The problem here is that your initial post, critical of how academia is presented, reads as very black and white to me.

I get the feeling that you claim that it is all fraud and lies, and that those who disagree can see no wrong with it at all.

Then someone responds with a nuanced reply, something that I, as someone who lives in a university town in Sweden, have the impression that almost everyone in academia actually agrees with.

And then it turns out that you also mostly agree. So, now I'm asking myself (and you): Why did I read that first post of yours as so hostile? As someone who was actively trying to create mistrust?

Is it just because how the debate climate is on the internet, or should you perhaps consider trying to be a bit more nuanced when communicating on the internet?