Have you ever argued with a professor? How'd it go?

Never. Worst I would do is sometimes asking a seemingly innocent question that I knew would get the professor off track if I didn't feel like listening to what they were talking about. I don't think I'm capable of arguing with anyone except my immediate family.

>

No because it adds nothing of worth to the lecture. More often than not the professor has thought longer and harder than you to reach their conclusions and its better to ask constructive questions that actually make them elucidate their points rather than take time away from your classmates and damaging your own image in the professor's eyes.

yes, but after class.
It went well (we both understood each other's viewpoint more) but I don't think I had the command of language at the time apt to demonstrate the point of disagreement. To this day he's still one of my favorite professors albeit a psychology one.

What is with autistic kids thinking they are comedians in lecture? Every time there is some sperg in the very front of the class making dumb little comments all the time

Oh so you mansplained?

One time I gaslighted this professor into bumping my grade to an A instead of a B+. I got a B+ in her class and I knew it was because she didn't like me, because she's a crazy bitch who plays favorites and seems to hate male students. I knew she did it just to fuck with me, because the paper was so vague that she could give you anything from a C to an A without explaining the difference.

I spent a month and a half simultaneously acting like a crazy person who was willing to dispute the grade all the way up to the highest tribunal of the land, but ALSO acting overly innocent and nice about it, like I wasn't angry, or even determined, I was just totally fucking insane and willing to push some technicality through ten levels of review over three years until she was forced to explain her grading practices in minutiae when they didn't exist to begin with.

She got progressively more baffled throughout the email exchanges and office meetings, and kept trying to figure out where I was even coming from. She tried a lot of different emotional tacks, starting out like "what are you going to do about it?" and then sometimes angry, sometimes apathetic, but no matter what, I never let up on the facade, and she never seemed to be able to settle on a single approach to take with me. The only piece of information she got from me was that I was apparently willing to go through every single formality and do everything necessary to make her justify her grading scheme in front of as many third parties as possible.

She got increasingly exasperated, and seemed kind of nutty in the last emails, and then finally had someone from the office email me to say the grade was changed.

One time in a class I defended the 1950s when the professor was shitting all over that decade for being oppressive.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZsEyDe8YhhI

>had to do a presentation on Marshal McLuhan whom I hate with a passion
>could not resist shitting on him
>prof lowkey hated me the rest of the semester because of this
>end of semester and oral exam
>I do my presentation, external sensor thinks it's an A, prof want's to give me a D
>rules are clear, external sensor ranks above if they disagree
>the three of us get into a heated argument about this
>he storms out of the room
>send a complaint to my uni, he get's a formal warning and I do it again with different sensors and get my A

My parents are both professors. I used to argue with them a lot when I was a kid, but then they took on this habit yelling at me for the better part of an hour and I eventually learned to just shut down physically and emotionally when that happened, which I later applied to basically my whole life. I now enjoy the life of an emotionally crippled autist en face.

You must have endeared yourself to all to the ladies user

So some Christian lords and their armed retainers fighting some Muslim lords and their armed retainers is equivalent to 9/11?

Maybe she should stick to teaching English.

Everybody believes you user

The irony is that the insane amount of Muslim aggression, I wonder how many Americans who pluck out historical events for their contemporary narrative are actually aware of the Muslim conquest of Spain. Or that the Levant, Anatolia and Persia weren't muslim a priori.

The broads didn't like me too much in that class.

Is there a place where they do like you?

My dreams.

Am I suppose to get that. I even looked it up. What this even mean?

>weren't muslim a priori

Just...what

I actually laughed audibly

You no nothing of tact, and less of human and real intelligence. It is an act of grace to inject where one must, and if other might witness your greatness, than let your esteem arise as it will. Only fools suffering ignorance in silence, only the ignorant think of themselves am needing to be always humble. "Speak before you act, so that you act not in jest." The words could never be truer than now.

You seem very earnest and young but yes I agree with you in general.

Forgive me for not adhering to accurate philosophical usage of the term on an anonymous shitposting image board, in this case it isn't referring to theoretical deduction. You're a REALLY smart guy, I'm sure you can figure out what it means given the context

he's feeding flourine to his gerbil-man

why do you hate McLuhan?

