4 ms·

> universities which [according to the article, really!] were the main gatekeepers of speech This erroneous concept seems to have spread to this writer via Cur

> universities which [according to the article, really!] were the main gatekeepers of speech This erroneous concept seems to have spread to this writer via Curtis Yarvin (of Urbit/Strange Loop fame/infamy.) It seems superficially valid because the media loves to use witnesses of academic prestige that back its own agenda. However, it should be clear that the ultimate gatekeeper has always been the media, not any media-selected credentialed proponents of whatever position the media wants to be seen as the most prestigious and scientifically valid.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
I don't know much about Yarvin but I imagine his point is the universities indoctrinate the teachers and the journalists who in turn indoctrinate the public.
- badsock 10y ago
  It baffles me that university professors, who are in front of a minority of the population for typically only 4 years, are viewed as having all this control, whereas the people who literally own the media, who can arbitrarily hire and fire any voice they please, are viewed as somehow having less sway over their own company's output.
  - hga 10y ago
    You're ignoring the power they have to shape minds during that 4 year period, which is particularly powerful for residential students who are out of the nest for the first time, how they can keep doubleplusungood people out of a lot of professions by not letting them graduate (it's now getting explicitly official in some, and personally sobering for me, the moderate conservative-libertarian I was in 1979? No way today I could become a scientist in the US today), and apropos of that, they control who gets to teach K-12 students, the Overton Window in K-12 curricula (which has had a serious allergy to effective teaching of reading for close to a century now, and much later math), etc.
    - badsock 10y ago
      I don't disagree, but my point is that it's still less power over media than those who actually own the media have. If universities are really brainwashing people, then those who own the media can just not hire those brainwashed people. Power over hiring is the ultimate level of control over any organization, media companies included. You can make the argument that the media needs an audience, and if the masses are brainwashed then they have to speak in that language. But if you're talking about non-objective-truths such as values, and those values are so widespread that media has to cater to them - that's not brainwashing, that's just popular culture.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
notahacker 10y ago
Yup. And the idea that all people whose political commentary carries a certain amount of influence are part of some similarity-enforcing "elite" doesn't stand up to the smallest amount of scrutiny, unless one believes that televangelists, radical libertarian think tanks, the NYT and Marxist professors are a fairly homogenous group.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- hga 10y ago
  Errr, have you actually paid serious attention to "televangelists"? I benefited from growing up Catholic in a strongly Pentecostal area which I've retired to, and I can assure you they aren't exactly preaching the Word of God anymore, but something much more temporal. Fast forwarding, I'm told they're fully on board with feminism nowadays. Now, there is some distance from "radical libertarian think tanks" and the rest, but, for example, can you find any serious distance between any 4 of these groups on immigration? Use of marijuana? And libertarians are a relatively small, and in the US, a disintegrating group.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    It's possible they have some areas of agreement (none of them are white nationalists, for instance), but that hardly means that Pat Robertson, the Koch Brothers, Krugman and Chomsky are on the same page in terms of values and objectives I'm sure there's enough diversity of opinion between televangelists for some of them to be on board with feminism, but that's more a sign that the US has less of a religious Establishment than many countries rather than more.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago

I don't know much about Yarvin but I imagine his point is the universities indoctrinate the teachers and the journalists who in turn indoctrinate the public.

badsock 10y ago
It baffles me that university professors, who are in front of a minority of the population for typically only 4 years, are viewed as having all this control, whereas the people who literally own the media, who can arbitrarily hire and fire any voice they please, are viewed as somehow having less sway over their own company's output.
- hga 10y ago
  You're ignoring the power they have to shape minds during that 4 year period, which is particularly powerful for residential students who are out of the nest for the first time, how they can keep doubleplusungood people out of a lot of professions by not letting them graduate (it's now getting explicitly official in some, and personally sobering for me, the moderate conservative-libertarian I was in 1979? No way today I could become a scientist in the US today), and apropos of that, they control who gets to teach K-12 students, the Overton Window in K-12 curricula (which has had a serious allergy to effective teaching of reading for close to a century now, and much later math), etc.
  - badsock 10y ago
    I don't disagree, but my point is that it's still less power over media than those who actually own the media have. If universities are really brainwashing people, then those who own the media can just not hire those brainwashed people. Power over hiring is the ultimate level of control over any organization, media companies included. You can make the argument that the media needs an audience, and if the masses are brainwashed then they have to speak in that language. But if you're talking about non-objective-truths such as values, and those values are so widespread that media has to cater to them - that's not brainwashing, that's just popular culture.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

notahacker 10y ago

Yup. And the idea that all people whose political commentary carries a certain amount of influence are part of some similarity-enforcing "elite" doesn't stand up to the smallest amount of scrutiny, unless one believes that televangelists, radical libertarian think tanks, the NYT and Marxist professors are a fairly homogenous group.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hga 10y ago
Errr, have you actually paid serious attention to "televangelists"? I benefited from growing up Catholic in a strongly Pentecostal area which I've retired to, and I can assure you they aren't exactly preaching the Word of God anymore, but something much more temporal. Fast forwarding, I'm told they're fully on board with feminism nowadays. Now, there is some distance from "radical libertarian think tanks" and the rest, but, for example, can you find any serious distance between any 4 of these groups on immigration? Use of marijuana? And libertarians are a relatively small, and in the US, a disintegrating group.
- notahacker 10y ago
  It's possible they have some areas of agreement (none of them are white nationalists, for instance), but that hardly means that Pat Robertson, the Koch Brothers, Krugman and Chomsky are on the same page in terms of values and objectives I'm sure there's enough diversity of opinion between televangelists for some of them to be on board with feminism, but that's more a sign that the US has less of a religious Establishment than many countries rather than more.