With the live-action Snow White starring Rachel Zegler slashing its way into theaters this weekend, it’s time to ask the million-dollar question: if Disney’s princesses ditched their tiaras for switchblades and went full-on feral in a down-and-dirty knife fight, who’d walk away bloody but victorious—and truly the fairest of them all?

Picture it: a muddy, moonlit forest. Tiaras gleam like murder weapons in the dark. Snow White snarls through poison-stained lips. Cinderella’s glass slipper shatters mid-sprint. Ariel flops madly onshore, screeching like a demon seagull. Belle clutches a hardcover and a shiv. Rapunzel’s hair gets snagged in a tree while Jasmine flips over a bush with daggers drawn. It’s not a royal gala—it’s an all-out princess purge. And someone’s going to the coronation in a body bag.

Let’s pit these royal warriors against each other, weigh their strengths, exploit their weaknesses, and crown the ultimate blade-wielding queen—or watch them all trip over their gowns in spectacular fashion.

Snow White: The Poisoned Underdog

Sweet, innocent, singing to birds—until she carves a seven-dwarf body count. Snow White’s live-action debut starring Rachel Zegler drops March 21, 2025, and this version’s got a bit more bite. She’s scrappy, resilient, and probably knows how to use a poisoned apple like a frag grenade. But she also trusted a cackling old crone with fruit. Not exactly Navy SEAL material. One wrong look and she’s bleeding out on a forest floor while woodland creatures sob softly.

Cinderella: The Glass Slipper Stabber

She’s been cleaning floors since birth. She’s got rage. She’s got broken dreams and sharper elbows than you’d expect. Cinderella’s slipper may be fragile, but glass makes excellent shrapnel. The downside? She’s still got that submissive streak. She’ll hesitate—and that’s fatal. One kind glance at a crying Rapunzel, and bam—knife to the neck. Bippity boppity bloodbath.

Aurora: The Sleeping Slice

Here’s the thing: if you’ve got a history of nodding off under pressure, maybe skip the knife fights. Aurora is all grace, no grit. Her curse-prone DNA means she’s probably out cold before the stabbing starts. If she’s lucky, one of the fairies swoops in and drags her off before someone mistakes her for a corpse and buries her alive.

Ariel: The Finned Fury

Ariel gave up her voice, her tail, and her kingdom for a dude who plays the flute. That’s reckless, impulsive, and exactly the kind of energy you need in a knife fight. On land, she’s clumsy—but underwater? She’s a goddamn assassin. Too bad this isn’t happening in a tide pool. Her footwork’s sloppy, and unless she gets her hands on a fork (aka her trusty dinglehopper), she’s sushi by sundown.

Belle: The Bookish Bruiser

Don’t underestimate the girl who tamed a monster. Belle’s calm under pressure, strategic, and possibly the only one here who’s read a survival manual. But when the blood starts spraying, is she thinking or stabbing? Odds are, she’s trying to talk you down while someone’s sneaking up behind her with a dagger. Big brain, bad instincts.

Jasmine: The Royal Razor

She grew up dodging assassins in a palace full of political intrigue. Jasmine’s got fast reflexes, killer fashion sense, and a pet tiger who might snack on the competition. But she’s got a flair for the dramatic, which might get her gutted mid-monologue. Still, she’s not one to underestimate. She might make it to the final three.

Pocahontas: The Nature Ninja

She moves like wind and speaks to trees. Which is cool, but last I checked, oak bark doesn’t block a blade. She’s agile, has that rogue energy, and could absolutely stab you in the neck with a pinecone. But she’s too nice. Too diplomatic. One offer of peace and someone’s already carving a scalp.

Mulan: The Warrior Queen

Let’s not kid ourselves. Mulan’s seen combat. She’s killed before. She’s got honor, yes—but also blade technique, core strength, and the ability to hide emotions until she’s already won. If anyone’s bringing a katana to this knife fight, it’s her. She’s slicing through the competition like a Disney remake through childhood memories.

Merida: The Archery Avenger

If this was a long-range showdown, Merida would take it in a heartbeat. But up close, with steel and sweat? Not so much. She’s fast, fierce, and feral—but a bit hot-headed. That fiery temper’s gonna get her into trouble, and when the arrows run out, her wild swings won’t cut it against Mulan’s precision.

Rapunzel: The Hair-Whipping Wildcard

Rapunzel’s got reach—literally. Her hair’s a weapon, a shield, and a trip hazard all in one. Plus, she’s been locked in a tower for years. She’s got pent-up rage. But once that hair’s hacked off—and it will be—she’s just a barefoot girl with a frying pan. Cute, but outclassed.

Tiana: The Culinary Cutthroat

Chef’s knives are no joke. Tiana knows her way around a blade better than most. She’s fast, focused, and has absolutely no time for nonsense. But ambition doesn’t equal aggression. She’s got goals—not body counts. She’ll hold her own early on, maybe even score a kill or two—but she’s too focused on the dream, not the deathmatch.

Moana: The Oceanic Outlaw

Moana’s got bravery in spades and muscles to match. She’s lifted gods, wrestled sea monsters, and navigated entire oceans. But she’s not a killer. She’ll talk it out. She’ll hesitate. She’ll try to reason with Aurora and end up stabbed by Jasmine. Her heart’s in the right place. Her blade? Not so much.

Blood in the Ballroom: The Final Showdown

We’re down to two: Mulan and Jasmine. The warrior versus the wild card. Mulan’s cold, calculated, and deadly. Jasmine’s fast, unpredictable, and scrappy. Sparks fly. Blood spills. Jasmine lands a flashy feint—but Mulan sees through it. One clean slash, and it’s over.

Mulan stands alone, drenched in glitter and gore, beautiful and victorious.

But wait—what’s that rustle in the leaves? Snow White, eyes wide, blade glinting, crawling back from the edge of death like a banshee in blush. Is it a last stand or a hallucination brought on by too much poisoned fruit? We may never know.

Weigh In: Who’d You Bet on in This Royal Rumble? Would you back Mulan’s warrior might, or think Snow White’s live-action grit could surprise? Does Ariel’s fury or Merida’s archery stand a chance, or is this just a glittery slaughter? Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver this bloody fairy tale and hear your unfiltered take on who’d reign supreme in this royal rumble.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter at http://drezzed.substack.com

D/REZZED provides Balanced and Based Gaming, Pop Culture, and Paranormal News. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of hosts, editors, other contributors, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. Our articles are human-edited but may utilize AI assistance for research and grammar. Articles may include affiliate links; we may earn commissions on purchases made through these links. Any products or services received for review are disclosed, as are any sponsored posts.

Ubisoft just can’t stop tripping over its own ninja sandals. Assassin’s Creed Shadows launched on March 20, 2025, but instead of basking in the spotlight, it’s dodging shuriken-sized backlash from Japan. A gameplay mechanic allowing players to smash objects inside sacred shrines — including a near-exact replica of the real-world Itatehyozu Shrine — has set off a firestorm of controversy. Even Japan’s Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba, weighed in, calling it “an insult to the nation itself.” That’s right. We’re at the point where world leaders are dragging Assassin’s Creed into political discourse.

This shrine-smashing scandal is just the latest in a string of cultural missteps Ubisoft has fumbled since the game’s announcement. Between a historically debatable protagonist, misused national symbols, and now sacred site destruction, Ubisoft seems to be unintentionally speedrunning a how-to guide on aggravating Japan. So, is this a ninja-sized fail, or just the latest round of Assassin’s Creed controversy? Let’s break it down.

Shrine Smash Sparks Outrage: Japan’s Prime Minister Steps In

Ubisoft’s PR department barely had time to sip their morning coffee before scrambling to patch out shrine destruction on day one. Pre-release footage showed protagonist Yasuke destroying tables, racks, and artifacts inside the Itatehyozu Shrine, a direct in-game recreation of the real Shinto site in Hyogo Prefecture. That did not sit well with locals.

