Aug. 20 ruling that the Pentagon's "policies prohibiting the accession of asymptomatic HIV-positive individuals with undetectable viral loads into the military are irrational, arbitrary, and capricious."

"Even worse, they contribute to the ongoing stigma surrounding HIV-positive individuals while actively hampering the military's own recruitment goals," continued Brikema.

'HIV is an infectious, incurable, bloodborne disease with several possible ways in which the disease could be transmitted to other service members.'

The lawsuit that precipitated Brikema's ruling was brought on behalf of three HIV-positive individuals and a leftist advocacy group.

The first, Isaiah Wilkins, is an HIV-positive 24-year-old homosexual who receives HIV-related health care from the VA Medical Center in Atlanta, Georgia. He has to take pills to suppress his viral load. Wilkins seeks to enlist in the Army.

According to a 2023 Congressional Research report, the Pentagon's Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division estimated that between January 2017 and June 2022, 1,581 service members were newly diagnosed with HIV.

The second plaintiff is Carol Coe, a 33-year-old transvestite living in Washington, D.C. He contracted HIV while serving in the military, then left the military in 2013 to get a sex change. Coe attempted to re-enlist in 2022 but was unsuccessful on account of his infectious disorder.

The third plaintiff is Natalie Noe, an Australian now living as a permanent resident in California. She was similarly told that her HIV positivity was a negative where recruiters were concerned. To manage her HIV, Noe takes pills daily and is injected with an antiretroviral therapeutic every three to six months.

The trio were joined in their action by Minority Veterans of America — a leftist advocacy group committed to "social and structural change" that has worked to guarantee access to "abortion and contraception, and gender confirmation surgery through VA for veterans."

'We are pleased the court has eliminated the last discriminatory policy that barred people living with HIV from seeking enlistment or appointment to the military.'

The suit was filed against the Department of Defense in November 2022.

According to the original complaint, medical advances in HIV treatments "should have led to an overhaul of military policies related to people living with HIV. Instead, the Department of Defense and the Army — and all military departments — have maintained the bar to enlistment and appointment of people living with HIV."

The suit claimed that policies barring HIV-positive prospects from enlisting violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Court documents indicate that the Pentagon argued that:

the military's HIV policies are rationally related to promoting the health and readiness of the armed forces. For example, defendants continue to argue that asymptomatic HIV-positive individuals with undetectable viral loads may not take their daily medications properly, which would result in their viral loads rising; that HIV is an infectious, incurable, bloodborne disease with several possible ways in which the disease could be transmitted to other service members, such as through battlefield blood spatter or transfusions; and that HIV is associated with various comorbidities and side effects that could harm a service member's health.

The Pentagon further suggested that:

the science is clear about the meaningful risk of infection that comes with blood-to-blood transmission "even for individuals with an undetectable viral load";
restrictions on HIV-positive enlistees is "rationally related to the goal of ensuring that safe blood supplies are available for use in combat medical care";
"'deployment may make it more likely that' HIV-positive individuals 'could experience viral rebound' due to the 'increase[d] ... risk that [they] will not maintain strict adherence to their' HIV medications";
"recruiting HIV-compromised individuals would impose disproportionately higher financial costs on the military compared to individuals without HIV," given antiretroviral therapy costs between $1,800 and $4,500 monthly; and that
it is rational to preclude incurable disease-compromised persons from joining to "ensur[e] a healthy military."

Brikema, evidently unpersuaded by these arguments, has enjoined the Pentagon from barring HIV-compromised individuals with undetectable viral loads from joining the military.

"We are pleased the court has eliminated the last discriminatory policy that barred people living with HIV from seeking enlistment or appointment to the military," stated Gregory Nevons, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, an outfit that helped file the case. "Americans living with HIV no longer face categorical barriers to service careers — discharge, bans on commissioning, bans on deployment and finally bans on enlisting."

"This is a victory not only for me but for other people living with HIV who want to serve," said plaintiff Isaiah Wilkins.

