Links - 26th May 2026 (1 - General Wokeness)

wanye on X - "I have found that you can really get away with quite a lot just by adopting a particular affect when talking to liberals about controversial topics. The most important thing, the thing everything hinges on, is that they have to be convinced that you’re basically just like them, a good person just like them, not somebody on the other side. You have to hedge a lot, sprinkle your language full of, “to be sure” and other qualifiers. You don’t want to be too direct. If something is too controversial, then you want to signal convincingly that it brings you no pleasure to report it, that you’re not saying you like it. And you have to try very hard to be reassuring, to make them believe that above all you are concerned with the welfare of the people most harmed by these revelations. You have to go into it believing that it’s your job to manage their emotions throughout the entire conversation and remain attuned to how various pieces of information are hitting their ears, adjusting your approach based on how well they’re handling it. You have to talk to them, in other words, sort of as you would to a small child whose pet has just died. I’m not saying you should do this or that you’d even want to, but I am telling you that it works."
When you talk to left wingers, you need to do a lot of emotional labour

Michael Shermer on X - "Do you believe that The New York Times’s “1619 Project” about the role of slavery in the founding of the United States was accurate? Do you believe that Russian interference in the 2016 election rigged the election for Donald Trump? Do you believe that after the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., which killed Heather Heyer, President Trump said there were very fine people on both sides? These are commonly held beliefs that have, in fact, been debunked over and over and yet still persist. After the “1619 Project” was published, for example, five prominent scholars of American history (Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, James Oakes, Sean Wilentz, and Gordon Wood) objected, citing numerous errors that “are matters of verifiable fact.” Studies following the 2016 election found that the sort of false narratives pushed by the Russians on social media resulted in shifts of only hundredths of a percent in the outcome. As for Trump’s comment following the Unite the Right rally, he was referring to the people there who were protesting the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee when he said, “You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” He added immediately after: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.”"
Left wing quote mining makes creationists proud

Marco M. Aviña on X - "Excited to present my JMP at MPSA! The post-Floyd “Great Awokening” was driven by affluent white liberals and emphasized recognition over redistribution. Evidence from surveys, public discourse, and implicit bias data. Consistent with elite capture of identity politics. ⬇️"
The "Great Awokening" Had a Strong Upper-Class Accent - "Recent scholarship hails rising racial liberalism among white liberals as a racial reckoning and even a "Great Awokening." I find that affluent white liberals led these changes. I develop a status-signaling account in which members of this group, embedded in dense, politically homogeneous social environments, face competing reputational and gatekeeping incentives to express alignment with racial equality in principle but not in policy. I leverage the murder of George Floyd and the ensuing Black Lives Matter protests as a focusing event when antiracist norms surged. Using regression-discontinuity-in-time and event-study designs on national public opinion surveys and local public meeting transcripts, I show that post-Floyd movement was concentrated among high-income white liberals, centered on symbolic engagement rather than material policy commitments---whether universalistic or group-targeted---and short-lived. Finally, I provide evidence consistent with this account: post-Floyd, an income gap emerges in implicit bias testing, a form of self-monitoring, but not in implicit bias scores, which are less amenable to impression management. These findings complicate narratives of racial progress and recast the "Great Awokening" as recognitional politics without commensurate redistribution, consistent with concerns about elite capture in identity politics."

I've been asked to atend a voluntary interview at police station regarding a t-shirt I last wore 5 years ago. : r/LegalAdviceUK - "I'm a Taiwanese student studying in the UK for my masters. Police officer delivered a letter to my halls of residence today. I have been asked to atend a voluntary interview at a the police station. The officer explained the nature of the offense was a t-shirt that had been reporting to them. The t-shirt was worn by me and posted on my Facebook in some photos when I was with friends. It is a black top with sparkly studs in it that says "ORIENTAL B*TCH" written in the sparkling studs. The t-shirt was worn by me when I was 19 at a concert in Taiwan. I did not even bring it with me to the UK. The photo is of me in Taiwan with my friends. I think someone reported it because some girl on my course angry reacted photos of me wearing it and wrote "nasty horrible vile" and unfriended me. Police wont tell me if she reported it or not. Just that they are acting on a report. The letter says my interview is voluntary? Does that mean I can ignore this? I have job offers lined up in London, San Francisco, Ireland and Taiwan, so instead of taking the job in London and having a police investigation can I just leave without consequence and work somewhere else?"
The speech police are at it again

