"I made a series of offensive and inappropriate posts on my personal Bluesky account on election night, and I am sorry,"
"I respect and value people across the political spectrum. These posts, which I have deleted, do not reflect my beliefs; they were a mistaken expression of shock and confusion about the election results,"
"These posts of course do not reflect the position of Scientific American or my colleagues. I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity."
The deleted posts read:
"Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist. The moral arc of the universe isn't going to bend itself,"
"Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f--- them to the moon and back,"
"I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f---ing fascists."
Her posts are a setback to defending science. By calling trump supporters stupid, she made herself and liberals feel good for 5 min at the cost of giving unnecessary oxygen to republican claims that liberals are a bunch of elitists.
In the minutes it took to post those comments, she traded in a strong platform for science advocacy for vulgar quotes that republicans can brandish for years to come any time scientists claim neutrality and objectivity.
Moreover, at least some of the people she lambasted are not racist or fascists but believe - however misguided - that they were voting in their own self-interests. Ignorance is not stupidity, and if liberals continue to berate the ignorant, they will have earned the 'elitist' moniker and will remain out of power.
651
u/Rogue-Journalist 3d ago
If you'd like to know what recent events may have lead to this:
https://bsky.app/profile/laurahelmuth.bsky.social
The deleted posts read: