Academia as gatekeepers

submitted by [deleted] from (self.conspiracy)

Much like the media, academia has a gatekeeping function to keep people from the truth. Much like the media, textbooks pretend there is absolutely no merit whatsoever to investigate conspiracy theories. Right after describing philosophers as being open-minded and investigating everything, the same book describes conspiracy theories as having no merit, giving no logical argument why at all but just claiming it.

How do students not realize that academia is presently the gatekeepers of conspiring elites? Why is it so hard to believe in conspiracy theories when these klutzes behave so suspiciously?

all 61 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Newzok 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Well when you're a teen you hot your hands full and don't want to do more than you have to. I never even thought to question shit, because I had no knowledge. Now I remember stuff from my books that was obvious opinion and not fact. Not to mention teachers' personal opinions.

[–]Vulptex 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well that would explain why they give increasingly-impossible amounts of homework. Keep kids too busy and stressed to notice or question anything.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Academia is a training to produce people who parrot the narrative.

If you don’t parrot, you are weeded out. M

It also acts as a barrier to laymen or dilettante.

[–]Ehhhhhh 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You need good grades to get into college. You get those good grades by memorizing what the text books state in order to pass tests. You aren't rewarded by questioning the propaganda.

Also, hormones are intense so extra time will probably be around who you're wanting to hook up or hang out with.

[–]BISH 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

How do students not realize that academia is presently the gatekeepers of conspiring elites? .

Because, they haven't been educated.

They've been schooled. Literally.

[–]Schwarzenigga 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

You may recall that Nazis sent academics to concentration camps. Authoritarians do NOT want a wel-educated populace. Knowledgeable people will not support authoritarians most of the time. eater_of_gods your comments merely parrot the interests of authoritarians, by making a false claims. Authoritarians want you to argue with people about facts. No, academics are NOT gatekeepers, not in the least. Academics help you with the acquisition of knowledge. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. Students are not in danger of academics. They're in danger of anti-intellectualism and misinformation peddled by authoritarians.

[–]cars 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

This isn't anti-intellectualism; it's pointing out how corrupt academia can be. We already see corruption in academia with universities and researchers accepting bribes and grants from pharmaceutical companies who want to falsely advertise drugs and cover up certain facts about drugs.

If academia was interested in free expression of ideas, they would be okay with entertaining conspiracy theories, no matter how nonsensical, and opinions that differ from those of the universities' benefactors. It's not a good thing that academia is so left-leaning, promotes a single narrative without debate (at least in social sciences and arts), and will offer classes on "kink positivity" and the like. That the quality of research coming out of the education and gender studies departments is so low shows how corrupt and far from truth academia can get.

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It is absolutely anti-intellectualism (and of course anti-left wing, which is part of the point) to demonize all academic activity. What a moronic assumption you've made.

[–]cars 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not demonizing all academic activity. I'm criticizing academic activity that is clearly substandard and corrupt.

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

academic activity that is clearly substandard and corrupt.

Where is that kind of education? Accreditation programs will reject those institutions. (Though accreditation programs in the past 40 years have failed to protect the jobs of academics.)

[–]cars 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

If you read any research coming out of the education department, you'll be amazed at how poor-quality it is. Princeton is also offering a class on BDSM that features shocking and pornographic imagery students have complained about having to be exposed to.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/princeton-black-queer-bdsm-course-features-porn-essay-by-professor-arrested-for-theft-from-pro-life-demonstrators/

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Really? That's your example? Princeton? And: can you teach a BDSM course without the inclusion of BDSM images? This is a HIGHLY unusual university course, but it's offered at one of the best universities. Students for this course will get a better understanding of BDSM than they would gather in any other manner, even if they like BDSM. Professions that would would want students to understand BDSM include: psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, social worker, etc, etc. My guess is that they also try to assess pathologies in a BDSM course. No, it's not a way to enjoy porn. In short: you've not selected a poor-quality course. You've also selected an extremely poor quality, highly biased resource: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-college-fix Moreover - students who took the course as part of their professional traning knew exactly what they signed up for, and they are NOT the ones your right-wing fascist rag know about.