Meme - "NEW YORK Park Slope Food Coop draws outcry after member laments 'Jewish supremacy' during meeting "This is not who we are as a coop," member Ramon Maislen told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency."
"Jewish supremacism : my awakening on the Jewish question. Author: David Duke"

Meme - Democratic Donkey with SPLC defibrillator: "Don't you dare die on me!" *white hooded KKK member 'racism' dead on bed*

Meme - "SPLC
Southern Poverty Law Center
Scaring People for Loads of Cash"

Opinion | What Democrats Should Relearn From Obama - The New York Times (aka "The Democratic Brand Is Toxic in Too Many States") - "the party’s brand has become so toxic to overcome in so many places that Democrats have often simply given up on the party’s label and instead throw their support behind independents like Dan Osborn in Nebraska and Seth Bodnar in Montana. Another — better — idea might be for Democrats to try to change their brand. How would they do that? We know that, in general, more moderate candidates tend to do better. But the advice to appear more moderate is both frustratingly vague and out of step with the mood of a base that increasingly demands tough fighters. Still, politicians can do better if they abandon unpopular issue positions while sticking to their guns on more popular ones — and that’s regardless of whether they cultivate an image as moderate per se... By changing what Republicans stood for, Mr. Trump changed the party brand. Changing the brand helped to turn former swing states like Iowa and Ohio into solid red states. A new paper from the political scientists David Broockman and Joshua Kalla offers some guidance on how Democrats might do the same. They recently conducted a survey experiment in which they polled voters about potential candidates but attributed different policy views to them. They found out that which positions they attributed to candidates made a meaningful difference in how voters saw them and their willingness to vote for them... The two biggest vote-shifting issues for Democrats are related to race. Dropping support for the use of race as a factor in college admissions and racial targeting of small business assistance moved voters a great deal. So did embracing merit pay for K-12 teachers, backing off teaching gay and lesbian themes in school, welcoming fewer asylum seekers, being tougher on minor crimes, being more open to fossil-fuel production, restricting gender transition for children and sticking to biological sex as the criteria for sports teams. For Republicans, moderating on employment discrimination for gay and lesbian workers, on health care and on the minimum wage moved the needle. For Democrats, it was a good idea to stay strongly progressive on defending Social Security benefits, on the virtues of skilled immigrants and on the minimum wage. Many progressives who acknowledge that Democrats’ views on some of these issues are unpopular suggest that rather than cater to the voters, it would be wiser to expect political leaders to lead and shift public opinion. But this is very hard to do. Take affirmative action. In 2020, California Democrats devised a ballot initiative to reverse the state’s constitutional ban on race-conscious college admissions. This was a blue state in a generally strong year for Democrats nationwide. Every major Democrat in the state — the governor, both senators, Nancy Pelosi, the mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles — endorsed the initiative. It nonetheless failed, with less than 43 percent of the vote. If incumbent Democrats in California can’t persuade voters to shift their minds on this issue, there’s no way nonincumbents pitching themselves to swing voters will pull it off. In practice, most Democrats don’t run ads on progressive views on these topics, and they don’t feature them in their campaign speeches. That suggests that they know that these are losers. But they also tend not to abandon the unpopular positions. Instead, they talk around them. James Talarico, the talented Democrat running in Texas, likes to say that trans people are a numerically tiny share of the population and “the only minority destroying America is the billionaires.” In blue states like Virginia and New Jersey, where Democratic candidates for governor won handily in the face of Republican culture war attacks last fall, this kind of evasive maneuver is good enough. To get a Senate majority, though, Democrats need to win over genuinely skeptical voters in red states. Even very talented politicians like Mary Peltola in Alaska, Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Zach Wahls or Josh Turek in Iowa will struggle to do that with evasive moves... Post-Obama Democrats have become much more ideologically rigid, which in practice makes it very hard to win large majorities and drive policy change. On some of these topics, the orthodox progressive view is not even strongly supported by base Democrats. In their survey, Mr. Broockman and Mr. Kalla found that fewer than 50 percent of Democratic Party primary voters agreed with orthodox progressive support for admitting more asylum seekers, requiring gender self-identification to determine assignment to sports teams or opposing merit pay for teachers. Beyond that, no matter what your views, it takes majorities to pass laws and do things. There is no real benefit to upholding an ideology orthodoxy that can’t win."