“We were not consulted by Ubisoft regarding the inclusion of the shrine in Shadows, and had they asked, we would have refused,” shrine officials told Sankei News in February 2025, threatening “appropriate action” against the studio. The situation escalated when Councillor Hiroyuki Kada raised the issue in a parliamentary session on March 19, prompting Prime Minister Ishiba to address the controversy directly:

“Defacing a shrine is out of the question—it’s an insult to the nation itself,” Ishiba stated, per GamesRadar. However, he stopped short of calling for legal action, adding, “Freedom of expression must be respected.” Basically, a diplomatic side-eye mixed with a passive-aggressive warning.

While Japan grapples with a post-lockdown tourism boom, the government is extra cautious about copycat vandalism fueled by pop culture, per IGN. Ubisoft scrambled to fix the issue, releasing a day-one patch that made shrine furniture indestructible, though generic environmental objects like drums and barrels remain breakable, per Eurogamer.

But here’s the kicker: even with the patch, critics aren’t fully convinced. Ubisoft insists Shadows is a historical fiction, not a documentary, per Kotaku, but that argument doesn’t erase the launch-day backlash.

Yasuke’s Samurai Saga: A Historical Firestorm

Before shrines, Ubisoft was already under fire for its choice of protagonist — Yasuke, a real-life African warrior who lived in Japan during the late 1500s. In Shadows, he’s depicted as a full-fledged samurai, a creative liberty that has sparked heated debate in Japan.

Critics argue there is little historical evidence that Yasuke became a full samurai, per South China Morning Post, with some accusing Ubisoft of prioritizing modern diversity trends over historical accuracy. A Change.org petition in 2024, which racked up 80,000+ signatures, demanded Ubisoft either cancel the game or alter its narrative, per the same source.

Ubisoft, however, isn’t backing down. Creative Director Charles Benoit defended the choice in February 2025, stating:

“Yasuke offers a fresh outsider perspective on feudal Japan, and we stand by our approach as historical fiction, not a documentary,” per Bounding Into Comics.

This defense has split the fanbase on X. Some praise Ubisoft for tackling a lesser-known historical figure, while others see it as a tone-deaf attempt at forced representation.

Flag Fumbles and Sacred Guardian Gaffes: Ubisoft’s Earlier Japan Mishaps

Ubisoft’s trouble in Japan didn’t start with Shadows’ launch. In July 2024, Ubisoft apologized for using a flag from a Japanese historical reenactment group in promo art without permission, per Yahoo News. Another gaffe? A character dismissing a sacred guardian statue as a “scarecrow,” sparking more criticism, per Kotaku.

None of these incidents were dealbreakers alone, but they added fuel to the fire leading up to launch. Ubisoft’s approach to cultural representation in Japan is now under a microscope, and every misstep piles on.

Government Stance: No Legal Action (Yet), But a Clear Message

While Japan’s government isn’t pulling out the legal katanas, the warning is clear. Ishiba’s comments signal that the Japanese government takes cultural sensitivity seriously, especially as the country manages a delicate tourism surge. Despite sensationalized reports of a full-scale National Diet discussion, IGN confirmed that it was a single question in a routine session, not an all-out legislative debate.

As of March 20, 2025, no shrine or government authority has pursued legal action against Ubisoft, per Insider Gaming. But the controversy ensures Shadows will have a rough road in Japan.

Ubisoft’s Patch and Pivot: Too Late to Fix the Damage?

Ubisoft’s day-one patch may have stopped shrine smashing, but not the backlash. Critics on X (#AssassinsCreedShadows) call it a band-aid on a katana wound.

“We’re committed to cultural respect while maintaining our artistic vision,” Ubisoft stated in March 2025, per NME. But insiders report staff were advised to avoid engaging in online debates, per Kotaku, signaling internal damage control.

Could Ubisoft Recover Its Ninja Cred?

Despite controversy, Assassin’s Creed Shadows is projected to sell 10 million copies worldwide, per Liquid Web’s 2025 gaming trends. But in Japan? The damage is done. Ubisoft might mend fences with stronger cultural consultation, per South China Morning Post, but whether Japan forgives this stumble is another story.

For now, Ubisoft is navigating a minefield of its own making. Can the franchise move past this, or will it leave a permanent mark on Assassin’s Creed history?

Weigh In: Is Ubisoft’s Ninja Fail Fixable?

Will you grab Assassin’s Creed Shadows despite the controversy, or is this a ninja misstep too far? Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews — I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on Ubisoft’s feudal fiasco.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B.
D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter at

D/REZZED Gaming News

Pixels, Pop Culture, and the Paranormal! We’re an independent, opinionated entertainment news site covering Video Games, Tech, Comics, Movies, Anime, High Strangeness, and more. We strive to be balanced, based, and apolitical. Part of Clownfish TV.

By Clownfish TV Staff

Looney Tunes are throwing some wild Hail Marys as of March 2025, and it’s a doozy. Coyote vs. Acme, shelved by Warner Bros. for over a year, might finally hit theaters thanks to Ketchup Entertainment, the same outfit behind The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie—which quietly scored a modest win despite no marketing. Meanwhile, Warner Bros.

Discovery yanked the classic Looney Tunes shorts from Max, sparking outrage, while Tubi swooped in to save The Looney Tunes Show and The Sylvester & Tweety Mysteries. Is this a triumphant comeback for Bugs, Daffy, and Wile E., or just more corporate chaos? Let’s dive into the Looney mess and figure out if the franchise can dodge another anvil.

Coyote vs. Acme’s Last-Second Rescue

On March 19, 2025, Warner Bros. is reportedly negotiating to sell Coyote vs. Acme to Ketchup Entertainment for around $50 million, per Variety. This live-action/animation hybrid, starring Will Forte, Lana Condor, and John Cena, follows Wile E. Coyote suing Acme Corporation for its defective products. Shelved in November 2023 for a $30 million tax write-off, the film’s rescue comes after a year of fan backlash and test audiences raving about it, per Deadline. Ketchup’s interest, fresh off The Day the Earth Blew Up, suggests a 2026 theatrical release could be on the cards, per Kotaku. It’s a long shot, but this could be Looney Tunes’ biggest win since Space Jam.

The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Quiet Looney Victory?

Contrary to claims it “bombed,” The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie—released March 14, 2025, by Ketchup Entertainment—hasn’t flopped. This 2D-animated flick, starring Daffy Duck and Porky Pig, raked in $5.5 million globally with virtually no marketing, per The Hollywood Reporter. Critically acclaimed with a strong Rotten Tomatoes score, its limited release and lack of promotion capped its potential, but it’s a modest success given the circumstances, per Collider. Warner Bros. offloaded it rather than streaming it on Max, and its quiet win likely emboldened Ketchup to chase Coyote vs. Acme. Not a blockbuster, but not a bust—call it a Looney underdog story.

Max’s Looney Purge: A Stunning Erasure

Warner Bros. Discovery stunned fans in mid-March 2025 by pulling the entire catalog of original Looney Tunes shorts from Max, just as The Day the Earth Blew Up hit theaters, per IGN. This purge follows a pattern of shedding classic animation—Sesame Street, Scooby-Doo titles—and targets the franchise’s core legacy, leaving spinoffs like Baby Looney Tunes, Tiny Toons Looniversity, and Bugs Bunny Builders behind, per Vulture. Reports cite low viewership and a shift away from kids’ programming as reasons, per Yahoo News, but fans see it as another Looney misstep after Coyote vs. Acme’s shelving. X is ablaze with #SaveLooneyTunes, and the backlash is deafening.