[–]Vulptex 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

anti-intellectualism and misinformation peddled by authoritarians

also known as academics

[–]Schwarzenigga 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

At least try to be logical if you are not knowledgeable. No, academics aren't anti-intellectuals, Vuptex, wtf is wrong with you?

[–]Vulptex 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

They tell you how to think and punish anyone who questions the narrative. A better term for it would be indoctrination.

[–]Schwarzenigga 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Makes about as much sense as tits on a turtle. What you learn at school is NOT related to what you do with that information. You and others are politicizing education for the benefit of GOP Nazis. This is new. Learn in school and out of school, but don't act as though the sources you learn from are controlling your mind. How weak is that?

OLD traditions in learning: grammar, logic, rhetoric, math, geometry, music, astronomy, history

None of that is political, with the potential exception of history, and there is no mind control in any of it.

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

The way school is structured teaches you to always bow to authority and never question it. And that is the real purpose of school, not "learning" which they don't even do any of past 6th grade. I swear each generation is less independent than the last because of this. Even the people running the show have drank their own Kool-Aid.

And yes, they are biased, because in subjects that aren't math they only expose you to the viewpoints they want you to adopt.

The GOP might be politicizing education now, but only because their worst enemies did it before them.

[–]Schwarzenigga 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The way school is structured teaches you to always bow to authority and never question it.

No - the opposite - schools are required to teach critical thinking skills (THIS is what authoritarians DON'T want, wheres they do want you to learn to bow to authority) It's also not the purpose of the school. Perhaps you're thinking of military or church schools, but this is NOT public education. Schools help students learn. That's all.

their worst enemies did it before them.

Absolutely not. Funding for education is better under Democrat leadership because this is how you train an educated society. What you are doing is pushing an authoritarian GOP argument that education is dangerous, while also pushing the nonsense that education is dangerous because it's authoritarian. See how confused that is? It's so far from the reality that the only group of voters who will believe this aren't intelligent, knowledgeable, or good at critical thinking, all three of which one can develop AT SCHOOL.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

schools are required to teach critical thinking skills

Nonsense.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Public school only taught me OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. Critical thinking was punished. And they gave as much homework as possible so we didn't have the time or energy to develop a mind even outside of school.

[–]Bigs 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

WTF are you talking about?

Are you getting mixed up with Pol Pot? And academics are absolutely gatekeepers, creating canons of knowledge just like the religious, and used in the same way to defend and justify government or royalty.

Academics "teach" you that only "qualified" people, using "peer review" (other "qualified people") can determine "truth". It's 100% a selection of gates, kept by gatekeepers, to keep the plebes in the dark and in line.

Government can do whatever it likes, and can just trot out an 'academic' or an 'academic peer reviewed study' to justify it. The entire 'global warming... er change... or extreme weather... er..." movement is a classic example of that, as are the covid attacks on humanity.

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Read about the history of attacks on academics. You've failed miserably at the attempt to claim academics are gatekeepers. You are responsible for your information.

[–]Bigs 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Do you have a peer-reviewed study on the attacks?

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Numerous academics in Nazi Germany were Jewish, and many academics who joined them in concentration camps were not Jewish. It's easy to locate information. Search: academics concentration camps . There were also academics who chose to join the Nazi party. None of these academics (in or out of concentration camps) were 'gatekeepers'.

Authoritarian groups always try to control and/or diminish academic options, because they are the biggest threat to authoritarians. Here is a sample article, albeit not focused on ademics in concentration camps:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10323732211027621

[–]Bigs 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Well the abstract sez "They exploit original contemporary documents from the school’s surviving archival records, which seem highly valuable in their ability to expose the changing tone in these transcripts, the growing use of Nazi terminology and the rapid adoption of the Nazi doctrine."