Woman Terrified Of White Men Leaves Africa For Minnesota | Babylon Bee - "According to reports, a local woman and Congressional representative left Africa and immigrated to Minnesota, in spite of her paralyzing fear of white men. "White men cause most death and are very scary," said the woman, who fled Somalia in 1991 to escape a bloody civil war and moved to a city in the American Midwest before marrying a white man. "I am terrified of white men every day. They are gross and icky and violent." "I'm a good person," she added. Sources say the woman, who left a mostly black country to live in a state with a higher percentage of whites than Ohio and Pennsylvania, lives in constant fear for her life. "Any day, I could get murdered by a white man. One of them might stalk me at night and suck out all my blood like a vampire while shouting 'this is MAGA country.' I think my totally rational fear clearly demonstrates how dangerous white men are." The congresswoman reiterated that any calls for her to move back to the black nation of Somalia were "racist and sexist" and would "likely result in death." "If I move back to Somalia I might die," she said. "Because of white men." At publishing time, Ilhan Omar had accused white men of being the cause of black on black crime, global warming, and her low IQ."

'Muslim only' event at taxpayer-funded Texas waterpark gets backlash - "A taxpayer-funded Texas waterpark is getting splash-back for a “Muslims only” event next month after a local Islamic group rented out the facility. A flier for the DFW Epic Eid event on June 1 noted three times that attendance was strictly for Muslims — and modest swimsuits are required. “Seems like a civil rights violation,” one outraged commenter said. “Should we expect a ‘Christians Only’ day?” another commenter asked. Radio host Dana Loesch asked, “How is a taxpayer-funded, city-owned entity allowed to discriminate against non-Muslims at a public water park?” After the backlash, the organizer of the event, Aminah Knight, told The Post that she is backtracking on how she is advertising it — “to make it clearer that this is a modest dress-only event centered around celebrating Eid.” The third-annual event is being held at Epic Waters in Grand Prairie, outside Dallas, a massive, 80,000-square-feet indoor waterpark opened in 2017 at a cost of $88 million. The park was funded by a 0.25% sales tax residents approved at the ballot box in 2014. The FAQ for the event says “the entire waterpark has been exclusively reserved for Muslims.” Although the event website says men and women will not be separated during the event, it notes “we ask all attendees to uphold Islamic etiquette just as they do in other mixed gender spaces,” and encourages all visitors to follow a “modest” dress code and lower their gaze around members of the opposite sex “to help preserve a spiritually mindful and welcoming atmosphere for all.” The website offers suggestions, including an entire “what to wear” section of the site, complete with purchase links for modesty-approved swimwear for women, girls, boys and toddlers... A new flier for the event — released on Monday — removed the worlds “Muslim only” and replaced it with “modest dress only” and added the line “come and celebrate Eid with us, all are welcome!” Knight told The Post that she did not mean to exclude non-Muslims in organizing the event. “The core intention behind this event is to create a space where individuals and families who value modest dress and a modest environment can come together and feel comfortable enjoying a recreational space that often doesn’t naturally accommodate those preferences,” she said. “While the event is rooted in celebrating Eid within the Muslim community, the guiding principle for attendance is the modest dress code. “Guests are expected to follow that guideline; such as burkinis for women and swim trunks with shirts for men.”"
Texas water park forced to ditch 'Muslims-only' day after Abbott threatens to pull funding - "A tax-payer funded Texas waterpark is forced to ditch their 'Muslim-only' event after Gov Greg Abbott threatened to cut their funds... The city canceled the event 'Epic Eid' on Wednesday after Abbott gave Grand Prairie an ultimatum to scrap the event or lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in state funds. 'A city-owned water park in Grand Prairie openly advertised a "MUSLIMS ONLY" event -- closed to the general public,' Abbott wrote on X. 'That's religious discrimination. It's unconstitutional. I signed HB 4211 into law -- banning Muslim only no-go zones in Texas. 'The City must cancel the event and commit to never allowing something like it again by May 11th, or lose $530,000 in state grants,' he continued. 'Let this be a lesson to local officials: Facilities funded by ALL taxpayers are not just for a subset of Texans.'... The new poster removed 'Muslim only event,' while swapping out 'For Muslims only' with 'All are welcome.' Epic Eid was criticized across social media, with many questioning if a taxpayer-funded space is allowed to exclude certain demographics from its events. "
Islamophobia!

