What is the best response to pseudohistorians saying “what if academia and the government is lying and covering up all of the evidence that proves I’m right?”
>>18496625People literally lie though. You should never accept information automatically, whether it comes from the government or an academic organization.
>>18496625A kick in the groin should do fine.
>>18496633So personal experience is the only way you can check something? You need to take a "leap of faith" to believe in almost every single thing.
>>18496625The problem with people who profess themselves to be sceptical of academia and other 'mainstream' sources of knowledge is they don't extend the same level of scepticism to grifters and cranks, probably because their scepticism isn't method-based but vibes-based. It's an attitude of blanket hostility to one group and wholesale credulity to another.
>>18496644You have to rationalize evidence for connections. Interpret facts for yourself. People and organizations are more likely to produce forgeries in order to sell them, but covering up is much more insidious and speaks to political, social, and moral motives. Moreover- there is significant evidence for these activities happening, especially in the modern period. You don't need something as explicit as the Chinese cultural revolution to prove that it's happening.
>>18496656>there is significant evidence for these activities happening, especially in the modern periodSource? The problem with this is that there's also significant incentive to expose other people's forgeries. And most people working in these disciplines are not doing so in bad faith.
>>18496625Simply ignore them. Pseuds are simpletons who have the memory of a goldfish and tbey will move on to another topic soon enough anyways.
>>18496644Yes, personal experience is the only thing that truly matters. There is a reason why every government on Earth (even tho they should be opposed to each other on paper) is insidiously trying to convince people that>Empiricism is bad goyim, you should believe only what the science and our scientists loyal to israel tell you!Think about it for a second, why would China, Russia, Europe and the USA, geopolitical rivals that want the other side to die, all agree on "le science" and force people to only trust le science>>18496648>>18496656Look at these two>"Nooo, you have to distrust the people that actually mean you well, you have to only trust academia, if you don't then you should also hate your families and be skeptical of experts of your race who don't agree with academia!"Don't you think all this sounds a little weird? The whole "trust the science or trust no one, be isolated, don't form communities" speech
>>18496666>>"Nooo, you have to distrust the people that actually mean you well, you have to only trust academia, if you don't then you should also hate your families and be skeptical of experts of your race who don't agree with academia!"Notice the hyperbolic bad faith misreading. All I said was your scepticism should be general rather than selective, and should be based on impartial use of method rather than vibes. This is enough to offend you for some reason and paint me as some kind of race masochist leftist.
just ask them how you're supposed to tell they aren't lying too
>>18496625I cite pre-modern sources. Skepticism towards modern academia is entirely justified. But fortunately retards like flat earthers or the leather apron cultists can be refuted with sources older than the jew they all invariably worship.
>>18496648This seems like you're speaking to someone specific. It's possible that authorities on a topic that you think are "grifters" or cranks have some esteem about them. No one would say, for example, that Fomenko was intellectually destitute, or that Heinsohn was peddling lies. Most people aren't getting kicks from deceiving people, but there is of course a market for any kind of narrative bent to history. The problem today is that cultural studies pervade legitimate historical studies, so whenever you hear someone say "lens" as if it's an option to interpret facts a certain way with an intentional bias, it's obviously going to create cultural friction and sway opinions because that's the whole point. The irony of course is that lens pandering cultural studies students tend to also be the same people trying to "criticize the critics" and reinforce typical capito-liberal narratives. >>18496663>Source?You need sources on modern destructions? You could look at who funds ISIS, Turkey using ancient sites for artillery shelling ranges, or just the Chinese communists admitting that they had destroyed cultural motifs that they felt were imperialistic.>And most people working in these disciplines are not doing so in bad faith.And this is the crux of the matter. On one hand, anyone you don't like is a grifter or crank. On the other hand, the people you might agree with are at least trying and therefore beyond condemnation- even if they engage in narrative warping to sell ideas to specific audiences. You want your biases justified while crucifying people you don't agree with- that's all this boils down to. I'd like to agree that most people have genuine interest in advancing the cause of historical knowledge but, as I've said with cultural studies and the infusion of narrative driven biases which do not even masquerade themselves as anything other than propaganda, academia itself is producing bad actors. Just not by intention, but by market force favoritism.
>>18496684>On one hand, anyone you don't like is a grifter or crank. On the other hand, the people you might agree with are at least trying and therefore beyond condemnation- even if they engage in narrative warping to sell ideas to specific audiences. You want your biases justified while crucifying people you don't agree with- that's all this boils down to.You don't even know what my biases are. I'm right-wing. Academia is ridiculously left-shifted at the moment. There are all kinds of ridiculous taboos and unquestioned assumptions at play. But they are a million times sounder and more reliable than retards like Graham Hancock. It also seems to me that the "lens" shit - although it sounds stupid - contradicts your argument, since it indicates that the person is being open about their own presuppositions rather than projecting a false objectivity. For instance you might undertake a "race-based" analysis of some cultural phenomenon.