So yeah, they just blew with the wind and turned nazi, offering absolutely nothing in the way of intellectual defense, instead they rapidly adopted the doctrines of those in power. Same old, same old.

[–]proc0 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How do students not realize that academia is presently the gatekeepers of conspiring elites? Why is it so hard to believe in conspiracy theories when these klutzes behave so suspiciously?

It takes a lot of inner conviction to question society and the status quo. Most people are basically meat robots. They were programmed since children to behave a certain way. This is easily observable behavior. Simply asking questions and inviting people to ponder certain theories will make these NPC types uncomfortable. They will push back against questioning what they have been programmed to believe. You can sense their fear of being excluded by their NPC friends and families, simply because they dared to entertain a thought. Schools in general are designed to produce NPCs... especially higher education. You are literally punished or rewarded for the way you think and behave. There are of course exceptions, but in recent years because of the woke infestation, any free-thinkers that are left are hiding in the shadows.

I was also like this until I grew up and decided to think for myself. Absolutely nothing is out of being questioned and examined. Ideas should never be feared, and even the most dangerous ones can be handled with care to make sure you stay grounded in truth.

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Orthodoxy does this too. What they call "fear of God" is really a fear of being judged by their church friends. But they won't hesitate to go against their convictions or what they secretly think God wants if it goes against the tribal creed. I know this because I've been there myself.

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Problem is conspiracy theorists aren't actually down with academic rigors a lot of the time. I don't get the the academics that are totally scared of dealing with conspiracy theories like they are pathetic children unable criticize an argument, but it definitely gets to the point where people who believe in a conspiracy will believe that any evidence that disproves the conspiracy has been tampered with by those who wish to propagate the conspiracy and therefore at least to them they won't really go along with normal academic discussions and try to dictate everything go along their own terms.

It is similar to arguing with creationists, creationists , and not that everyone doesn't have biases and engage in this sort of thing from time to time, but especially in their case, they are doing science somewhat backwards. Instead of drawing a conclusion from the evidence, they are drawing evidence from a conclusion. They believe the Bible must be true as an absolute statement and that any conclusion that disagrees must be false so their evidence supporting their positions becomes heavily biased towards cherry picking out those arguments that appear to support them while conveniently ignoring evidence that doesn't. Or in some cases inventing convoluted mechanisms by which fairly obvious phenomenon such as the propagation speed of light can somehow be compressed into a week long timespan which doesn't satisfy Occam's razor compared to the simpler explanation that shit just takes a long time.

Similar to the issue with epicycles in the geocentric model. It's a perfectly serviceable model that explains the world well, it's a scientifically developed and testable model. But it's "wrong" in the sense there's a much simpler model if you just shift perspective.

Conspiracy theorists tend to argue in similar ways and you do have the spineless academic cowards that somehow can't be asked with a debate, but the same goes for the conspiracy theorists since they like to play at the "we aren't allowed on colleges" but actually they can't defend a lot of positions without getting destroyed. Conspiracy theories especially may be "true" in a lot of senses but they specifically lack evidence that make them provable in any academic environment. Naturally since once there exists sufficient evidence a conspiracy theory is true it's no longer a theory is it?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Philosophy is not science, though, Occam’ s razor is irrelevant. The least the author could have done is give a logical, philosophical argument for why it is impossible to for people to conspire or that it is impossible to rationally discern a conspiracy or theorize about it.

If I told you the moon was made of cheese and did nothing but flex my credentials to justify it I would hope you would feel offended by how stupid I treated you as.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I could use the rocks brought back from the moon as evidence that it is not made of cheese. As well as various other scientific methodology such as spectrography which can indicate the moon's structure is not analogous with dairy. Could also postulate that as far as we know, there are no cows on the moon, and no foreseeable way that you could produce enough cheese to make a moon without cows, but I digress, none of these arguments are absolute "proof" the moon isn't made of cheese and of course I am unable to personally go and confirm myself since your god forsaken mechanics can't fix my warp engine, so if someone wants to wave their PHD around and claim the moon missions were faked to hide the fact that the moon is cheese, I can't argue against that point, though I can sit back and smugly laugh at the comedic scene unfolding before me. I'm not sure I would feel offended, I'd just hind it humorous and assume you are an idiot.