Nicholas J. Fuentes on X - "It’s really not that complicated. The Republicans totally betrayed their voters and broke every single promise. So I’m switching sides and voting Democrat in 2026 to punish them."
Weird. Left wingers tell us that not all Republicans are bigots but all bigots vote Republican (even if you ignore left wing anti-Semites and Islamists).

Wilfred Reilly on X - "I don't plan to do more gender banter today, but will say that this is MY question for BLACK activists. We have formal, institutionalized, pro-POC affirmative action programs. 28% of all new marriages are inter-racial. In this climate, black people from stable POC powers like Nigeria slightly out-pace whites, and white men often face discrimination. When is the war...over?"
Will Ford on X - "Winning isnt the point. The revolution is the point. As Booker T Washington put it: "There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.""

Bernie Rescinds Endorsement After Women’s Groups Blast ‘Misogynist’ Cenk Uygur - "When Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed Cenk Uygur, the co-founder of left-wing video site The Young Turks and the Platonic ideal of a Bernie Bro, in the packed race to replace former Rep. Katie Hill in Congress, he presumably didn’t expect that the endorsement would be criticized, disavowed, and finally retracted within the course of a single day. But after Sanders gave his imprimatur to a candidate who once said that his inability to get laid in Miami meant that “the genes of women are flawed” and declared that if he were a benevolent global dictator, he would legalize bestiality, Uygur’s campaign announced that in the face of growing criticism against Sanders, he would refuse all endorsements going forward—and Sanders, in response and under pressure, withdrew his endorsement entirely... In a statement released on Friday afternoon, released minutes before Sanders withdrew his endorsement, Uygur blamed “corporations, lobbyists, and special interest groups” for criticizing Sanders’ endorsement, and said he wouldn’t allow his past comments to hurt Sanders. “That’s why I have decided that I will not be accepting any endorsements… The only endorsements I'll be accepting going forward is that of the voters.” Sanders’ endorsement of Uygur was a shock to California Democrats already fearful that Uygur’s long history of ugly comments about women, as well as racial and sexual minority groups—coupled with his strong popularity among the internet left—could thwart their plans to keep California’s 25th congressional district in Democratic hands... Beyond a single swing district, the endorsement almost immediately began causing trouble for Sanders, who is courting the same California progressive organizers and organizations that have condemned Uygur’s candidacy... Uygur has condemned his past remarks, saying that they were written when he was a young conservative and “do not reflect who I am today... But some of Uygur’s most bizarre remarks came long after he became an icon of the internet left. In a November 2016 Young Turks segment, Uygur defended the Harvard University soccer team for creating a list rating female students by their looks; in a segment three years earlier, Uygur himself said that men should rank women on a 1-10 scale based on how willing they would be to allow them to perform oral sex. In a 2012 discussion about incest porn, Uygur said that if he were single, he’d “do it.” One year later, he said that if he were a global dictator, he would legalize having sex with animals.”
From 2019

