Jeremy Stangroom

I've started by trusting system2 (default option!). Then I've read: https://www.edge.org/conversation/steven_pinker-the-false-allure-of-group-selection … It clashes with: A: my understanding of the science (I do know something about it) B: my epistemological stance (big-time!) C: my expectations of what an honest debate should look like 2/n

Thus, I've started paying more attention. At the same time I was becoming more aware of many things about stances of the "new atheist" area, in US specifically, with which I used to identify (in GB/IT). 3/n

Instances of B and C (alarm bells!) became very common. Added with: D: the odd alliance/flirting with anti-Islamic and/or anti-Palestine positions. E: the teaming together of various intellectuals in that area. F: my growing understanding of how much the status quo sucks. 4/n

Multiply the same pattern enough times, and system2 aligned more and more with system1. Now, I do introspect a lot, so I can talk about it. Many won't. But it's possible that my journey is common. 5/n

Not only does he not challenge the status quo, he celebrates it (Better Angels). Citing metrics of improvement is fine but it doesn't erase growing inequality, he benefits. Doesn't make him a monster, just your average shitheel. People naturally want to maintain their advantages.

This is just another version of conservaties are shit people, progressives are much better people. But then I guess people naturally want to maintain their moral advantages...

I'm not making the claim that progressives are much better. This is my thread about how the far right facilitates "progressive" implicit bias thru the Overton window.https://twitter.com/depistemology/status/951793685498417152 …