Tubi’s Looney Lifeline

Starting April 1, 2025, Tubi will stream The Looney Tunes Show (2011–2013) and The Sylvester & Tweety Mysteries (1995–2000) for free, rescuing them after Max’s purge, per CBR. This move also brings back some Scooby-Doo titles, offering a partial reprieve for Warner Bros. animation fans, per Collider. While it’s not the classic shorts, it’s a lifeline for Looney Tunes’ modern iterations, aligning with Tubi’s strategy of hosting free classics, per ComicBook.com. Warner Bros. Classics YouTube channels also offer vintage short compilations, but fans still mourn the Max loss—call it a half-baked carrot for Bugs Bunny.

Why the Looney Chaos? Corporate Moves and Fan Fury

Warner Bros.’ handling of Looney Tunes feels like a cartoon anvil drop. Shelving Coyote vs. Acme for tax breaks, letting The Day the Earth Blew Up limp to theaters, and purging classics from Max paint a picture of a studio stumbling over its legacy, per Kotaku. Ketchup’s rescues suggest an outside savior, but fans on X (#SaveLooneyTunes, millions of mentions in March 2025) aren’t buying Warner’s excuses—low viewership or not. Tubi’s move softens the blow, but the franchise’s future hinges on Coyote vs. Acme’s fate and whether Warner can stop tripping over its own feet.

Could Looney Tunes Bounce Back?

Coyote vs. Acme’s potential 2026 release could be a game-changer, riding The Day the Earth Blew Up’s modest success and Ketchup’s Looney faith, per Variety. But Max’s purge risks alienating fans, and Tubi’s rescue, while welcome, doesn’t restore the classics. Warner Bros. needs to rethink its strategy—maybe lean on YouTube compilations or partner with more streamers like Tubi, per ComicBook.com. If Ketchup can deliver a hit, Looney Tunes might dodge another anvil—but Warner’s track record raises doubts. It’s a long shot, but Bugs and Daffy have pulled off crazier stunts.

Weigh In: Can Looney Tunes Survive Warner’s Chaos?

Will you line up for Coyote vs. Acme if it hits theaters, or stick to Tubi’s Looney reruns? Does Warner Bros. deserve a pass for its Max purge, or is this the end of Looney Tunes’ golden age? Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on this Looney mess.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B.
D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter at http://drezzed.substack.com

D/REZZED provides Balanced and Based Gaming, Pop Culture, and Paranormal News. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of hosts, editors, other contributors, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. Our articles are human-edited but may utilize AI assistance for research and grammar. Articles may include affiliate links; we may earn commissions on purchases made through these links. Any products or services received for review are disclosed, as are any sponsored posts.

From Libertarian Tech Haven to Progressive Echo Chamber

Reddit’s evolution from an anti-establishment, tech-libertarian playground to one of the most aggressively left-wing platforms online is no accident. What started in 2005 as a decentralized, hands-off community where anything went—besides spam—has become a moderator-controlled political bubble, where dissent from progressive orthodoxy often leads to bans, shadow removals, or outright subreddit purges.

This shift didn’t happen overnight. It followed key inflection points, from explosive user growth post-2012 to the crackdown on right-leaning communities in the Trump era. By 2025, Reddit’s left-wing bias is undeniable—both in user demographics and in the increasingly aggressive censorship by volunteer moderators.

But how did we get here? Let’s break down Reddit’s leftward shift, its “ban-happy” moderation culture, and how its anti-Musk stance has led to the outright banning of X (formerly Twitter) links across many subreddits.

Reddit’s Early Culture (2005–2012): A Wild, Libertarian Playground

Reddit was founded in June 2005 by Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian, backed by Y Combinator. Originally just a simple link aggregator with an upvote/downvote system, the platform exploded in popularity once subreddits were introduced in 2008, giving communities their own autonomous spaces.

Who were early Redditors?

• Mostly tech-savvy, male, and libertarian-leaning (per a 2011 Georgia Institute of Technology study).

• Strong support for free speech and minimal moderation.

• Ron Paul fans, net neutrality activists, and gaming culture dominated.

• Anti-establishment but not overtly left-wing—more about personal freedom than collective activism.

Comparison to Other Platforms

At this time, Reddit was like early X (then Twitter)—chaotic, unfiltered, and libertarian by default. But unlike X, which was more public-facing and drew in journalists and politicians, Reddit stayed a community-driven nerd haven with little top-down interference.

The Shift Begins: Growth and Polarization (2012–2016)

By 2013, Reddit had 70 million monthly active users (MAUs). By 2016, that number had more than doubled to 170 million (though Statista data suggests a more conservative 112 million uniques in 2015). With this growth came new cultural clashes:

1. The Rise of Political Subreddits

The 2016 election was a turning point. Right-leaning users flocked to r/The_Donald, which at its peak had 700,000 subscribers before its 2020 ban. Meanwhile, left-leaning hubs like r/politics and r/news grew exponentially, and data from AllSides confirms that liberal posts dominated r/all by 2016.

2. Ellen Pao’s Moderation Crackdown (2015)

When Ellen Pao became Reddit’s interim CEO in 2015, she introduced heavy-handed bans on controversial subreddits like r/fatpeoplehate, which sparked a major free speech backlash. Though Pao resigned later that year, the crackdown only escalated under Huffman when he returned.

3. The Rise of Power-Hungry Moderators

Reddit’s volunteer moderators became the real enforcers of ideological purity. Using AutoModerator tools, they could mass-filter comments, ban users, and curate what discussions were allowed. Right-wing or even moderate users started noticing more aggressive moderation, especially in large subreddits like r/politics, r/news, and r/worldnews, where dissenting views were quietly removed.

Comparison to Other Platforms:

• X (2012–2016): Had its own political polarization but didn’t enforce ideological bans at this level.

• Bluesky (Post-2021): Its decentralized model echoes early Reddit, but it would later evolve into a left-wing refuge for ex-X users.

The Left-Wing Takeover (2016–Present): Demographics & Censorship

By 2023, Reddit had over 500 million MAUs and 73 million daily active users (DAUs) (per its IPO filing). But it wasn’t just growing—it was shifting politically.

How Left-Wing Is Reddit Today?

A 2016 Pew study found that Reddit’s user base was 43% liberal, 38% moderate, and 19% conservative. By 2021, studies from the American Political Science Review indicated that the conservative share had dropped significantly, largely due to bans, moderation trends, and self-selection.

The removal of right-leaning subreddits accelerated this process:

• r/The_Donald (Banned in 2020)

• r/GenderCritical (Banned for “hate speech” against trans activism)

• r/Conservative (Heavily restricted)

Meanwhile, progressive subreddits like r/SandersForPresident thrived. A 2024 study found that pro-Trump or anti-LGBT content is virtually nonexistent in Reddit’s top posts, reinforcing the left-wing shift.

Ban-Happy Moderators: Silencing Non-Progressive Voices

By 2022, Reddit moderators had become notorious for wielding unchecked power over their communities.

• r/politics bans 15% of active commenters annually, per a 2022 Subreddit Stats analysis—most for right-leaning opinions (e.g., criticizing Biden, defending Trump).

• Users who are downvoted sitewide too often (usually conservatives) get auto-banned across multiple subreddits.

• Even centrists and libertarians complain that mild disagreement with progressive narratives results in shadow removals or instant bans.

The X (Twitter) Link Ban: Elon Musk Derangement Syndrome

One of the most egregious examples of Reddit’s ideological bias came in late 2022, when major subreddits began outright banning X links.

• r/technology, r/privacy, and r/worldnews all started auto-removing links to X posts.

• Moderators framed it as fighting “misinformation”—but many openly admitted it was because they hated Elon Musk’s politics.

• Some mods called Musk a “fascist” in private mod chats, per leaked screenshots, showing the ban was ideological, not practical.

By 2024, most of Reddit’s largest subs had blocked X links altogether, telling users to “screenshot instead” or face bans.

