After learning that his luggage had made a flight that he missed, a Las Vegas (LAS) passenger told the gate agent: "Imagine there was a bomb in my bag. I'm not on plane, and it would explode."
I could write why TSA's response to this comment as a threat is patently stupid - but to do so demeans us all. You guys are paying people to detain anyone who utters the word "bomb" - in any context.
An opinion that appears in nearly every political thread is: 'we're to blame because we elected these people.'
For the record, this is only true if your politicians don't lie to you...
But I'm not ready to deeply cut back on my standard of living and when push comes to shove, so is very few others either.
The above post provides a really clear picture of the problem: that rational, decent people are still short sighted enough so that if left alone they will lead the world to ruin
...Repeat what the professor said if you want an A. Disagree with his premises if you want an F.
Could this is an example of the anti-intellectualism Sanger was talking about? Although it *may* have been true in your instance, it sums up many of his themes: that you believe that knowledge is just a social construct, and that a professors assessment of your premises has no more weight than your own, that he is not an expert with a deeper understanding of the subject than yours - that such a thing may not even be possible.
Later you comment that as you'll end up in MacDonalds anyway, you might as well skip college. Once again, this reduces college to something that is only worthy (in your eyes) if it gets you a job. This too is part of Sanger's point. Intellectual investigation is a worthy exercise, even if it doesn't get you a job.