IHMO, if you just look at it like any other form of Tribalism (i.e. Political, National and even Sports) it absolutelly makes sense that people whose identity is a Religion (or a Political Party, Nation or even Sports club) cannot emotionally accept that those of "their tribe" are bad since one of the core foundations of Tribalism is exactly that "we" are good and it's the "others" that are bad.

The massive and for them extremelly important mental and emotional construct of self-validation and self-aggrandizing such people have based on their identity as member of a tribe (all those "we members-of-tribe are something-good" beliefs) - often at the cost of personal achievement recognition or as compensation for lack of personal achievement - would collapse if they accepted that the basic axiom of "membership of the tribe makes/proves people good/superior" is not true, so at the most basic psychological level they're driven to not question that axiom and to deny anything that might disprove it.

"He was more conservative than he let on."

no he wasn't. or at least there isn't any evidence of that.

he was a private person and was exactly as conservative as he let on publicly.

norm occasionally publicly talked about his politics, and also how he didn't like to talk about politics in general.

that article is about how he was anti-political and didn't like to disclose personal beliefs, not about how he was a secret conservative.

it's a little gossipy, but it's pop-culture spin on a few off-hand public comments over his entire lifetime of public appearances, not private, new information that changes anything already known to the general public.

I asked about Egypt specifically and the rise and fall of empires in general, but apparently that was "not the same thing".

civilization advancing, stagnating, and regressing is not the same as civilization advancing, stagnating, and regressing.

his main stumbling block was that there was still birth control that he understood 200 years in the future.

he said there shouldn't be any pills anymore, because there's no way there would still be pills in the future.

I was like well there were pills 200 years ago from today.

but apparently "that's not the same thing".

so similar medical technology existing 200 years apart is not the same as similar medical technology existing 200 years apart.

and I was like maybe they put all their innovation into creating new materials for spaceships and they had a ain't broke don't fix it attitude toward birth control.

He's like yeah, but there's no way that any sort of technology like that could ever really go backwards.

and I had just watched this video about this specific diaphanous fiber weave that was like the most popular and technically advanced weave of all time that only the wealthy Romans wore, and it was due to a specific weaving technology for these super delicate fragile fibers, and that technology was not funded as rome went bankrupt and then was gradually forgotten and lost for centuries as the local weavers died out and didn't pass on their knowledge, so instead of some insane thread count, the leading weaving expert from that region of the world today can still only match like 30% of the thread count with modern technology and techniques.

and he was like "that's not the same thing".

so technology going backwards is not the same as technology going backwards.

how dull and bewildering an exchange that was.

but riveting to read and write about!