Camus on X - "“Traditions are experiments that worked.” Louise Perry made a sharp point on Modern Wisdom: Progressives have a huge rhetorical advantage. They can always paint a shiny utopian future that’s never existed, so they never have to defend any real-world failures or trade-offs. Conservatives, on the other hand, end up defending imperfect past cultures and traditions — and immediately get hit with “so you support domestic violence / imperialism / cholera?” As Thomas Sowell said: there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Acknowledging trade-offs is fundamentally conservative — and often deeply unpopular in a world addicted to promises of perfect progress. I’ve always found this dynamic fascinating. It explains why one side feels perpetually on the defensive while the other gets to play visionary. What do you think — is the “traditions are experiments that worked” framing a stronger way to defend conservative ideas, or do you see it differently?"
Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن on X - "It's a big rhetorical advantage of the Left, since they deal in utopian fantasies, to always be able to accuse the Right of *wanting* something less that ideal. This is false of course. The Right defends things which are less than ideal because human beings cannot produce ideal and perfect structures. "Good but flawed" is the best we can do. Hence the soundness of Churchill's remark that "Democracy is a terrible form of government. It is only that it is better than all the other kinds mankind has tried from time to time.""
Intentions are more important than outcomes, which is why right wingers are evil and left wingers are good

Greg Lukianoff on X - ".@Google's chief scientist and lead for Gemini AI came to UC Berkeley to give a scientific lecture on modern AI research. He wasn’t there to debate Gaza or Google contracts, but protesters disrupted the event anyway, and within 10 minutes, it was shut down.
This Berkeley incident is part of a much bigger problem. @TheFIREorg has already recorded 108 campus deplatforming attempts in 2026, and it’s only May 7. Sean Stevens breaks down the latest deplatforming data here.👇"
Greg Lukianoff on X - "Every attempt to shut down campus speech should trigger an independent investigation asking two questions:
1) Did administrators do anything to stop the censorship?
2) Did administrators do anything to encourage, excuse, or facilitate it?
Students are responsible for their own actions. But the deeper scandal is administrative complicity. In a healthy university, the answer to right-wing demands to fire a professor would be: “No way.” And the answer to left-wing attempts to shut down a speaker would be: “Not on my watch.” Does that sound fanciful? At this point, probably. Because it has become hard to imagine administrators actually acting this way. The dirty little secret is that too many of them have enabled this for years. Some are hired into ideological jobs built around policing speech, running BRTs, and managing “harm” rather than protecting open inquiry. Sometimes the damage comes through omission: refusing to punish obvious censorship. Sometimes it comes through commission, as at Stanford Law School several years ago, when administrators actively helped the shutdown along. Here, it looks like a combination of both. So yes, blame the students. They are adults, not infants or automatons. But look squarely at the administrators who are supposed to defend academic freedom and freedom of speech—and who too often undermine those values instead. We have long since passed the stage where tolerated—and often facilitated—shutdowns and shoutdowns can be treated as somehow distinct from university policy. If campuses allow, and especially if they facilitate, the systematic silencing of locally unpopular points of view, that should not be treated as some weird tragic coincidence. They have the power to stop it. They don’t. Worse, they often train students to think like censors and then protect them when they act that way. Until universities prove otherwise, the systematic shutting down of unpopular voices on campus should be understood as formal—or at least semi-formal—university policy."

Rebecca 📖 on X - "This sort of ‘belief trumping reality’ seems extremely pervasive among certain groups, often highly intellectual ones, and skews left. I have people come into my bookshop frequently, irate about “banned books.” When I gently push back, asking them what books are banned, or explaining that schools and/or parents sometimes change curriculum but do not ban books per se, I often get blank stares, glazed eyes, a complete inability to engage in conversation that doesn’t align with a particular worldview. When universities overwhelmingly admit and hire students/faculty with very insular and narrow ideas, attempting to shift the status quo even with clear evidence is like (as my dad would say) walking uphill in molasses in January."

Wilfred Reilly on X - "Outside a small family group, empathy is basically bad. I don't want to give losers half my shit, and there is a VERY solid defense of this. Decent advocacy for it too - I've been broke - but come on."