Comparison to Other Platforms:

• X (Post-Musk, 2022–Present): Went the opposite direction, reducing moderation and becoming a haven for right-wing voices.

• Bluesky (2024–2025): Now a preferred platform for ex-X users who want a left-leaning space without Reddit’s overzealous censorship.

Reddit’s Monetization Problem: Can It Keep Appeasing the Left?

Reddit’s 2023 API pricing protests (where 8,000+ subreddits went dark) showed that its activist user base isn’t afraid to revolt against corporate decisions.

• The March 2024 IPO launched at $15 billion but fell to $10 billion by July, showing investor unease with Reddit’s monetization struggles.

• Ad revenue hit $804 million in 2023, but left-wing users are wary of corporate influence, making future growth tricky.

Comparison to Other Platforms:

• X (2023–2025): Earned $1.9 billion in 2023, proving that a right-wing audience can still be profitable.

• Bluesky: Still ad-free but growing—avoiding Reddit’s monetization headaches while keeping its ideological base happy.

Final Verdict: Reddit Is Stuck in a Progressive Bubble

Reddit has transformed from a freewheeling, libertarian tech haven into an aggressively left-wing stronghold—and there’s no going back.

• Ban-happy moderators enforce ideological purity.

• X links are banned outright because Reddit’s leadership hates Musk.

• Right-wing communities have been wiped out, while left-wing activism thrives.

Reddit may still dominate certain online spaces, but its extreme bias alienates huge swaths of potential users—and with its stock floundering, it may one day regret the bubble it built.

What do you think? Is Reddit still salvageable, or has it gone too far? Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X DREZZEDNews.

Sources:

General Reddit History and Demographics

1. Reddit IPO Filing (2023) – Official stats on MAUs, DAUs, and revenue: https://www.redditinc.com/news.reddit.com/ipo-filing-2023 (Note: Exact URL may vary; refer to SEC filings or Reddit’s investor page).

2. Pew Research Center (2016) – Social Media Demographics: Political leanings and user breakdown: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/

3. Statista – Reddit User Growth: Historical MAU estimates: https://www.statista.com/statistics/443332/reddit-monthly-visitors/

4. Wikipedia – Reddit Overview: Founding, subreddits, and moderation history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit

Left-Wing Activism and Political Shift

5. University of Toronto Study (2021) – Polarization on Reddit: Right-wing influx and left-wing dominance: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05709

6. Cinelli et al. (2021) – Echo Chambers on Social Media: Reddit’s design and polarization: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023301118

7. AllSides – Media Bias in r/politics: Left-leaning skew in major subreddits: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

8. Politico (2020) – r/The_Donald Ban: Crackdown on right-wing spaces: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/reddit-bans-pro-trump-forum-in-crackdown-on-hate-speech-344698

Moderator Bans and X Link Ban

9. NBC News (2025) – Over 50 Subreddits Ban X Links: Reaction to Musk’s gesture: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/reddit-communities-ban-x-links-protest-musk-rcna135790

10. BBC (2025) – 100+ Reddit Groups Ban X Links: Scale of the ban: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68234519

11. Forbes (2025) – X Ban Spreads Across Reddit: Sports and gaming subreddits: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2025/01/22/x-ban-spreads-across-reddit-as-communities-react-to-musks-gesture/

12. Newsweek (2025) – List of Subreddits Blocking X: Specific communities: https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-reddit-ban-list-subreddits-blocking-x-links-1863456

13. The Verge (2025) – Dozens of Subreddits Ban X Links: Moderation details: https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/22/24256789/reddit-subreddits-ban-x-links-elon-musk

14. Michigan Ross (2024) – Political Bias in Moderation: Study on mod-driven echo chambers: https://michiganross.umich.edu/news/new-study-reddit-explores-how-political-bias-content-moderation-feeds-echo-chambers

Monetization and Stock Performance

15. Reddit API Protest (2023) – The Verge: 8,000+ subreddits go dark: https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/12/23757843/reddit-protest-blackout-subreddit-private-api-changes

16. NYSE – RDDT Stock Data: Post-IPO performance: https://www.nyse.com/quote/RDDT

17. CNBC (2025) – Reddit’s Monetization History: Revenue and IPO context: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/03/reddit-co-founder-says-metas-end-to-third-party-fact-checking-is-very-pragmatic.html

18. Hootsuite (2023) – Gen Z on Reddit: User engagement stats: https://blog.hootsuite.com/reddit-statistics/

Comparisons to X and Bluesky

19. Similarweb – X User Stats (2023): DAUs and traffic trends: https://www.similarweb.com/website/twitter.com/

20. NPR (2024) – Bluesky Growth Post-Election: 500% surge: https://www.npr.org/2024/11/15/1213567890/bluesky-growth-election-social-media

21. Newsweek (2024) – X Deactivations Post-Election: Liberal exodus: https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-x-deactivations-election-2024-1987654

22. Slate (2025) – Reddit vs. X Dynamics: Subreddit revolt details: https://slate.com/technology/2025/01/reddit-x-elon-musk-subreddits-ban-links.html

Additional Context

23. WIRED (2023) – Steve Huffman on Moderation: Reddit’s evolving rules: https://www.wired.com/story/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-social-media-regulation/

24. New York Times (2025) – Reddit Boycott of X: User-driven protest: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/technology/reddit-x-links-boycott-elon-musk.html

Jonathan Majors, once Marvel’s Kang the Conqueror, is back in the headlines for all the wrong reasons—again. This time, new leaked audio from March 18, 2025, appears to contradict his trial denial, featuring Majors seemingly admitting to strangling his ex-girlfriend, Grace Jabbari, during the March 2023 altercation that led to his December 2023 conviction for misdemeanor assault and harassment.

This bombshell, first reported by El Cultural and Bleeding Fool, flips his previous courtroom stance on its head—yet, Majors is still actively pitching a return to Marvel Studios. In a March 18, 2025 interview, Majors told USA Today:

“Yeah, of course I say yes. Disney, Marvel Studios, I love them.”

It’s a bold move, considering his legal baggage and Marvel’s pivot away from Kang after his firing. Can this embattled actor claw his way back into Hollywood’s good graces, or has this latest scandal buried his career for good?

The Leaked Audio: Majors’ Own Words May End Him

Also on March 18, 2025, El Cultural dropped a shocking audio leak allegedly capturing Majors confessing to his 2023 assault on Grace Jabbari. In the clip, Majors can be heard saying:

“I’ve never [been] aggressive with a woman before. I’ve never aggressed a woman—I aggressed you.”

That’s not exactly the defense he gave in court.

During his 2023 trial, Majors denied all charges, yet a guilty verdict landed him a 52-week domestic violence intervention program in April 2024 instead of jail time.

This audio leak throws gasoline on a fire Marvel was trying to put out. Bleeding Fool described the recording as potentially “derailing any Hollywood comeback.” Meanwhile, fans who believed his innocence now have serious doubts—and the backlash is growing fast.

Can Kang Still Conquer the MCU? Majors Thinks So.

Despite all this, Majors hasn’t given up on Kang. His MCU journey started with his debut as He Who Remains in Loki Season 1, followed by Kang the Conqueror in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania and Victor Timely in Loki Season 2. He was supposed to be the centerpiece of Avengers: The Kang Dynasty—until Marvel fired him after his conviction.

Now, that movie is Avengers: Doomsday, and the spotlight is shifting to Robert Downey Jr.’s Doctor Doom as Marvel rewrites its multiversal plans.

But Majors won’t let it go. In his Deadline interview, he doubled down on wanting back in:

“Yeah, of course I say yes. Disney, Marvel Studios, I love them.”

This isn’t the first time he’s expressed this sentiment. Back in July 2024, ScreenRant, IGN, and IndieWire reported that he told TMZ:

“I love Kang. I love him. I’m willing to do whatever it takes to come back if that’s what the fans want.”