He sent a letter to the dean (I think that's the term? the guy responsible for the faculty) to get me kicked out of the program. It's funny now but it sucked at the time, especially since I was right, but he was an egotist asshole who just wanted me to apologize for having contradicted him and in the end nothing happened.

hello walker

I'm not sure I get the reference.

To add to my post, the main argument was about how digital compositing would soon replace and become superior to physical compositing in film. He couldn't fathom how this would ever happen. The worst part is that this was barely 10 years ago. What the hell? There were probably other incidents, but the guy was incompetent. Anyway, he was dumb, he had shit taste, his only film was a massive failure and I think something happens to him later on because he was harassing female students, so fuck him.

i corrected a christcuck teacher using pseudo philosophy trying to posit the idea that gay adoption should be prohibited due to the fact that a naturally built family is more beneficial for the child since he gets both needed role models. I argued that studies didn't reflect that, but that even if it did, the childcare system is infected with child abuse and neglect, making such deficiency negligible.

The guy was livid, lol.

Yes.
It went well, because the point of the exercise was to argue with the professor.

I hope this happened

He represents the worst kind of reductionist technological determinism. His theory of medium specificity is pathetic and completely useless for any sort of in-depth analysis, as it presupposed a clear demarcation between different media purely and directly based on material and physical properties. For him aesthetic activity, rhetoric, textual codes and cultural aspects of media are reduced to an determined by the technological medium itself. How media are used and understood, plus the entire relationship between reader/text are just thrown together into a poorly defined, purely technological conception of media. What's worse, he tries to extend his theory of "hot" and "cool" media to entire societies and cultures in general, lumping all non-western culture into the category of "cool backwards societies".

All of this based on anecdotes and arbitrary historical connections, grounded in completely uncritical technological optimism and wrapped in pompous british language. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should read him at a university and his influence is an absolute embarrassment to academia. Fucking fraud.

>pathetic
Not a point
>useless
Not a reason

We had one guy make snarky comments about women when during my master's degree. Pretty fedora-tier, without the clothing to match it. In my class we used to get touchy-feely with the girls because a loy of us have known each other for some time and also a lot of us were on and off fucking. Imagine his shock when he got a black eye after he grabbed some chick's ass. Autists really don't get context do they?

>taking a course on research methods
>prof spends 90% of each lecture shitposting and trolling us, making outlandish claims to get people to counterargue and think for themselves
>dude was basically redpill and anti-sjw before most had heard of these terms
>most students hate his points of view but too retarded/unmotivated to ever offer any counter arguments
>one day prof casually suggests that all prisoners should be executed to deter others and save taxpayer $
>takingthebait.jpg
>mention how there's little evidence of positive correlation between harshness of punishment and crime rate
>mention how certain minorities are grossly overrepresented in prison population so you'd just be systematically eliminating people of a certain race
>all of a sudden tard-bots pipe up
>"omg did you just say minorities commit more crimes" "yeah user that's so racist"
>a couple more proto-sjws join this bizarre circlejerk
>mfw look at prof in disbelief, he's laughing at me like "what the fuck did you expect"

read the rest of the sentence then and refute my points if you're interested in """reasons""", fucking illiterate autist

Thanks user I'm planning on reading McLuhan soon I'll try to keep your criticisms in mind.

>I encourage debate as long as you don't challenge my point of view in front of others
>(I'm a petty human, after all)
a decent educator would welcome the opportunity to transcend their role as a glorified text-book reader. unless you're teaching a course that is free from controversy (e.g. real analysis), chances are whatever shitty memes your telling us during our lectures will be obsolete soon enough

Not OP, but some students are pretty annoying and just go on and on and can really disturb the flow of the class for other students. This can get old quick, especially when the student I'm question thinks he is smarter than he is. I get why a lot of teachers prefer not to engage repeatedly on minor points with a single student during class.

