Bret wasn't/isn't a "normie": he spent his entire life as a far left activist who was supposedly far more aware of these infringements on people's constitutional rights than the average individual. If he wasn't than I would say that reflects poorly on him as an activist who is supposed to keep abreast of the fringes of society.
What sort of evolutionary biology? That might be the key. For you see, evolution isn't quite the darling of the political Left as one might think; the Left is really more like "special creationists", who believe that evolution is "for thee, not me", that it stopped somewhere about the time human-line apes stood up on two legs, or lit a fire, or some other bullshit, and still think it takes "millyuns of yeers" to happen (not to mention a lot of other out-of-date but politically useful and hubristically preening "one race" human supremacist nonsense.)
He probably said something uncomfy to the human worshipers. Maybe used the word "ape" in the "wrong" place. Because gods forbid the hairless ape be recognized as one. (Though most races of human actually have as much body hair as any other chimp, it's just that the hair is much shorter and thinner and harder to notice.)
I've seen interviews where Bret said that evolutionary biology tends to make the left as unhappy as the right.
But yeah, the left has a weird view of science/evolution.. There are evolutionary reasons the leftist utopia doesn't exist and probably can never exist
First and foremost, evolution does take millions of years most of the time, but that's part of the process of speciation rather than adaptation. Adaptation doesn't need to take very much time at all, maybe even only a couple generations (this is why Animal Husbandry is a thing), but no speciation occurs because the genetics of the adapted animals are not nearly distinct enough. It's all part of continuous process, but it wouldn't make sense to claim that your child "evolved" from you simply because it's genetics adapted from the environment you spent most of your life living in.
What got the SJWs mad is that he stood in the way of an HR Diversity Initiative to seize control of all hiring practices. Angered by the non-immediate submission, the DIE activsts got more aggressive, and announced that they would alter an annual day where black students would voluntarily leave campus to demonstrate the relevance of black people. They decided that they would "ask" all white people to leave campus instead. He objected to this, and having seen that he had stood in the way of previous initiatives, they decided to go absolutely bonkers on him in the traditional SJW way. Using this momentum, the activists then preceded to make insane racialist demands on the college to (once again) seize control of all hiring & compensation policies, along with activist control over the police, teachers, and administration. They got him fired, they harassed him, they harassed his students, they had their own little secret police monitoring his movements, and when he went on Tucker Carlson to complain that the lynchers had been literally holding the administration hostage, had attacked people, and had been setting up an activist police state, he became persona non-grata.
That is why they didn't like him.
As for why they don't like evolutionary biology? Because evolution is a contradiction to their Rousseau-ian assertions about absolute human equality at the beginning of life, and that there are parts of humanity that are not socially constructed (and are thus not able to be arbitrarily changed by totalitarianism). Particularly under evolutionary psychology which points out that even some aspects of psychology are hard-wired into humans, are are not social constructs that can be changed arbitrarily.
First and foremost, evolution does take millions of years most of the time, but that's part of the process of speciation rather than adaptation
That's a pointless distinction, and adaptation is something that is typically described being done by individuals, not populations. Populations evolve. Individuals adapt.
Bret wasn't/isn't a "normie": he spent his entire life as a far left activist who was supposedly far more aware of these infringements on people's constitutional rights than the average individual. If he wasn't than I would say that reflects poorly on him as an activist who is supposed to keep abreast of the fringes of society.
He's not an activist, he's a professor of Evolutionary Biology. He's still, currently, not an activist.
What sort of evolutionary biology? That might be the key. For you see, evolution isn't quite the darling of the political Left as one might think; the Left is really more like "special creationists", who believe that evolution is "for thee, not me", that it stopped somewhere about the time human-line apes stood up on two legs, or lit a fire, or some other bullshit, and still think it takes "millyuns of yeers" to happen (not to mention a lot of other out-of-date but politically useful and hubristically preening "one race" human supremacist nonsense.)
He probably said something uncomfy to the human worshipers. Maybe used the word "ape" in the "wrong" place. Because gods forbid the hairless ape be recognized as one. (Though most races of human actually have as much body hair as any other chimp, it's just that the hair is much shorter and thinner and harder to notice.)
I've seen interviews where Bret said that evolutionary biology tends to make the left as unhappy as the right.
But yeah, the left has a weird view of science/evolution.. There are evolutionary reasons the leftist utopia doesn't exist and probably can never exist
As in actual evolutionary biology?
First and foremost, evolution does take millions of years most of the time, but that's part of the process of speciation rather than adaptation. Adaptation doesn't need to take very much time at all, maybe even only a couple generations (this is why Animal Husbandry is a thing), but no speciation occurs because the genetics of the adapted animals are not nearly distinct enough. It's all part of continuous process, but it wouldn't make sense to claim that your child "evolved" from you simply because it's genetics adapted from the environment you spent most of your life living in.
What got the SJWs mad is that he stood in the way of an HR Diversity Initiative to seize control of all hiring practices. Angered by the non-immediate submission, the DIE activsts got more aggressive, and announced that they would alter an annual day where black students would voluntarily leave campus to demonstrate the relevance of black people. They decided that they would "ask" all white people to leave campus instead. He objected to this, and having seen that he had stood in the way of previous initiatives, they decided to go absolutely bonkers on him in the traditional SJW way. Using this momentum, the activists then preceded to make insane racialist demands on the college to (once again) seize control of all hiring & compensation policies, along with activist control over the police, teachers, and administration. They got him fired, they harassed him, they harassed his students, they had their own little secret police monitoring his movements, and when he went on Tucker Carlson to complain that the lynchers had been literally holding the administration hostage, had attacked people, and had been setting up an activist police state, he became persona non-grata.
That is why they didn't like him.
As for why they don't like evolutionary biology? Because evolution is a contradiction to their Rousseau-ian assertions about absolute human equality at the beginning of life, and that there are parts of humanity that are not socially constructed (and are thus not able to be arbitrarily changed by totalitarianism). Particularly under evolutionary psychology which points out that even some aspects of psychology are hard-wired into humans, are are not social constructs that can be changed arbitrarily.
That's a pointless distinction, and adaptation is something that is typically described being done by individuals, not populations. Populations evolve. Individuals adapt.