Occam's razor is somewhat relevant when discussing theories. It certainly isn't "scientific" as even complex theories can prove true over simpler ones once evidence has been gathered. But deciding where to look and what theories to explore does often require some use of Occam's razor. Like in the Geocentric vs Heliocentric discussion. Both models are perfectly serviceable to describe the motions of the planets and stars as we perceive them. After all you can simply go outside and confirm for yourself that the sun moon and stars appear to travel around the earth.

However when you make more precise measures of their movements a number of irregularities persist such a retrograde motion. The ancients simply accepted this as what it is and added epicycles to the geocentric model which once again perfectly describes the motion of the planets as we understand it, until another irregularity is noticed and another epicycle is added.

By the time of Copernicus there were hundreds of these epicycles, and the heliocentric model proposed did away with most of these complications by simply moving the perspective. Using Occam's razor here we can ask, is the theory that requires a great number of complicated cycles more reasonable to believe than the theory that follows a simpler premise? Keep in mind both models are reasonable and scientifically derived from the knowledge at the time and their universe was much simpler since they didn't know about objects that were invisible to the naked eye until the development of the telescope.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Again, you seem to be convinced that philosophical thinking is empirical. Occam’s razor is a rule of thumb to choose between scientific models. Philosophy involves ontology, science can’t. You can laugh at people who don’t believe what the sages of society say, but a philosopher doesn’t accept things just because authority or consensus say so. And this is why I’m enraged with this book, that does not even bother to explain why conspiracy theories are a waste of time, yet pretends to teach philosophy.

Edit: We can say that X behaves according to a particle or wave model. But a scientist cannot say what X actually is. That is what I mean by ontology. Whether earth best fits a geocentric or heliocentric model is a matter of science. Whether we live in a geocentric or heliocentric universe is a question of ontology.

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that does not even bother to explain why conspiracy theories are a waste of time,

How do you know you weren't schooled?

[–]cars 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's the same thing with people who say "We don't entertain the words of bigots because anything they say is obviously driven by hate". Unfortunately, academia is filled with that kind of people.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I find that interacting with the crazy sign wavers is rarely of any benefit but I won't begrudge their right to wave a sign around while screaming.

Beyond that it's just a kind of intellectual laziness to refuse to approach difficult topics. I've had productive discussions with self-professed Nazis before because I'm not worried about their ideological position, I think it's flawed, I'll tell them why I think it's flawed, and they can either disagree with me, agree with me, or get angry and storm off. But you'll really get some of these academic types in a tizzy and see them go down an emotional virtue signalling display when you ask them to clarify basic positions. Genocide is wrong. I agree, most everyone agrees. But why is genocide wrong? That's an interesting discussion. But just floating the question will trigger people because it means they have to think about it for more than two seconds. They also don't like economic arguments like "it's expensive to kill people" since they see it as dehumanizing even though everyone in the room is in agreement already that genocide is morally wrong. And if for some reason you get some idiot that actually is legitimately pro genocide as self destructive socially as such an argument is, it's important to actually have these discussions otherwise society will simply be unable to defend against genocidal movements in the future. Logical dispassionate arguments are important because they are one of the few things that can cut through emotional hysteria towards true conclusions.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They believe the Bible must be true as an absolute statement and that any conclusion that disagrees must be false so their evidence supporting their positions becomes heavily biased towards cherry picking out those arguments that appear to support them while conveniently ignoring evidence that doesn't.

I make their heads explode by showing them the Bible itself says it's full of errors and blatant human tampering (Jeremiah 7-8 especially).