>a decent educator would welcome the opportunity to transcend their role as a glorified text-book reader. unless you're teaching a course that is free from controversy (e.g. real analysis), chances are whatever shitty memes your telling us during our lectures will be obsolete soon enough
You either never had several lectures disrupted by autists who inject their opinions and questions to everything the lecturer says or you are that autist who everyone hates for wasting their time by trying to sound smart.

Unless you're one of those stupid fucks who continually questions the lecture content even though they're just fucking dense as shit and don't realize, then hold the entire lecture up and make all the other students hate you. Like Walker from John William's Stoner.

>political philosophy class
>professor is an unironic commie
>make my final presentation about neoliberalism and its role in lifting countries out of poverty, individual freedom and the state
>speak for about 20 minutes
>once I'm done, professor immediately interjects
>we end up arguing til the very end of the class (about one and a half hour after I'd finished my presentation)
>we disagree to the very end, but he gives me the maximum grade ("impressive research")

>ancient philosophy class
>we are working through one of Aristotle's refutations of the sophists
>somewhere in one of the arguments, he brings up the point that words are material
>*scratch head like a motherfucker*
>I spend the rest of the class ruminating on this
>approach him at the end of the lecture
>"speech and writing aren't words; words are something abstract that precede said material representations", so goes my reading of it all
>he disagrees
>we end up exchanging emails on this for well over a month
>bring it up during one of his later classes
>"well, you can't seem to let this go, huh, user?"
>"I remain unconvinced"
>cue long exchange where each one of us reassert the same shit we've talking about via emailing
>class joins us: some people seem to agree with me, but the vast majority of class agrees with the teach
>he explicitly forbids me of ever bringing it up again in class

Had a Prof make an offhand joke about how "soft-scientists" do whatever, so I interjected. His response was that the level of certainty in "hard" science was much better than those kooks. Moments later he started taking about three-ring as a source of data for temperature....

>"The crusades were terrible for the cities that were sacked, absolutely devastating to the Middle East. Cities were razed, men were executed, women were raped, the treasures of entire civilizations were stolen. In many ways the violence can be compared to the conflicts between modern groups like ISIS and - "
>"Well ACTUALLY professor it was the duty of the white god-fearing christian man to rape and pillage because muslims are just as bad. Stop being an sjw cuck and watch some of my man jbp, that's Jordan B Peterson for you libtards. Europeans dindu nuffin. Deus vult."

>Cities were razed, men were executed, women were raped, the treasures of entire civilizations were stolen. In many ways the violence can be compared to the conflicts between modern groups like ISIS
modern terrorist organizations basically invented these things

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Jesus Christ are you retarded?

What is the purpose of such a needlessly stupid post, user

>mfw look at prof in disbelief, he's laughing at me like "what the fuck did you expect"

>modern terrorist organizations basically invented these things
Not him but fuck you. Learn about war between nations and 'war' conducted by terrorist groups. You'll find that the vast majority of terrorist groups don't have anywhere near the number of people AND governance structure AND economic system of ISIS

I am triggered by this statement.

10/10. Shitty enough to piss me off, not too shitty as to appear as obvious bait.

What arguments did the later have for words being material?

that it's fucking stupid to compare the christian crusades with modern terrorism considering the links between them are universal in any violent conflict in history. It's cool to compare modern terrorism with past conflicts but it's idiotic to compare past conflicts with modern situations, especially considering that the conflict in the middle east is pretty tame compared to what war was like in the middle ages. it's lazy and presumes the person listening knows absolutely nothing outside of what's been in the news for the last decade, and if you disagree I hope your complacency kills you

My professor likes to insert random esoteric references that have cunt-all to do with the topic during seminars, like a trashy 90s anime director. I snapped during one of his branching tangents, because suddenly going into Topology 101 in the middle of econometrics is fine, I guess, but going from Topology 101 into Kabbalah is just plain stupid.

He told me that he is just trying to engage the audience.

>cunt-all

That was what the conduct of war was like in the Medieval Era. It was no different in intra-European conflicts.

:(

ffs stop being pussies and just tell the autist to fuck off. if you're geting cucked in class by an autist, it's only a matter of time before you get cucked for real

>going from Topology 101 into Kabbalah
This sounds like some sick ass Cyclonopedia shit, my dude. You should have let him continue.