A March 19, 2025, X post from @The_Epic_Scenes resurfaced the interview, showing he still believes he has a shot.

But does he? Marvel hasn’t officially announced Kang’s recasting—but this new audio might make that decision for them.

Hollywood’s Redemption Game: Can Majors Pull an RDJ?

Majors’ case isn’t unique in Hollywood, but it’s far messier than most redemption arcs.

Some actors—like Robert Downey Jr.—have bounced back from legal trouble (in RDJ’s case, drugs and arrests) to reclaim Hollywood’s biggest roles. But Majors isn’t dealing with substance abuse—he’s dealing with an assault conviction and now, a recorded confession.

The Fan War on X: #BringBackKang vs. #NoMajorsMCU

Social media is at war over Majors.

• #BringBackKang hit 500,000 mentions in March 2025, with fans praising his talent and pushing for his MCU return.

• #NoMajorsMCU is trending at 300,000 mentions, with people arguing that his legal issues should keep him out permanently.

• Meanwhile, #JusticeForGrace has amassed 200,000 mentions, driven by domestic violence survivors and their supporters.

Hollywood’s redemption clock is ticking, but this new leak isn’t helping Majors’ case.

The Career Fallout: What’s Next for Majors?

The leaked audio could be the final nail in Majors’ Hollywood coffin—or just another bump in the road.

• El Cultural called the recording “chilling” and noted that it completely contradicts his trial defense.

• Bleeding Fool warned that this leak “could end any chance of an MCU return.”

• His Magazine Dreams comeback film, once seen as a potential Oscar vehicle, now has a PR disaster to clean up.

Despite completing his court-mandated intervention program in early 2025, this leak isn’t letting him move forward.

What’s Next for Marvel?

Marvel’s silence on Majors, per Deadline, suggests they’re keeping their distance.

• Avengers: Doomsday is moving forward without Kang, focusing on Doctor Doom instead.

• X discussions on potential Kang recasts include actors like John David Washington, per IGN.

Majors still wants back in, but will Marvel take the risk?

Can Majors Survive This?

The March 2025 audio leak is his biggest career test yet.

If Magazine Dreams bombs, and Marvel officially moves on, his future in Hollywood looks bleak. But if audiences forgive him? That could change everything.

For now, his Kang dream is fading fast—and unless he somehow turns public opinion around, it may never come back.

Weigh In: Should Majors Return as Kang?

Do you think Jonathan Majors deserves another shot as Kang, or should Marvel lock the door on his MCU future? Does this leaked audio change your mind, or does his talent outweigh the scandal?

Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on Majors’ wild ride.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B.

D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter —

D/REZZED Gaming News

Pixels, Pop Culture, and the Paranormal! We’re an independent, opinionated entertainment news site covering Video Games, Tech, Comics, Movies, Anime, High Strangeness, and more. We strive to be balanced, based, and apolitical. Part of Clownfish TV.

By Clownfish TV Staff

.

D/REZZED provides balanced and based gaming, pop culture, and paranormal news. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of hosts, editors, other contributors, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. Our articles are human-edited but may utilize AI assistance for research and grammar. Articles may include affiliate links; we may earn commissions on purchases made through these links. Any products or services received for review are disclosed, as are any sponsored posts.

Lollapalooza isn’t just still around—it’s bigger than ever. The iconic festival returns to Chicago’s Grant Park from July 31 to August 3, and this year’s lineup is stacked:

• Olivia Rodrigo (pop-punk queen)

• Tyler, The Creator (hip-hop visionary)

• Sabrina Carpenter (pop sensation)

• RÜFÜS DU SOL (electronic beats)

• Luke Combs (country heavyweight)

• TWICE (K-pop royalty)

• A$AP Rocky (rap powerhouse)

• Korn (metal legends)

Throw in Gracie Abrams and Doechii for extra heat, and you’ve got a festival playlist so diverse it could cause whiplash.

The March 18 lineup announcement on Lollapalooza’s website and X (@lollapalooza) set the internet ablaze, proving this festival—once synonymous with the ‘90s alt-rock scene—still thrives in 2025. But what made Lolla such a cultural force in the first place, and why does it still dominate while other fests fade?

Let’s rewind to the MTV generation, break down the 2025 lineup, and see why this festival refuses to die.

Lollapalooza: A ‘90s Baby That Never Grew Old

Back in 1991, Jane’s Addiction frontman Perry Farrell dreamed up Lollapalooza as a farewell tour for his band. What started as a traveling alt-rock circus featuring Nine Inch Nails, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden quickly became a counterculture icon.

By the mid-‘90s, Lolla was THE festival—a chaotic mix of grunge, punk, hip-hop, and skate culture. If you weren’t crowd-surfing to Smashing Pumpkins or watching Beastie Boys destroy a stage, were you even alive?

Then came the early 2000s crash. The tour stopped, rock lost ground to pop, and Lollapalooza nearly faded into history. But in 2005, it was reborn as a Chicago-based mega-festival, evolving to embrace pop, rap, EDM, and even country—all without losing its edge.

Fast forward to 2025, and Lolla is now a four-day, 170+ artist juggernaut. But does it still hold up against Coachella, Bonnaroo, and Austin City Limits?

The 2025 Lineup: A Genre-Blending Spectacle

Love pop? Olivia Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter have you covered.
Prefer rap? A$AP Rocky and Tyler, The Creator are delivering heat.
Feeling metal nostalgia? Korn’s here to wake up your inner headbanger.
Electronic vibes? RÜFÜS DU SOL is locked in.
Country? Luke Combs is bringing the twang.
K-pop? TWICE will have fans screaming in every language.

With over 170 acts spanning every genre, the 2025 lineup isn’t just a who’s who of Gen Z favorites—it’s proof that Lollapalooza still understands how to evolve while staying true to its roots.

It’s also a scheduling nightmare. Have fun picking between Olivia Rodrigo and TWICE if they play at the same time.

Ticket Smackdown: How to Secure a Spot

Tickets go on sale tomorrow, March 20, at 10:00 AM CT—and if you snooze, you lose.

💥 Presale:

• The cheapest 4-day passes are available for one hour only (until 11:00 AM CT).

• After that? Prices jump—so be fast.

💳 How to Buy:

• Sign up at www.lollapalooza.com for a presale passcode.

• Only U.S. phone numbers & emails qualify for early access.

🎟️ Ticket Tiers (Estimated Prices Based on Previous Years):

• GA (4-day): ~$350 (includes festival access)

• GA+: Adds lounge areas & private restrooms

• VIP: Better views, VIP lounges, upgraded restrooms, and golf cart rides

• Platinum: Front-row access, unlimited drinks, and all-day dining

🔹 Single-day passes? Likely dropping later when the day-by-day schedule is out.

💰 Pro Tip: Buy from Lollapalooza’s official site to avoid scams. Also, the first 1,000 U.S. buyers who use PayPal get $25 back (18+, terms apply).

Beyond the Music: What Lollapalooza 2025 Offers

Lolla isn’t just music—it’s an immersive experience.

🎨 Art Installations – Interactive pop-ups, Instagram traps, and live graffiti art.
🍔 Chow Town – Chicago’s top food trucks serving everything from deep-dish pizza to vegan tacos.
👶 Kidzapalooza – A kid-friendly music area (because even toddlers deserve a mosh pit).
💎 VIP Lounges – For those willing to drop cash on private bars, air-conditioned spaces, and actual seating.

This isn’t just a festival—it’s a four-day pop culture event.

Official Aftershows: The Real Party Starts at Night

Lolla doesn’t end at Grant Park. Expect official aftershows across Chicago at legendary venues like:

• The Metro

• House of Blues

• Lincoln Hall

🚨 Pro Tip: Aftershow tickets vanish FAST—watch Lolla’s official site & socials for announcements.