The Military Times indicated that the Pentagon declined to comment on the ruling.

While HIV-compromised candidates have been given the green light to enlist, the Pentagon still has prohibitions on the recruitment or retention of persons with certain maladies, such as Crohn's disease, kidney abnormalities, asthma, anemia, gout, rheumatoid arthritis, various sleep disorders, and excessive sweating.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

German judge lets 8 men who gang-raped girl walk free

A German court delivered its verdict Tuesday concerning those responsible for the barbaric September 2020 gang-rape of a 15-year-old German girl in the northern city of Hamburg.

Of the eleven men initially charged in relation to the gang-rape of the minor — only four of whom were technically German — two were acquitted. Nine were found guilty. Eight got probation, not exceeding two years. Only one is headed to prison.

There has been significant backlash following the release of eight convicted rapists, prompting officials to condemn critiques of the judgment, particularly those of an "anti-migrant" nature.

What's the background?

Spiegel reported that the victim attended a party on the festival lawn in Hamburg's over 350-acre city park on Sept. 19, 2020. Four of the men dragged the girl, then intoxicated, into a bush and raped her. One of the rapists added insult to grievous injury and stole her phone and wallet.

Two other men then joined in, raping the victim.

After the initial series of attacks, the victim reportedly began stumbling away, right into the arms of yet another rapist from the pack. The rapist who intercepted her near the festival meadow was then joined by three additional rapists, who are suspected to have all similarly sexually assaulted the victim. Owing to the uncertainty about whether the final three all raped the victim, one rapist was acquitted.

The brutal gang rape lasted nearly three hours.

According to German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, after her violent dehumanization, the victim managed to get onto a train. However, her aggressors, understanding that she was traveling alone, followed her. Fortunately, she fled to a group of people who "recognized her condition and called the police."

DNA evidenced implicated nine of the rapists. There was also video evidence, but Spiegel indicated that the footage was "irretrievably deleted shortly after the crime" such that neither investigators nor the court could confirm what genetic evidence made abundantly clear.

An eleventh defendant charged with aiding and abetting and filming the rape was acquitted earlier this year.

While four of the rapists were allegedly of German nationality, another four reportedly had Afghan, Kuwaiti, Armenian, and Montenegrin nationalities. The Morgenpost Verlag GmbH indicated one was born in Iran, another in Libya, and a third in Egypt. The court has not indicated the nationality of two of the rapists.

Trial

Although the rapists were ages 17 to 21 at the time of the horrific crime, they were tried in a youth court. The trial, where the court prohibited media coverage, began in May 2022 and lasted 68 days.

Ninety-six witnesses and several experts ultimately gave testimony.

Among the so-called expert witnesses was psychiatrist Nahlah Saimeh. Saimeh intimated that the gang rape may have been a means to let off some of the "frustration" that supposedly comes with "migration experiences and socio-cultural homelnessness."

Saimeh said rapists "who live on the margins of society, completely uprooted culturally, linguistically and socially" might face a "mix of emotions of anger, sadness, powerlessness, depression, fantasies of grandeur as a compensation attempt to cope with one's own misery, and drug use."

"Disordered, unprepared migration experiences and socio-cultural homelessness increase the risk of addiction and psychosis," said the so-called expert. Sex, she continued, could serve as a "means of releasing frustration and anger."

The psychiatrist further suggested that gang rape fosters identity and strengthens group feeling.

The rapists' lawyers called for acquittals, suggesting that the traces of their semen on the victim's clothing did not prove the sex was forced.

While presiding Judge Anne Meier-Goering acknowledged that "none of the defendants uttered a word of regret" during the trial, she nevertheless sentenced eight of the rapists to probation, of no more than two years.

Only one rapist, a 19-year-old, received prison time. He was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison without parole.

Matthias Jahn from the Goethe University Frankfurt told ZDFHeute that the court took into account the fact that none of the rapists had previously been sentenced to a youth prison or had been convicted of sexual offenses.