>>18496666>Don't you think all this sounds a little weird? The whole "trust the science or trust no one, be isolated, don't form communities" speechNice quads. You're basically correct. You don't see these attitudes in STEM for a reason. It's always put up or shut up. Write your paper or stay silent. The problem is that people who happen to enjoy certain narratives and have an academic figure validate them want to desperately lean on an authority to reinforce their biases. The irony is that people who are quickest to call other bootlickers are the most lickiest of bootlickers of all. It's ironic- but there are certain people that don't want you thinking for yourself because they very obviously want to do the thinking for you. They just used to be better at hiding their motives. As far as siloing the field of history- it doesn't make any sense. It's the most accessible discipline of all, outside of literature. >>18496673>Notice the hyperbolic bad faith misreading.He cut directly to the heart of the matter without wasting time. The fact that it was inconvenient for you does not make it bad faith, it just makes him effective at communicating his grievance. Not everyone is here to validate you, it's not fair for you to describe others as not having enough faith in you when you've got to win respect for your own ideas. It's no one else's job to make your points for you.>This is enough to offend you for some reason and paint me as some kind of race masochist leftistWhat a weird thing to say.
>>18496666Schizo having another episode and imaging arguments.
>>18496694>What a weird thing to say.He's the one that said it, retard: "hate your families and be skeptical of experts of your race". And these guys hate STEM just as much if not more
>>18496693>You don't even know what my biases areAnd it doesn't matter- it's enough to know that you have them and you want them reinforced a certain way. The irony of stating that you're "right wing" means that your ideologically a liberalist, not outside of the liberal ideology. A nationalist would never time themselves to capitalism or liberalism like a right winger would, which is to say that you're ideologically liberalist, not a liberal in the liberal-conservative camp. Liberal, conservative, and libertarian are all liberalist ideologically. It's like a Trotskyist responding that they're on the left when you call them a communist. They're still at the left wing core of something that isn't liberalism. >Academia is ridiculously left-shifted at the momentLiberalist, not leftist. Leftist could mean ideologically different things. A capito-liberalist could be a leftist, or an anti-leftist anti-market capitalist can also be described as (ironically) a leftist. You have guys like Lenin who called LGBTQism an "infantile disorder" and fighting free markets and he is described as the left, but someone who is radically pro LGBTQism and pro market forces is also far to the left. Left-right dichotomies are designed to hedge in favor of an ideological liberalist regime. >But they are a million times sounder and more reliable than retards like Graham HancockSo now the question boils down to: Is it just Graham Hancock that you're really arguing against? If so, why not just bring up his claims one by one and assail those? You could do those with proofs or disproofs instead of searching for bias confirmation.
>>18496694Holy fuck the sophistry in this post is insane, it's so slimy it's almost awe-inducing.
>>18496625Ask them what would they gain from lying about it?
>>18496698>And these guys hate STEM just as much if not moreYou may be an idiot.>>18496716Explanation? You didn't just come here to get wanked off by strangers, did you? >>18496718Unfortunately we're in a thread contrived by a mental midget who watched his 1000th Graham Hancock video (unliked all of them, left two comments on each) and needs to untrigger xirself.
>>18496715>The irony of stating that you're "right wing" means that your ideologically a liberalist, not outside of the liberal ideology. A nationalist would never time themselves to capitalism or liberalism like a right winger wouldNo, I'm an anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois too. I just use 'right-wing' as a shorthand. >guys like Lenin who called LGBTQism an "infantile disorder"He called left-wing communism an infantile disorder. I don't think he ever said anything about homosexuality. The Soviets were certainly anti-homosexual though, as part of their general anti-Western, anti-traditional, anti-life attitude...>Is it just Graham Hancock that you're really arguing against? If so, why not just bring up his claims one by one and assail those? You could do those with proofs or disproofs instead of searching for bias confirmation.The thread was about a trend. Why aren't you refuting some specific academic instead of generalising? And so on.
>>18496720Most STEMlords are giga NPC liberals who buy into "trust the science" attitude. Ironically it's postmodern leftists who were criticising scientism for decades
>>18496625>what if academia and the government is lying and covering up all of the evidence that proves I’m right?I'd just dismiss it unless they offer compelling evidence of a coverup. Most of the time it's pure speculation with no substance.
>>18496625He's old and white and wears glasses. Seems smart and trustworthy and I'm being unironic.