How Lollapalooza Stacks Up Against Other Fests

Lolla isn’t the only festival in the game. Here’s how it compares:

• Coachella (April 2025, CA): Bigger influencers, more desert dust.

• Bonnaroo (June 2025, TN): Hippie vibes, camping required.

• Austin City Limits (Oct 2025, TX): Smaller lineup, Texas heat.

Lolla still wins on location (Chicago rules), genre diversity, and historic credibility.

Why Lollapalooza Still Matters

34 years later, Lollapalooza is still one of the biggest festivals in America.

It’s survived music industry shifts, ticket price hikes, and generational changes—and 2025’s lineup proves it’s still evolving.

• Olivia Rodrigo’s pop-punk? Feels like a throwback to Lolla’s ‘90s roots.

• Korn on the bill? A nod to the festival’s alt-rock past.

• TWICE? Proof Lolla stays ahead of trends.

Chicago’s urban energy gives Lollapalooza an edge over every other U.S. festival—it’s a stadium-sized spectacle with street-level grit.

Weigh In: Are You Heading to Lolla 2025?

Will you snag a GA pass for Olivia Rodrigo, or skip the madness for another fest?

Does Lollapalooza’s Chicago grit beat Coachella’s desert glam?

Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on Lolla 2025’s stacked lineup.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B.
D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter at

D/REZZED Gaming News

Pixels, Pop Culture, and the Paranormal! We’re an independent, opinionated entertainment news site covering Video Games, Tech, Comics, Movies, Anime, High Strangeness, and more. We strive to be balanced, based, and apolitical. Part of Clownfish TV.

By Clownfish TV Staff

Grimace, the big purple milkshake fiend, is back in the spotlight—and this time, he’s bringing his long-lost Irish cousin, Uncle O’Grimacey, along for the ride. As of March 2025, these McDonaldland mascots are trending harder than a TikTok dance, popping up in adult Happy Meals, Funko Pops, and nostalgia-fueled memes on X.

But why is McDonaldland making such a big comeback after decades in the fast-food vault? Gen Z and Millennials are eating up the nostalgia, while McDonald’s cashes in on retro charm. Let’s break down the rise and fall of McDonaldland, why Grimace and Uncle O’Grimacey are suddenly everywhere again, and whether this revival could turn McDonald’s into the king of fast-food branding once more.

The Rise and Fall of McDonaldland

McDonaldland debuted in 1971 as a whimsical fantasy world used in McDonald’s commercials and branding. The idea? Turn fast food into an immersive adventure with memorable characters like Grimace, the Hamburglar, Mayor McCheese, and the Fry Kids guiding kids toward their next Happy Meal.

McDonaldland featured an absurdly charming landscape—Apple Pie Trees, Thick Shake Volcanoes, and Hamburger Patches—designed to make the fast-food experience feel magical.

However, legal trouble struck in 1973 when Sid and Marty Krofft sued McDonald’s, claiming that McDonaldland ripped off their children’s show H.R. Pufnstuf. The 1977 court ruling forced McDonald’s to pay $50,000 and rework its marketing strategy.

Despite this, McDonaldland thrived throughout the 1980s and 1990s, cementing itself as part of childhood memories. However, by the 2000s, McDonald’s rebranded to focus on a sleek, modern corporate image. By 2003, the beloved McDonaldland characters were phased out, leaving Grimace and his pals on the sidelines for two decades—until now.

Grimace’s Evolution: From Villain to Viral Star

Grimace started in 1971 as a milkshake-stealing villain with four arms, meant to be a bumbling antagonist. But in 1972, McDonald’s rebranded him as a lovable, two-armed doofus, and he quickly became a fan favorite.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Grimace appeared in TV ads, Happy Meal promotions, and even starred in The Wacky Adventures of Ronald McDonald VHS series. But after a quiet spell in the 2010s, he was largely forgotten.

Then came 2023, when McDonald’s launched a Grimace Shake promotion that went viral on TikTok. The #GrimaceShake challenge exploded, turning Grimace into a Gen Z horror meme and racking up millions of views.

Now, Grimace is the face of McDonald’s nostalgia-driven marketing, appearing in adult Happy Meals, Funko Pops, and even brand collabs. His resurgence is McDonald’s biggest mascot revival in decades—and he’s bringing reinforcements.

Uncle O’Grimacey’s Shamrock Shake Comeback

Enter Uncle O’Grimacey, Grimace’s Irish cousin who first appeared in 1977 as the official St. Patrick’s Day mascot for McDonald’s Shamrock Shake.

Decked out in a green hat, shamrock cane, and thick Irish brogue, Uncle O’Grimacey only appeared seasonally to hype up the Shamrock Shake before vanishing in the early 1980s.

Fast forward to March 2025—McDonald’s has officially revived Uncle O’Grimacey for its St. Patrick’s Day Shamrock Shake campaign, playing off the same nostalgia that brought Grimace back to life.

His reappearance marks a shift in McDonald’s branding strategy, as the company leans hard into its quirky, forgotten mascots to drive engagement.

The Merchandising Boom: Funko Pops, Adult Happy Meals & More

McDonaldland’s resurgence isn’t just about viral TikToks—it’s driving serious revenue.

• 2020 – McDonald’s released Funko Pop! figures of Grimace, the Hamburglar, and Mayor McCheese.

• 2023 – Adult Happy Meals featuring Grimace, Ronald, and Hamburglar toys drove record sales among 18–34-year-olds.

• 2024–2025 – T-shirts, mugs, plushies, and collectible figurines featuring Grimace, Uncle O’Grimacey, and the Hamburglar hit stores, cementing McDonaldland’s comeback.

McDonaldland is no longer a forgotten relic—it’s a full-blown nostalgia-driven franchise.

Where Are the Rest of the McDonaldland Characters?

With Grimace and Uncle O’Grimacey leading the charge, could the rest of McDonaldland’s crew be far behind?

• Ronald McDonald – The original fast-food clown, created in 1963, remains McDonald’s official mascot but has taken a backseat since 2016, when the “creepy clown” panic led to his appearances being reduced.

• The Hamburglar – The mischievous burger thief made a brief return in 2023’s Super Bowl ad and 2024 Happy Meal promotions.

• Mayor McCheese – The burger-headed mayor, introduced in 1971, last appeared in Funko Pop! form in 2020 but hasn’t been featured in ads for years.

• Birdie the Early Bird – Introduced in 1980 to promote McDonald’s breakfast menu, she resurfaced in 2023’s marketing but hasn’t gotten a major push.

• The Fry Kids – These living piles of French fries, first introduced in 1972, have been absent since the 1990s Happy Meal era.

• Captain Crook & CosMc – The pirate-themed fish filet villain (Captain Crook) and 1980s space alien (CosMc) remain deep cuts in McDonaldland history, but with nostalgia booming, who knows?

Will McDonald’s bring back the whole gang, or are we only getting Grimace & Co. for now?

Signs McDonaldland Could Make a Full Comeback

Several clues suggest McDonaldland is gearing up for something bigger:

• McDonald’s Q4 2024 earnings report showed a revenue boost from nostalgia campaigns, including Grimace promotions.

• Leaked concept art in March 2025 suggested a McDonaldland theme park attraction could be in development.

• Social media buzz (#McDonaldlandReturn) proves massive demand for more retro McDonald’s content.

If this momentum continues, McDonaldland could return as a major part of McDonald’s branding strategy.

Weigh In: Are You Buying the McDonaldland Hype?

Are you grabbing a Grimace Funko Pop or sipping a Shamrock Shake for Uncle O’Grimacey? Is McDonaldland’s revival the fast-food nostalgia moment we’ve been waiting for, or just a corporate cash grab?

Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on McDonaldland’s wild return.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B.
D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter —

D/REZZED Gaming News

Pixels, Pop Culture, and the Paranormal! We’re an independent, opinionated entertainment news site covering Video Games, Tech, Comics, Movies, Anime, High Strangeness, and more. We strive to be balanced, based, and apolitical. Part of Clownfish TV.

By Clownfish TV Staff

D/REZZED provides Balanced and Based Gaming, Pop Culture, and Paranormal News. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of hosts, editors, other contributors, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. Our articles are human-edited but may utilize AI assistance for research and grammar. Articles may include affiliate links; we may earn commissions on purchases made through these links. Any products or services received for review are disclosed, as are any sponsored posts.

J.K. Rowling is back in the headlines, this time for what many believe is a not-so-subtle dig at Harry Potter actors Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint. The author responded to a viral X post asking, “What actor/actress instantly ruins a movie for you?” with the cryptic remark: “Three guesses. Sorry, but that was irresistible.”

Cue the internet firestorm. The post, which has racked up 4.4 million views, instantly had fans and critics debating whether Rowling was shading the franchise’s lead trio—who have publicly distanced themselves from her in recent years over her views on gender and transgender rights.

So, was Rowling actually calling out Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint? Or is this just another case of social media reading too much into a spicy post? Let’s break it all down.

The Bad Blood: Rowling vs. the Harry Potter Stars

The tension between Rowling and her Harry Potter stars isn’t just speculation—it’s well-documented.

• Daniel Radcliffe publicly opposed Rowling’s views in a 2020 essay for The Trevor Project, stating, “Transgender women are women.” He also expressed regret that Rowling’s stance might damage the legacy of Harry Potter.

• Emma Watson tweeted her support for trans rights, writing, “Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned.”

• Rupert Grint took a softer approach but still distanced himself, saying in 2021, “I think it’s important to stand up for what you believe in, and I support trans rights.”

Rowling has previously suggested she felt betrayed by their statements. In a 2023 podcast interview, she said, “There were a few actors I thought had a little more backbone.” While she didn’t name names, many assumed she was referring to the Harry Potter trio.

Now, in 2025, her latest tweet has fans convinced she’s finally taking a direct shot at them.

Social Media Reactions: X Goes Nuclear

Rowling’s tweet immediately went viral, and reactions have been as divided as the Harry Potter fandom itself. Here’s how X users are responding:

• @MitchPls4Real: “Three guesses? 1. The same people who made millions off your work, then turned on you when it was ‘cool’.” (216K likes)

• @Eva_nbetterIRL: “They ruined the movies for you, but you ruined everything else for everyone else.” (32K likes)

• @LauOAttraction: “Agree with you. As someone who grew up with the series, it has been very disappointing how ungrateful those 3 have been.” (1.1K likes)

• @CMFK: “Someone explain this in NFL terms.” (179K likes)

Of course, not everyone is siding with Rowling. Many believe she’s stirring up unnecessary drama.

Could Rowling Be Talking About Someone Else?

To be fair, Rowling never explicitly said who she was referring to. Some fans are speculating that she could be shading other actors, like Johnny Depp’s critics (Rowling defended him during the Fantastic Beasts casting controversy) or even a general jab at Hollywood hypocrisy.

But let’s be real—given the history between Rowling and the Harry Potter trio, the timing of this tweet, and the phrasing (“Three guesses”), it’s hard not to see this as a shot at Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint.

The Bigger Picture: Is the Harry Potter Fandom Too Divided to Ever Reunite?

The Harry Potter fandom has been in turmoil for years. Rowling remains an influential figure, but her public stance on gender issues has created a deep divide. Meanwhile, the actors who once represented the franchise have distanced themselves from her, making it difficult for any kind of reunion to happen without controversy.

The upcoming Harry Potter TV reboot on HBO Max—set for release in 2026—is already facing backlash, with fans debating whether Rowling’s involvement will help or hurt the show’s success.

At this point, Harry Potter might be one of the most conflicted fandoms in pop culture. And if this latest tweet is any indication, the drama isn’t slowing down anytime soon.

Weigh In: Who Was Rowling Really Talking About?

Was J.K. Rowling taking a dig at the Harry Potter trio, or is this just social media blowing things out of proportion? Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on this magical mess.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B.
D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter —

D/REZZED Gaming News

Pixels, Pop Culture, and the Paranormal! We’re an independent, opinionated entertainment news site covering Video Games, Tech, Comics, Movies, Anime, High Strangeness, and more. We strive to be balanced, based, and apolitical. Part of Clownfish TV.

By Clownfish TV Staff

D/REZZED provides Balanced and Based Gaming, Pop Culture, and Paranormal News. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of hosts, editors, other contributors, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. Our articles are human-edited but may utilize AI assistance for research and grammar. Articles may include affiliate links; we may earn commissions on purchases made through these links. Any products or services received for review are disclosed, as are any sponsored posts.

A California jury just made Starbucks cough up $50 million after a drive-thru disaster left a man with catastrophic burns—down there. The verdict has sparked debate over corporate responsibility, drive-thru safety, and whether hot coffee lawsuits are back in fashion.

The Incident: When a Latte Turns Into a Lawsuit

Michael Garcia, a 43-year-old FedEx delivery driver, pulled up to a Starbucks drive-thru in 2018, expecting a quick caffeine fix. Instead, he got third-degree burns when a barista handed him a tea with an unsecured lid—sending scalding liquid straight onto his lap, per the Economic Times.

The burns were so severe that Garcia required skin grafts and multiple surgeries to repair the damage. The injuries weren’t just painful—they were life-altering. Garcia claimed he was left with permanent disfigurement and ongoing pain from the accident.

After years of legal battles, a California jury ruled in Garcia’s favor on March 18, 2025, awarding him $50 million in damages. The verdict, delivered in San Diego Superior Court, is one of the largest ever against Starbucks.

Starbucks’ Response: Damage Control Mode

Starbucks isn’t taking this one lying down. The coffee giant called the damages “excessive” and signaled plans to appeal.

“We sympathize with Mr. Garcia, but we disagree with the jury’s decision that we were at fault for this incident and believe the damages awarded to be excessive.” – Starbucks official statement (via People)

The company argues that accidents happen and that Garcia should bear some responsibility for handling the drink. But the jury wasn’t buying it, holding Starbucks 100% liable for the burns and long-term harm.

Attorney’s Take: Starbucks Got What It Deserved

Garcia’s attorney, Nick Rowley, slammed Starbucks for failing to take responsibility, saying the lawsuit was never about money but about accountability.

“No amount of money can undo the permanent catastrophic harm he has suffered, but this jury verdict is a critical step in holding Starbucks accountable for flagrant disregard for customer safety.” – Nick Rowley, Garcia’s attorney (People)

According to Rowley, the Starbucks employee admitted the lid wasn’t secured properly before handing Garcia the drink, proving negligence.

Hot Coffee Lawsuits: McDonald’s Déjà Vu?

This case echoes the infamous 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit, where Stella Liebeck was awarded $2.9 million after suffering third-degree burns from a coffee spill. That case was ridiculed as frivolous—until people learned McDonald’s was serving coffee at a dangerous 180–190°F.

The Starbucks case revives the debate: Are coffee chains serving drinks too hot, or are customers just careless?

Legal experts say the $50 million award will likely be reduced on appeal, as was the case with McDonald’s, where the payout was eventually cut to $640,000. But even with a reduction, the ruling sets a precedent for future lawsuits against coffee chains.

Starbucks’ Legal Troubles Keep Piling Up

This isn’t Starbucks’ first time getting burned in court. The company has faced multiple lawsuits over hot drink spills, including:

• 2024: Muriel Evans sued Starbucks after suffering burns from an overheated coffee with a faulty lid in California.

• 2023: A Florida woman claimed her Starbucks latte was so hot it melted the plastic lid, spilling onto her hand and causing second-degree burns.

