[ismaildonmez]

> Haidt in particular seems to subscribe to the idea that if it was appropriate in 1950 it’s appropriate now.

Can you please quote the relevant sections that made you reach this argument? I did read a lot of Haidt’s work and I’d disagree on this conclusion.

[TimPC]

It’s a general impression I got from his moral approach to centrism. He seems to think that there is equal blame to be apportioned in debates where one side is arguing for the fundamental rights of humans that are different from them and the other side is arguing for something resembling heteronormativity. It seems a strange take for someone who has studied moral philosophy. He continues to use language about common ground and compromise even as a sizeable contingent of republicans look to roll back gay marriage. I think it’s fair to hold him to account for not taking unequivocal positions on basic human rights.