Thread by @aaronsibarium on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "NEW: Stanford is awarding five times as much money to a campus drag troupe as to an undergraduate veterans association. And it's awarding more money to the Muslim Student Union—$175,000—than every Christian student group combined. We obtained the school's activities budget.🧵
The awards include a $50,000 grant to the Stanford Drag Troupe, which last year sponsored a performance by two drag queens, "Slut the Rock Johnson" and "ZZ Chic," as part of a "sex trivia" event titled, "Are You Smarter Than A Sexpert?" That grant dwarfs the $10,000 earmarked for the Stanford Undergraduate Association of Veterans, the $14,472 earmarked for Stanford’s sole ballet group, the $27,104 earmarked for the Stanford Light Opera Company, and the $27,154 earmarked for the Stanford Symphony Orchestra. Stanford Republican Club, meanwhile, receives just $7,549.25 under the new budget—less than the $10,000 earmarked for Furries at Stanford, a 15-person club that refers to its members as "Stanfurs."Other clubs with a larger budget than the veterans group include the Stanford Video Game Association, which will receive $11,596.98, and the Society of Latinx Engineers, which will receive $17,175.
The numbers offer a window into the priorities of Stanford administrators, who determine which groups are eligible for funding based on how well they "complement the university’s mission," and of the students themselves, who determine how much money eligible groups receive. 3,000 studnets voted on nearly 150 grants, each of which passed by large margins. The grant to the Republican club sparked the most opposition from the students who voted, with nearly 25% voting against the funds. By contrast, only 16% voted against funding the drag group. The money comes from a $240 activities fee that Stanford charges undergraduates each quarter. Clubs request their own budgets, which are then amended by the student government before being put to a campus-wide vote. That is to say: students are paying out of pocket for this. Administrators decide which clubs are eligible for funds. Stanford says it only recognizes clubs that "support the university's mission of teaching, education, and research," a provision that seems to include identity-based groups at the expense of more altruistic ones.The school is unlikely to approve a "charitable organization designed to provide health education resources in Tanzania," a Stanford website states, since the intended beneficiaries are not Stanford students. "More successful examples" include "Black and Queer at Stanford."
Though a Stanford spokeswoman said that award allocations are driven by student requests, the student government has been known to deny funding outright to a sizable minority of applicants, while other clubs have received less money than they requested. The drag troupe, for example, initially requested $70,000 in its application for university funds, $20,000 more than the amount approved by the student government, a source familiar with the matter said. The application said the money would support up to 11 performances over the next year, including Stanford’s annual "Dragfest," which the application claims is "one of the most … highly attended free events on campus."
Tldr: Stanford is budgeting five times as much money for campus drag shows as for an undergraduate veterans group, and more money for the Muslim Student Union than for every Christian student group combined."

M.A. Rothman on X - "𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐗𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐀𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐇𝐄𝐃 𝐀 𝐏𝐎𝐈𝐍𝐓-𝐁𝐘-𝐏𝐎𝐈𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔 𝐎𝐒𝐂𝐀𝐑-𝐍𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐅𝐈𝐋𝐌 𝐇𝐈𝐃𝐃𝐄𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐆𝐔𝐑𝐄𝐒, 𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐊𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐉𝐎𝐇𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍’𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐎𝐍-𝐓𝐇𝐄-𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐕𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐈𝐓 𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐓𝐄𝐃.
Xaviaer, on camera: ‘𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘢𝘵 𝘕𝘈𝘚𝘈, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 “𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘬, 𝘴𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘺 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯.”” The factual record per Johnson herself: ‘𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘒𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦. 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘚𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘰𝘶𝘤𝘩 — 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘢𝘬𝘦.” What Johnson actually said in her NASA oral history and in her 2018 memoir 𝘔𝘺 𝘙𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘑𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘺: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐍𝐀𝐒𝐀 𝐢𝐧 𝟏𝟗𝟓𝟖, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐦. She used whichever restroom was closest. Her colleagues respected her work because the work was respected. Xaviaer’s closer on the political payload of inventing the racism: ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘤 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯.”
𝐖𝐇𝐄𝐍 𝐇𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐘𝐖𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐇𝐀𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐈𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊, 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐀𝐒𝐓. 𝐈𝐓 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐒𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐏𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘟𝘈𝘝𝘐𝘈𝘌𝘙𝘋"