>It also seems to me that the "lens" shit - although it sounds stupid - contradicts your argument, since it indicates that the person is being open about their own presuppositions rather than projecting a false objectivityAdmitting you're going to commit a crime doesn't make the crime any better. The problem with lenses is that it is based on an assumption that a market will buy the idea and that it needs no prerequisites established. The race-based analysis example doesn't apply here because the assumptions are already understood. It's not a narrative lens because it's not tied to a certain predisposed interpretation- it can be interpreted however. The problem with lenses is that they're hyper-niche and, far from preferential to objective facts, favor catering to unfounded assumptions exclusively. Race can be objectified, oriented, ranged, specified, etc. Feelings of one ethnic group about another are just that- moods and "vibes". >>No, I'm an anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois too. I just use 'right-wing' as a shorthand.Sure, I'm just explaining why the shorthand isn't useful. Anyone who is actually a Marxist, actually a nationalist, or actually anything outside of the liberalist ideological paradigm is going to read that as "I'm a conservative", which is just a pro-market liberalist. >He called left-wing communism an infantile disorder. I don't think he ever said anything about homosexuality. Right, I'm interpolating based on Stalin's remark on dogma in left-wing communism and the social developments that took place in the prior period. The way both wrote about it, you could make a number of assumptions about everything or any particular thing they were pointing to. You know all of this but I'm saying it in case anyone reads our dialogue.
>Man, that's crazy. *shakes head*
>>18496724>The thread was about a trend. Why aren't you refuting some specific academic instead of generalising? And so on.Because you did not. You came in with a general trend which signals to everyone else that they're allowed to do the same. If you wanted specific remarks then you would have started that yourself. You came here to pick bones with Hancock- then be explicit and stop being passive-aggressive. If you want to talk trends, then we're going to talk trends.>>18496724The ironic thing is that the people saying "trust the science" aren't scientific. If you can make the case, then you would just make the case, you wouldn't bother making appeals to authority. When I was in engineering school nobody made remarks like "trust the science". We just figured things out. Mostly practical things, but all the same. History should be treated practically instead of being treated as an abstract or theoretical notion. Postmodernists were never about or against science- they are about making appeals to authority while attacking others as authoritarians. That's the whole game. >>18496728The funny thing is that this actually proves that coverups are easy, because the person that discovers the coverup has to prove something that looks like a negative, when really it's a kind of false negative or false positive he has to prove/disprove. At a certain point we just have to admit that it takes a certain IQ to figure out a bamboozle and most current observers of historical studies are not there and never will be.
I don't trust any conspiracy theorist who hasn't had at least one attempt on their life
>>18496625The real problems in academia have to do with publishing biased studies because of nationalism and going out of their way to be anti-racist or some bullshit like that. Also 3rd worlder "academia" looting their own artifacts to sell on the black market.Pointing out real coverups and corruption is politically incorrect 100% of the time and is nothing a "dude... weed, lmao" Joe Rogan personality would touch with a ten foot pole. Think less ancient aliens and more the kind of stuff haploautists obsess over on this board.
>>18496751This. If they can prove their delusions and are/were actively hunted down by the so-called factic power in their head, then is not just in their head. But every time some loser calls out these conspirations, they are some salty fuck with zero proofs or even stakes on the matter.
>>18496625"Faggot"
I watched the first couple of episodes of s2 when it was releasing. At one point, when showing roughly geometric structures in the Amazon dating to around 500BC, he says that these structures are unlikely anything seen elsewhere, equal only to another civilisation which is itself the peak of human engineering thus far in history...... Geometric period Greece AHAHAHHAHAHAH
>>18496625this meme
>>18496900If this were honest the theorist would have a chad face and morph into a lizard person at the end and say "yes".
>>18496625All historical lyings are also coverings and also trail markers along the path to the heidegger black forest skullatella hut that heidegger’s wife bought for heidegger and this aspect i sometimes theorize about but that is beside the point which is that all historical lyings are also coverings and also trail markers along the path to the heidegger black forest skullatella hut that heidegger’s wife bought for heidegger and where heidegger experienced the element or something like that
>>18496644Locke was onto something then
>>18496694>As far as siloing the field of history- it doesn't make any sense. It's the most accessible discipline of all, outside of literatureYeah until fucks like Hayden White came along
Bullet to the head
>>18496900>It's impossible for people to keep a secret>If your conspiracy theory was real we'd all know about it
>>18496639>typical leftist thinking of cowardly assaults to silence oppositionThis is why you never win. Too much feminine energy
>>18496666>>18496684>>18496715>Dude empiricism is critical and you have to be critical about what information you internalize>which is why you should blindly trust these other people who don't actually do empirical research and you're bad if you are critical of them>>18496756I mean, there are real systemic issues with academia in relation to archeology with gatekeeping, but it's shit that Hancock and other Pseudoarcheologistsa generally don't care about, like how a lot of research (even with public funding) is paywalled, or how not all the datasets, photos etc from research is published alongside the papers, or how museums and research labs claim the Copyright on digitized scans of manuscripts, paintings, artifacts etc even though they are thousands of years old, and so on
>>18497589>which is why you should blindly trust these other people who don't actually do empirical researchwho's saying to do that though
>>18497499QRD?>>18497545This.>>18497589Rationalism is plenty critical. I even explicitly argued for rationalism above. That was stated outright. >PseudoarcheologistsaHe already says he's an amateur at best, you don't have to press what appears to be a wound but is not. I feel like there's a bigger grievance you have. You're right about all of those issues though. Too true.