One time a middle aged man in an ancient religion class I was taking kept interjecting to draw comparisons to some fucking video game about Akhenaten.

Whats the name of your prof? He sounds like a well read guy.

How are Topology and Kabbalah related? Im genuinely curious as to how your prof explained the interrelationship

Were you studying Cinema ten years ago? What happened? What do you do now?

t. filmmaking student

I've made it up, obviously. In real life it's all dull drudgery and profs at my university - and in my country, generally - avoid all traces of personality, fearing, perhaps, that they'll have to go the extra mile and interact with the students in a fashion that they are not paid to do. Remembering their names gets tougher every year, but I can understand the logic behind their (in-)actions. Students here prey upon anybody who shows a quantum of familiarity and derail every lecture and workshop, creating some weird fusion between a cult of personality and vicious mockery.

How Kabbalah and topology relate may actually be an intresting topic, going to read something on that.

you do realize we are in a world where professors are getting fired at the whim of students, i don't blame them for being careful not to offend the retarded virtue signally autists.

Also making a point> Losing your job.

Any chance you could pastebin this email exchange? Removing any chance of it being linked back to you of course.

You were wrong.

I swear to God, please don't speak during lecture unless there's any open debate or you don't understand the material. Why the hell do people think Phil 101 and second-year history courses are the time to begin their political crusade?
I didn't pay to hear your shit opinions when they're not needed or asked for, take it to the public debate forum literally any good college has if you're so confident your illustrious opinions on Islam will hold up.

>he doesn't know what the fourth crusade was

no he wasn't go back to your /pol/ containment board

The problem is that you’re attempting to read a man trying to come up with frameworks to examine the zeitgeist and make predictions as if he’s making an analytical argument, and he’s not.

By comparison, this is like arguing with your aunt at Thanksgiving that her feelings about her job she dislikes, and why she thinks someday the compamy will go under due to a lack of emotional glue connecting managers, irrespective of balance sheets, is wrong.

You can’t argue with the above because it explicitly admits its not an academic theory; she knows her feelings are not objective and that current company financial success directly contradicts her opinion that they’ll shut down, but it’s still valuable as it’s someone introspectively trying to determine the meaning of 100 intangibles, to see if anything tangible will result.

McLuhan has a great track record for doing this, being the first person to clearly articulate to recognize that the medium content is presented on dictates almost everything about the content including how you ultimately perceive it, as well as predicting the invention of the internet, what one would do on it, and that it would ultimately be personal rather than centralized, successfully predicting, approximately, the creation of personal computer following centralized terminals at universities.

Go reread his playboy interview with the above in mind, I almost guarantee you’ll like him more.

I had a professor who was a Beowulf scholar, and he tried to get the class debating on whether the dragon was evil or just an animalistic force of nature and when I brought up that dragons were people transformed by greed, like Fafnir, in old Germanic works he absolutely lost it and went off on me.

I've posted this before.

>had class on WWI
>Professor was insecure woman, refused to acknowledge anyone unless they addressed her as professor
>one day she claims that people in the past thought differently than we did, that they seen everything through their respective ideologies, and that we no longer had any ideologies
>I raise my hand, and ask if the notion of us having no ideology is not itself a type of ideology
>she ignores my question and goes off on an unrelated tangent
>I approach her after class, and ask her what sources I should read to understand where, when and how ideology came to an end, as this was surely one of the most important developments in human history
>she starts to stammer about election results (what that had to do with anything I couldn't see) and was visibly uncomfortable
>I interrupted her by thanking her for her time and then left

I met her in our department a few days later. I was about to say hello when she said "I don't have time to talk!" and hurried away in the opposite direction.