The court's decision can still be appealed.

Apparently Germany has previously been willing to lock up gang rapists. Ten migrants — eight Syrians, an Iraqi, and a Algerian who similarly said their victim had consented — were sentenced to prison in July 2020 for gang-raping an 18-year-old woman in Freiburg. The maximum prison sentence dished out was five years and six months.

Backlash

Spiegel indicated that those involved in the trial have been subjected to overwhelming criticism and hostilities since the rapists were set free.

"We are observing the hostility in connection with the proceedings and the verdict with great concern," said Kai Wantzen, a spokesman for the court.

Wantzen suggested that the hateful messages targeting Meier-Goering and others have both crossed the line into criminal offenses and "reached a new, worrying level in terms of intensity and mass."

The Hamburg Judges Association noted it was concerned over the "unbearable agitation against a colleague who had fulfilled the task assigned to her under the Basic Law in this difficult case."

Heike Hummelmeier, chairwoman of the association, said, "The calls for violence against the judge – which also have an anti-migrant background – are completely unbearable."

Arne Timmermann, a criminal defense attorney on the board of the Hamburg Working Group for Criminal Defense Lawyers, suggested that in the case of outrage over Saimeh's controversial remarks to Spiegel, she was being taken out of context.

"The psychiatrist creates a general profile of perpetrators (perpetrators who live on the fringes of society, completely uprooted culturally, linguistically and socially) and argues with racist stereotypes," said Timmermann. "The reader gets confirmation of what he always thought about 'gang rapists.'"

While the perception that Saimeh meant to write off gang rape as an opportunity to vent migrant frustrations generated outrage, it did not seem to register nearly as much anger as the court's decision to set the rapists free.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Chaos ensues after airline passenger forces open plane door mid-flight: 'I thought the plane was going to explode'

A passenger aboard an Asiana Airlines flight from Jeju Island to the South Korean city of Daegu was apparently in a rush to deplane, opening the door just minutes before landing.

A 33-year-old male seated next to an emergency exit reportedly forced open the door on an Airbus A321-200, which was carrying 194 souls including 48 primary and middle school children on their way to a sporting event.

When the door was opened, the plane was roughly 700 feet off the ground and traveling about 170 mph, reported Reuters.

Baek Hyunwoo, a spokesman for the airline, indicated the feat would normally be impossible owing to the difference in air pressure inside and outside the cabin; however, at the lower altitude, there was only a slight difference in air pressure.

Since the plane was descending, the flight attendants were reportedly buckled up and seated too far away to make a swift intervention.

Footage of the incident taken by another passenger shows strapped-down passengers holding on for dear life, with daylight and powerful gusts flooding the cabin.

\u201cMan arrested after opening door as plane prepared to land in South Korea, 9 people taken to hospital - Yonhap\u201d
— BNO News (@BNO News) 1685087257

Another video of the incident shows the plane door ajar and various garments flapping in the wind.

\u201cDoor of Asiana Airlines plane opens in mid-air just before landing in South Korea; 9 people taken to hospital with breathing difficulties\u201d
— BNO News (@BNO News) 1685080680

According to Sky News, some passengers suffered extreme ear pain after the door was opened.

One 44-year-old passenger told the Yonhap News Agency, "I thought the plane was going to explode. ... It looked like passengers next to the open door were fainting."

The mother of one of the schoolchildren aboard the plane said, "The children were shaking, crying, and frightened. Those sitting near the exit must have been shocked the most."

Despite the open door, the plane managed to land safely. There were no casualties.

Twelve people, all but one of whom were between the ages of 11 and 16, reportedly hyperventilated. Nine were taken to a hospital.

Kim Hyeong-su, an officer in the criminal affairs division of the Daegu Dongbu Police Station, indicated the man accused of opening the door could face charges of violating aviation security laws, reported the New York Times.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!