>>18497545>Me no understand joke, me offend. U leftie becuz u offend me ooga booga ooga boogaIt was a joke you stupid /pol/faggot. /pol/ is the new "woke" and its a fact.
>>18497647Nta, but it wasn't funny. Like at all. You'd have been better off not spazzing out.
>>18497545But the leftists have done nothing but win for the last two hundred years.
If someone refuses to be reasonable there's nothing you can do about that, just find one detail they are self-evidently wrong on and focus on that to make it as obvious as you can to anyone rational or just to thoroughly confirm it to yourself and remove doubt that it is you who is being irrational.
>>18496625Undermining an alternative explanation to support your own only works if there are only two possible explanations. For all other situations we must appraise the evidence out forward and assess the explanation offered. Hancock's evidence and analyses do not hold up.
>>18497655The overton stopped shifting recently. The left jumped the shark insisting that men can be women.
>>18496625"Lack of proof of my claims IS the proof" is exactly the same logical short circuit followed by "targeted individuals' and other such wackos. It is not even an argument, it is simply an attempt to reframe the concession of "I cannot prove my claims" as an ouroboric proof of the veracity of those claims.
>>18497678Yeah, it does that sometimes. But it never evolves past that; the reactionary tantrum ends, and the march resumes.
>>18497655>leftists>winKekerino. Leftists are genetic losers, their whole ideology is based on being oppressed by their own strawmen
>>18497647I should punch you right in the schnozz so you understand the difference between a frontal attack and a cheap shot Don't worry bro, it's just a joke unless your schnozz is hooked
>>18497649It was a bit unfunny I'll give that but /pol/fags not understanding it is a bigger problem when they're usually the ones chimping out about "it wuz a joke o algo"
>>18497828Do you need a safe space?
>>18497825>Leftists are genetic losers, their whole ideology is based on being oppressed by their own strawmen>Proceeds to make a strawman Do /pol/tards really?
>>18497835No, but your schnozz does if it ever gets in punching range
>>18497847>troon triggeredWhat I said is demonstrably trueNo need to kvetch this hard broski
>>18497833A bit? It was fucking retarded, not even a third grader would find it funny
>>18496625"what if academia and the government is not lying at all?". That's it, you confused the pseud
>>18497825>KekerinoYou are latinx, only the people from the dragon ball threads write such stupid words like kekaroo and kekerino, you are latinx, your opinion is worth nothing, you are worth nothing
>>18497697Yeah no use in resisting we're going to lose anyway. Might as well cut my cock off already.
>>18498137>jeet triggered by a memeKekaroo you have to go back to your shithole behenchod bitch
>>18496625>what if
>>18496648Extremely common, true. People will 100% believe that everything said by the government is wrong and evil and then find a low quality 40 minute video of a suburban wine mom muttering to herself about parasites or the annunaki and treat it like Gospel truth.
>>18496694When you say STEM, you don't actually mean STEM, because you'd complain about medicine and doctors telling you to get vaccinated. You'd complain about cognitive scientists making claims about the brain functions of the religious or socially conservative. You'd complain about environmental scientists releasing data about global warming. You'd complain about astrophysicists silencing the real 'theories of everything'. Etc.
>>18496666>Think about it for a second, why would China, Russia, Europe and the USA, geopolitical rivals that want the other side to die, all agree on "le science" and force people to only trust le scienceBecause gravity works the same in Iran as it does in Chicago.
>>18496718>Ask them what would they gain from lying about it?Money, status, fame?Well, not only gain but also preserve. Keeping status quo so they can still benefit from current arrangements.
>>18496900
>>18496625Don't he dispute Japanese sinking city?
>Hey Dibble, the Sahara called. They're running out of excavators.To this day, /his/ has no comeback for this.
>>18497647you're extremely sensitive and your posts are long winded
>>18497833please stop using jargon made by people 20 years younger than you
