Liberals across the nation are in full tantrum mode after a shade of white was declared 2026’s top hue.

On December 4, Pantone LLC — which is considered the global authority on color standardization — announced “Cloud Dancer,” described as a “billowy white imbued with serenity,” as its 2026 Color of the Year.

“Similar to a blank canvas, Cloud Dancer signifies our desire for a fresh start. … An airy white hue, PANTONE 11-4201 Cloud Dancer opens up space for creativity, allowing our imagination to drift so that new insights and bold ideas can emerge and take shape,” wrote Pantone Vice President Laurie Pressman.

Pantone Executive Director Leatrice Eiseman echoed the VP’s words: “The cacophony that surrounds us has become overwhelming, making it harder to hear the voices of our inner selves. A conscious statement of simplification, Cloud Dancer enhances our focus, providing release from the distraction of external influences.”

Despite these rationales and Pressman’s statement that skin color “did not factor into” Pantone’s selection, furious liberals are accusing the company of being tone-deaf and racist.

Allie Beth Stuckey dives into the hilariously absurd reactions of several unhinged lefties.

X user @svviftlet tweeted:

— (@)

In another social media video, two girls denounced Pantone’s Color of the Year, claiming it gives “Sydney Sweeney has good genes vibes.”

Back in July, Sweeney was lambasted for starring in an American Eagle denim commercial using the double entendre that Sydney Sweeney has good jeans/genes.

“You’re not allowed to say if you have blonde hair and blue eyes that you have good genes. … She clearly does have good genes. She’s beautiful,” scoffs Allie, “but if you’re a white person, you can’t say that.”

In another video, Feng Shui expert Katie Rogers literally set her Pantone color swatches on fire:

Another Instagram reel features influencer Charlotte Palermino, who ironically filmed her video in an off-white sweater in front of white-colored walls, whining, “It’s giving conservative.”

“It’s literally just a color, okay? It’s an inanimate color,” says Allie, “and the subliminal message is far more offensive than any supposed message that Pantone is communicating.”

The message these social media users are hammering is that “it’s not okay to be white. … You need to be ashamed of that, that white — having white skin — symbolizes something bad, that we need to reject the color of our skin.”

“In this age of self-confidence and self-love, it’s only white people who have to hate themselves or associate their skin color with the collective sins of people who lived elsewhere at a different time? No,” Allie says.

She encourages everyone, but especially Christians, to reject this social justice nonsense. “It’s completely unbiblical. That is not just. Justice is impartial. Justice is individual. Justice is direct. You don’t carry the sins of someone who kind of looked like you,” she says.

To see the videos and hear more of Allie’s commentary, watch the video above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable, Relatable with allie stuckey, Allie beth stuckey, Blazetv, Blaze media, Woke mob, Woke, Liberal hysteria, Cloud dancer, Pantone, Color wheel 

For years, we were warned that artificial intelligence would eventually eliminate the need for writers. In mere seconds, it would be able to crank out essays, articles, reports, blog posts, you name it, rendering flesh-and-blood writers obsolete.

Well, those days are here. AI writing floods our inboxes, social media feeds, and web pages every single day.

But it’s not quite the product we were pitched. While bots can indeed string coherent sentences together, the end result is mediocre at best. Its flat, em-dash heavy, idiosyncrasy-free, polite prose is easily recognizable to average readers, most of whom are disenchanted by the lack of human touch.

It turns out AI — beholden to algorithms and formulas — cannot counterfeit the voices of the deeply complicated, unique creatures that are human beings.

Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman, BlazeTV hosts of “Rufo & Lomez,” believe that AI writing may actually make writers more valuable — but just the ones with genuine talent.

AI is undeniably eliminating the massive class of mediocre writers. The kind of text AI produces is quickly becoming “the default sound or voice of people who don’t have talent, who can’t do things on their own. … It’s becoming the default voice of stupidity,” says Keeperman.

On the flip side, “Anybody who can write at a level above [AI] now has more value.”

The pervasiveness of AI copy seems to suggest that those genuine talents are few and far between.

“I am seeing [AI writing] everywhere. I am seeing it in published books. … Tons of ad copy even for really prominent companies that obviously have huge marketing departments [are] leaning on these sort of tripartite adjectival phrases. … There’s all these sort of syntactical signals that are giveaways,” says Keeperman, “but it’s also making me attuned to people who can write really well, and I find myself gravitating towards those people.”

But that doesn’t mean writers can’t use AI to their advantage. It is an excellent tool for “research,” “aggregating a lot of information,” “analysis,” and “brainstorming,” Keeperman adds.

Rufo agrees. “Terrible writing, [but] it’s good for discovery. … I think for certain tasks, it’s better than a Google search or a search engine search.”

For someone like him, who conducts large-scale research, AI can expedite the process of sifting through hundreds of pages of PDFs, but it’s not fail-proof.

AI is “maybe comparable to an undergraduate research assistant but … an unreliable [one],” says Rufo.

“You double-check the work, and you realize that the AI makes up 30% of the things that it’s telling you.”

“It seems like something that has huge potential, but I just see it slowing down in its improvement. I see it still having some fundamental flaws that would prevent it from being a trustworthy object of delegation,” he says.

“I remain extremely skeptical of the AI doomers or AI fatalists who think that this is going to take over the world and the machines are going to be controlling everything. It’s like it can’t even format citations. I think we’re a long ways away from the AI taking over the world.”

To hear more, watch the episode above

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Rufo & lomez, Chris rufo, Jonathan keeperman, Blazetv, Blaze media, Ai, Artificial intelligence, Ai writing, Ai killing jobs, Writers, Good writing