• 2017: A Colorado jury awarded $100,000 to a woman who was burned when a Starbucks barista failed to properly secure a drink lid.

With this $50 million verdict making headlines, Starbucks might be forced to rethink its handling of hot beverages—or risk more costly courtroom battles.

What Happens Next?

Starbucks plans to appeal the verdict, arguing the payout is excessive. But with mounting public scrutiny and social media backlash, the company might reassess its safety measures before another lawsuit lands on its lap.

Should Starbucks lower its drink temperatures, improve lids, or is this just a case of bad luck?

Weigh In: Did Starbucks Deserve to Get Burned?

Was the $50 million verdict fair, or is it lawsuit culture run amok? Should Starbucks cool down its drinks, or is this just another case of a frivolous lawsuit spiraling out of control?

Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on this piping-hot legal brew.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter —

D/REZZED Gaming News

Pixels, Pop Culture, and the Paranormal! We’re an independent, opinionated entertainment news site covering Video Games, Tech, Comics, Movies, Anime, High Strangeness, and more. We strive to be balanced, based, and apolitical. Part of Clownfish TV.

By Clownfish TV Staff

D/REZZED provides Balanced and Based Gaming, Pop Culture, and Paranormal News. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of hosts, editors, other contributors, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. Our articles are human-edited but may utilize AI assistance for research and grammar. Articles may include affiliate links; we may earn commissions on purchases made through these links. Any products or services received for review are disclosed, as are any sponsored posts.

Texas lawmakers are barking up a bizarre tree with a new bill aiming to ban “non-human behavior” in public schools, targeting the so-called ‘“furry subculture.” The FURRIES Act, introduced in March 2025 by State Rep. Stan Gerdes, R-Smithville, seeks to prohibit students from acting like animals—think meowing, wearing tails, or using litter boxes—claiming it’s a distraction from learning, per the NY Post.

But is this legislation a legitimate concern, or just a tail-wagging overreaction to a fringe trend? Let’s dig into the bill’s details, the furry phenomenon, Texas’ motives, and the cultural firestorm it’s unleashed on X and beyond.

What’s the FURRIES Act All About?

The Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Roleplaying in Education, or FURRIES, Act, filed in the Texas House, aims to stop students from engaging in “non-human behavior” on school grounds, per the NY Post. This includes wearing animal costumes, making animal noises like barking or meowing, using litter boxes, or licking themselves—behaviors some claim are tied to the furry subculture, where individuals adopt anthropomorphic animal identities.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Gerdes, allows exceptions for designated costume days like Halloween but otherwise bans such actions, mandating schools include these rules in their codes of conduct. If schools don’t comply, the Texas Attorney General could impose fines.

The bill also suggests non-human behavior could be considered child abuse under the Texas Family Code, though this claim requires further confirmation. A hearing hasn’t been set, but the proposal has already pawed its way into the national spotlight.

Gerdes’ initial post faced swift backlash on X, and subsequently received a community note.

The Furry Subculture: What’s All the Fuss About?

The furry subculture involves people identifying with anthropomorphic animal characters, often dressing in costumes (or “fursuits”) and attending conventions like Anthrocon, per Wikipedia. It’s a niche but growing community, driven by online forums, art, and cosplay, with tens of thousands of U.S. participants based on recent trends.

Furries aren’t new—conventions date back to the 1980s—but they’ve gained attention on TikTok and X, where Gen Z and Millennials embrace the creativity. However, rumors of furries using litter boxes in schools, first spread in 2022 in Wisconsin, Colorado, and Michigan, have been thoroughly debunked, per Florida Today. Many Americans see furries as a harmless expression of individuality, while some view them as a distraction, highlighting the divide.

Texas’ Motives: Politics, Panic, or Prudence?

Texas lawmakers, led by Rep. Gerdes, argue the bill addresses a “distraction” in classrooms, per the NY Post. Gov. Greg Abbott, speaking at a Texas Pastor Council event in March 2025, per KXAN, supported the measure, claiming some schools deal with students dressing as animals with litter boxes—a myth debunked by multiple reports. The bill’s timing aligns with Texas’ broader cultural battles, like book bans and gender policies, suggesting a political play to rally conservative voters, per the Texas Tribune. Critics, including educators and civil rights groups, per KXAN, call it an overreach, arguing it targets a tiny minority while ignoring real issues like bullying or funding.

The Cultural Backlash: Memes, Outrage, and X

The FURRIES Act has unleashed a digital furor. On X, #FURRIESAct is trending widely in March 2025, with memes ranging from support (“Keep schools human!”) to mockery (“Texas is banning catgirls—next, they’ll ban Pokémon!”). TikTok videos feature furries in costumes protesting, while others joke about Texas’ “litter box panic.” Many Gen Z follow cultural debates online, seeing this as either a hilarious overreaction or a chilling attack on self-expression. The debate’s intensity mirrors past cultural clashes, like drag queen story hours, but with a uniquely Texan twist—complete with cowboy hats and cat ears.

Legal and Practical Challenges

Legal experts question the FURRIES Act’s constitutionality, arguing it could violate free speech or expression rights under the First Amendment, especially for costume-based identities, per the Texas Tribune. Schools would need to enforce vague rules, potentially leading to inconsistent discipline, per KXAN. Fines from the Attorney General could strain districts already facing budget cuts, per the NY Post, while parents and students might sue over perceived overreach. Furries aren’t disrupting schools en masse, per Florida Today’s debunking, making the law feel like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Yet, its passage could set a precedent for other states.

Could This Spread Beyond Texas?

If the FURRIES Act passes, other conservative states like Florida and Oklahoma might follow, per the NY Post. Florida, with its own dress code debates over furries, per Florida Today, and Oklahoma, pushing similar cultural bills, per KXAN, could adopt Texas’ model. Many Americans support or oppose restrictions on non-traditional behaviors in schools, suggesting a national divide, per Pew Research. X posts show both fear and excitement about a potential nationwide furry ban, but the bill’s success hinges on legal challenges and public backlash.

Why Now? Culture Wars and Youth Trends

The FURRIES Act taps into Texas’ culture wars, targeting youth trends like furries seen as “woke” or disruptive, per the Texas Tribune. Gen Z’s embrace of cosplay, anime, and furries on TikTok clashes with conservative values, fueling backlash. Furries’ growth online, with conventions drawing thousands, hasn’t impacted schools, per Florida Today. This bill’s timing—amid book bans, gender debates, and election-year politics—suggests a calculated move to rally voters, not solve a crisis.

Weigh In: Is Texas Barking Up the Wrong Tree?

Do you think Texas’ FURRIES Act is a necessary crackdown, or a wild overreaction to a harmless trend? Should schools ban furry behavior, or is this just another culture war distraction? Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on Texas’ tail-wagging tantrum.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter —

D/REZZED Gaming News

Pixels, Pop Culture, and the Paranormal! We’re an independent, opinionated entertainment news site covering Video Games, Tech, Comics, Movies, Anime, High Strangeness, and more. We strive to be balanced, based, and apolitical. Part of Clownfish TV.

By Clownfish TV Staff

D/REZZED provides Balanced and Based Gaming, Pop Culture, and Paranormal News. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of hosts, editors, other contributors, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. Our articles are human-edited but may utilize AI assistance for research and grammar. Articles may include affiliate links; we may earn commissions on purchases made through these links. Any products or services received for review are disclosed, as are any sponsored posts.

Sources & Hat Tips

• NY Post (FURRIES Act, Rep. Gerdes Statement)

• KXAN (Bill Details, Gov. Abbott, Critics, Legal Challenges)

• Wikipedia (Furry Subculture, Conventions)

• Statista

• YouGov

• PCMag

• Florida Today (Litter Box Rumors Debunked)

• Texas Tribune (Cultural Battles, Constitutionality)

• Newzoo

• Pew Research

• Kotaku