[–]IX-Hispana 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm curious, can you elaborate on what the deal is with those chapters?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

God says he never commanded burnt offerings. Yet the Torah is obsessed with exactly that. He also says he never told anyone to burn people, and that he finds it detestable. The Torah commands you to do that on a few occasions. Then in Jeremiah 8:8 he says rather explicitly that scribes have tampered with the scriptures significantly.

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I don't get the the academics that are totally scared of dealing with conspiracy theories like they are pathetic children unable criticize an argument,

Really???

https://thecorporateasylum.com/steve-kirsch-offers-one-million-dollars/

(Jan 18, 2022) Just show up to debate Steve Kirsch and take home 1,000,000 bucks. Seriously. Just do it. Just show up to debate Steve Kirsch and take home 1,000,000 bucks. ... You don't even have to win the debate. Just show up. Debate. Leave. One million bucks. No one has accepted his offer. We all know why.

https://lorphicweb.com/steve-kirsch-i-offered-a-million-dollars-nobody-wants-to-debate-on-the-reality-of-masks-the-dangers-for-kids-this-covid-vaccine/

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Yeah he's clearly full of shit about the million bucks.

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Go debate him.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

First I've gotta sell this bridge.

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

First you have to admit you're here to push the injections.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You can't find someone to push the injections for one million dollars? Don't insult my intelligence.

This is how this works.

"I give one million dollars to anyone who will debate me".

"I'll debate you!"

"Nobody wants to debate me even for 1,000,000 dollars!"

It's typical grifter bullshit. Sounds to good to be true? That's because it is. You're telling me that on a planet with more than six billion people not a single one has taken that offer? Bullshit. That's how you know it's clearly fake.

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You're telling me that on a planet with more than six billion people not a single one has taken that offer?

Apparently. It seems nobody wants to get their ass handed to them in a public debate.

Shills are cowards.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yes it's totally believable that absolutely zero people are willing to get their ass handed to them in a debate for one million dollars. Now about this bridge I wanna sell you.

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Why don't you sign up for a $1 million dollar debate?

You can push the vaccine agenda. I'm sure you'll do fine.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of academia is also practical. Just basic facts about the world.
That is how we make technology and have GPS on our mobile phones.

The political side of academia is kind of full with idealists, often very left leaning.
Marxism, scientism and technocracy are popular beliefs, but there are also others.
They have a strong believe that they have to change the world.
So many of them try to get political positions or media positions.

The practical side of the academia do not understand how much belief and ideology there is in other parts. But they are often nerds (some with autistic tendencies) that are easy to manipulate
with feelings and social engineering. So they do not resist much.
They do not even care much about politics.
Or think they don't care.

The academic structure has a more religious origin. Like the catholic church.
With top-down control of thinking. Also some censorship comes from that structure.

I think that the structure can be improved a lot if the top would become more like teachers.
Good teacher let other people understand how they can come to a better understanding of the world.
And good teachers allow others to think differently and discover more on their own.
Can also point out what may be wrong with a certain idea.
Sadly, such valid criticism is often seen as a personal attack or even as "gatekeeping".
That is due to personal attacks that are often mixed in by more authoritarian people.

And just to be fair: Certain ideas can be very wrong.
Like: driving drunk at night without lights on at 100 miles an hour.
Or psychological: thinking that everyone is out to kill and eat you.
And it helps to have people to correct you in a friendly way.

[–]noshore4me 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How do conspiracy theorists not write more academic textbooks to rectify this situation?

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Some do, then they get fired.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Because the academic publishing industry is run by people like Ghislane Maxwell's spy father (McGraw Hill) and wouldn't allow for that?

[–]wrgaerg 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

zing, i have heard or something it referred to as 'technocracy' bertrand russel ummand chick,margaret thatcher./ proponents/ it helps hold their house of cards up. i have heard that noam chomsky, is a self avowed gate keeper as well. rofl. jk,