A lot of people on the left decided that it was preferable to not be associated with icky "racists" than maintain whatever principles they claimed to hold once their enemies decided to adopt some of them.
I'm thinking specifically of that one Linus Torvalds letter where he says that while he had never liked "political correctness" that trait is now coded "Nazi" and he wants nothing to do with them. Or earlier when Dave Chapelle retired at the peak of his popularity because he discovered that "racists" liked his comedy.
But I think there were some who similarly went hard right. I was a "New Atheist" back when Dawkins was at the peak of his popularity. I'm surely not the only one.
As people age, they become less willing to fight for their beliefs. It's safer and easier to simply become pathologically agreeable. The left is willing to destroy cities and murder people for the crime of heresy. The right isn't. Therefore, cowards gravitate left. Simple as.
What we're seeing is formerly strong, proud men becoming old and scared and aligning themselves with pedophiles and murderers for protection. It's morally reprehensible and I have absolutely no respect for anyone who does it.
Some older guys like Pat Condell (English New Atheist youtuber less popular but of a similar age as Dawkins) do still criticize Islam as being incompatible with English culture. He seemed to "get it" wrt Brexit and Trump in a way pretty much every other online Atheist didn't.
I do agree with you that some people just get tired of fighting when they get older (one sympathizes), but "high agreeableness" is not a trait I associate with old people. If anything they become stuck in their ways.
There's something more to it, and I think you get hints of it in reverse when you read people like Dawkins defend Aldous Huxley for his "racist" views, saying "well he was 'progressive' for his time, so no doubt if he were alive today he wouldn't be 'racist'". The man is a "progressive" (friend) in his day, therefore he would have "progressive" (friend) views today.
The corollary is that if he didn't hold modern "progressive" views today he wouldn't be "progressive" and therefore enemy. And again we see this today as people who as recent as 5 years ago would have been far left are cast off as "Nazi" for very minor disagreements with the "progressive" mainstream.
A lot of people on the left decided that it was preferable to not be associated with icky "racists" than maintain whatever principles they claimed to hold once their enemies decided to adopt some of them.
I'm thinking specifically of that one Linus Torvalds letter where he says that while he had never liked "political correctness" that trait is now coded "Nazi" and he wants nothing to do with them. Or earlier when Dave Chapelle retired at the peak of his popularity because he discovered that "racists" liked his comedy.
But I think there were some who similarly went hard right. I was a "New Atheist" back when Dawkins was at the peak of his popularity. I'm surely not the only one.
As people age, they become less willing to fight for their beliefs. It's safer and easier to simply become pathologically agreeable. The left is willing to destroy cities and murder people for the crime of heresy. The right isn't. Therefore, cowards gravitate left. Simple as.
What we're seeing is formerly strong, proud men becoming old and scared and aligning themselves with pedophiles and murderers for protection. It's morally reprehensible and I have absolutely no respect for anyone who does it.
Some older guys like Pat Condell (English New Atheist youtuber less popular but of a similar age as Dawkins) do still criticize Islam as being incompatible with English culture. He seemed to "get it" wrt Brexit and Trump in a way pretty much every other online Atheist didn't.
I do agree with you that some people just get tired of fighting when they get older (one sympathizes), but "high agreeableness" is not a trait I associate with old people. If anything they become stuck in their ways.
There's something more to it, and I think you get hints of it in reverse when you read people like Dawkins defend Aldous Huxley for his "racist" views, saying "well he was 'progressive' for his time, so no doubt if he were alive today he wouldn't be 'racist'". The man is a "progressive" (friend) in his day, therefore he would have "progressive" (friend) views today.
The corollary is that if he didn't hold modern "progressive" views today he wouldn't be "progressive" and therefore enemy. And again we see this today as people who as recent as 5 years ago would have been far left are cast off as "Nazi" for very minor disagreements with the "progressive" mainstream.