>I no use word right but u dumb

Yeah I get where you're coming from.
But if you really think my opinions are shit i.e. opinions that have less evidentiary basis than whatever standard narrative the prof is espousing, it takes like 20 seconds to call me out on being full of shit.
Sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty to maintain order my man, instead of whining on an user board.
And frankly, the whole "I paid to get a piece of paper with my name on it, not to hear your opinion" thing reeks of the anti-intellectualism you accuse the political crusader of.

this... ahahaha. this dude really thought that a.... that a priori means... HAHAHAHAHAH

>What is colloquialism
It's okay I'm sure all that time studying Kant's Critiques will impress people enough for them to pay you

A sociology professor and card-carrying Communist spent the whole semester shilling for gun control. I asked him what would ever happen if someone broke into his house with a gun and he said he'd just call the police like it wouldn't take them ten minutes to arrive. Thought about loading up the Mini 30 to teach him a lesson but I never got around to it.

>Or that the Levant, Anatolia and Persia weren't muslim a priori.
wut

Lighten the fuck up.

Misusing a word because you do not know what it means =/= colloquial use.

I like how you think using a priori correctly equates to studying Kant and trying to impress people.

>If you know what that word means and how it should be used then you're just a pretentious psuedo-intellectual

>Or that the Levant, Anatolia and Persia weren't muslim a priori.

Not openly in class. Nobody like that kid. I do sometimes stay after class and talk, but usually I’m able to build friendships with them. I still talk to some of my professors via email, and we trade music back and forth.

Even if we fundamentally disagree with one another, I don’t think it’s impossible to be friends and have a productive discussion about a topic.

I’m a bit autistic when talking in class though, in that I usually don’t unless I’ve got something to say. I’ll review the lesson the night before and think up a good question before class, but usually one that has an answer. I fucking hate those people who refuse to have their world views or beliefs challenged. Like, why are you in college if all you’re going to do is take up time in a 100 level philosophy course arguing with some professor about Christianity? I wanted to kill myself in my logic class because his kid ALWAYS had an objection to the professor (who had been teaching philosophy for 25+ years). The kid was almost usually wrong. Bless your heart, Tom, for tolerating Mark.

Read not to contradict, but weigh to consider. It’s completely okay to raise objections but do it in a manner that doesn’t intrude on others, and be willing to accept your position may be wrong.

>make a few innocuous jokes from time to time
>single peevish schmuck sitting in the back gets upset
Truly a Batman-Joker type relationship.

>real analysis
>free from controversy
humanities majors believe this

>people who refuse to have their world views or beliefs challenged
>Like, why are you in college if all you’re going to do is take up time in a 100 level philosophy course arguing with some professor
You are dumber than that a priori user.

That was real rude Kant-sama.

All I'm saying is that this is a class of like 60+ people, and if you feel so threatened by some poor bastard trying to explain basic philosophy to people then you need to do some self evaluation.

If you disagree with something from our readings, reject it in the term paper. Share after class with the professor. If you're going to posit a question in class, at least make it good or thought provoking. Demonstrate a willingness to at least learn, instead of being defensive.

That's what I'm trying to say

A physics professor said alpha was from the Latin alphabet and I said I thought it was Greek and he said no and I said ok can carried on

W..what is wrong with retarded pepe?

Yes. It was so fucking stupid that I had to speak up

>In "Multiculturalism in the United States" (I know, I know. I had to take it)
>Professor is going on about how the founding fathers smoked hemp and how weed was legal in the United States until black people tried growing it to make money
>Says that hemp was made illegal because white people thought that when women smoked it, it made them want to fuck black people
>Try to contain my autisms, but I can't
>Ask her if she's talking about hemp or weed because I'm so confused at this point
>She's talking about hemp, tries to say that people were smoking hemp and growing it in the pre-civil war times
>Ask her if she knows that you can't get high off hemp and that's an industrial crop
>"No, I use the oils all the time."
>Just leave it at that because I don't want to turn this into an argument

I understand that people can be make mistakes and be wrong, but this was just objective retardation. People can be wrong, and that's alright, but I swear she was just making shit up.

Its apu.

I used to argue with teachers.

Not so much anymore. Instead, I shut up because I learned it's no fucking use to do so even if my professor says something really profoundly stupid. Really, the smart move is to just not care and not say anything in class and hold no presence. It's allowed me to get a new perspective. Other people who do talk a lot in class tend to make me cringe and i'm glad I'm not one of them anymore.

I heard that the Declaration of Independence was written on paper made from Marijuana. Is that true?