Racist School Assignment from NC - let's play this game!

[yiostheoy]

So a few parents are upset about a hypothetical morals scenario that was assigned to students in NC

Some feel the assignment is racist. Well, it is racist, because these SJWs just cannot help themselves - ALL of the whites are cast in a bad light, or are "dregs of society"

All of the "minorities" are upstanding citizens & productive members of society. Why? Because thrashing white people is what these fools like to do...

Anywho - let's set that aside. Let's look at the assignment and share with the class here in USMB what our picks would be!

The assignment:

The assignment is called the "Bomb Shelter Activity." The scenario is that the President of the United States issues a warning of a nuclear attack, and the student's family has access to a bomb shelter. The student can pick four strangers to go into the bomb shelter for safety.

The assignment has the student decide between different ethnic groups.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."

Parents say school 'bomb shelter' assignment promotes racism

My choice:

1. Korean athlete - this is a no brainer, especially if we have to think about repopulating the earth
2. Construction worker - another no brainer, don't care that he is "racist" He knows how to build shit & we are talking about making it in a post apocalyptic world. Besides, he has probably been mislabeled as a racist just because he voted to Make America Great Again, but either way, he is in
3. 20 year old welfare queen - obviously a slut & the construction worker will need someone to bang (cuz, I'm calling dibs on the Asian athlete...) Only consideration is does the 2 year old come with her? Doesn't matter, she's in either way
4. Lesbian doc - hopefully she knows her shit, as medical skills will come in handy

crippled lawyer is 1st out, I mean talk about less than worthless in this scenario
Catholic priest never had a shot with me either, cuz I plan to make babies with the Korean & I wouldn't wanna have to kill anybody, if the priest raped a kid on my watch in a post apocalyptic world, I would absolutely kill him after I ripped his balls off

so - who would YOU pick?

None of the above, nor any others outside the family. The bomb shelter and the supplies therein would be for their survival alone. Go get your own bomb shelter.

Generally speaking a physician would be an asset.

But a Lezzy physician might seduce your daughter or your wife.

Unless the pregger is wife or daughter, that's out of the equation since only four of the offered group is under consideration.

The preggo b!tch would be my 3rd choice.

If I can't have the Korean babe or the Lesbo babe I still need a babe to repopulate the Earth after Armageddon.

 

[gallantwarrior]

And yet, a truly humanitarian group would find some way to sacrifice and include everyone in their survival scheme...

 

[yiostheoy]

No, it is segregating. What would it matter, under those circumstances what race or lifestyle someone has? To those that don't see color, nothing, we could care less.
The person assigning it wanted to segregate them. Not by what they could bring to the table, but by what color their skin was or their lifestyle, otherwise they would have not mentioned it.

Breaking people into categories. Read it again, i.e. black, white, Hispanic, Asian, lesbian, female, male. That is segregating at its finest.

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

That's not segregation. That's identifying.

No doubt those who chose to leave out someone in a wheelchair would be classed racist because he's Hispanic. Typical lefty garbage.

If I could I would choose all 3 females.

That would give me a harem.

Then I could maybe keep up with the moosleems.

 

[yiostheoy]

All of the "minorities" are upstanding citizens & productive members of society.

What constitutes your measure of "all?" The choices in the scenario offer three white folks, two of whom can reasonably be assumed to be productive, and all three of whom must be assumed to be upstanding.

I know what upstanding means, but I have no idea what you may think it means, OP-er, but regardless of what you think, I have news for you:

• "Racist and white" and "upstanding and productive member of society" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm sure there are racists who hold jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to their "whites-only" community. Indeed, I know some whites in the U.S. who have never encountered or spoken to a black person, but they have seen black people, mostly on television and in movies.
• "50 years old, white and being a Catholic priest" is also not necessarily mutually exclusive with "upstanding and productive member of society."
• If one is "20 year old, white, female, pregnant, has a two year old son and on welfare," one is less obviously a productive member of society, but one can very well be upstanding. To the extent such an individual economically contributes more to society than she takes from it, she too is a productive member of society.
  
  I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but "being on welfare" does not mean that one's sole means of support is public assistance. It means that one receives some public assistance. Indeed, the majority of people receiving public assistance have a job too. (See also: Welfare In America: Most Low-Wage, Full-Time Workers Use Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, Analysis Shows)

The fact that you deem as not "upstanding citizens & productive members of society" the three white folks in the exercise says more about your own preconceived notions of what it means to be "upstanding citizens & productive members of society" than it does about whether any of them are. Accordingly, I kindly suggest you invest some of your time taking the course offered/suggest at one or more of these sites:

• Oxford's Free Course Critical Reasoning For Beginners Will Teach You to Think Like a Philosopher | Open Culture
  
• Critical Thinking: Where to Begin
  
• Creative and Critical Thinking Training Course
  
• The 10 Bona Fide Best Sites for Sharpening Your Critical Thinking Skills - Mission to Learn - Lifelong Learning Blog
  
• Critical Thinking Courses | Coursera
  
• Critical Thinking and Creative Problem Solving | Learning Tree International

I'm sure at this point you doubt the merit of my suggestion. Continue reading...

Parents say school 'bomb shelter' assignment promotes racism

I have no doubt that some parents did indeed make such a claim/inference. Some children are cursed with myopic mental midgets for parents. Kids are thus cursed mainly when they are stuck with parents who make no effort to see, think and examine things beyond their initial suppositions about them, or, to put it another way, their parents think as a child or adolescent would. Doing that is a manifestation of willful ignorance, and it's something parents should know better than to do.

According to the article you cited, "Parents say being forced to pick people to save based on their race and sexual identity is not a good lesson to teach." Well, that's just about the most irrelevant and sophomoric conclusion one might reach regarding the assignment. Yes, race is provided for each of the individuals, but it's hardly the sole trait upon which one can base their choice. The parents claiming that their kids were forced to choose based on race quite simply did not themselves see beyond race, and they obviously lack the intellect to accurately infer (assuming they didn't ask or the teachers didn't volunteer it) the learning objectives of the exercise.

Apparently, those same parents felt also that their kids were forced to use "sexual identity" in addition to race. It's clear from their having said that, that they don't know the difference between "sexual identity" and "sexual preference." Now, at one's own picnic table among one's close friends, one express oneself so inaccurately, and perhaps the other people there will "know what you mean." When speaking in public and on the records as those parents did, they should have either eschewed using a technical term like "sexual identity," or they should have bothered to know what it means and how it differs from "sexual preference" so they could use the correct one when they aren't talking to people able and willing to read their small minds.

Perhaps race, sexual preference and/or sexual identity are what those parents teach their kids to see and use as a tool for judging others, but those traits are hardly the only bases provided for one's choosing one individual over another. Indeed, of the attributes listed, race and sexual preference is far and away the worst basis one might use to choose whom to "save." If so, the members of "decent and respectable society" should be glad that the school is trying to imbue those kids with more rigorous critical thinking skills than their parents have.


From where I stand, it's clearly an exercise for teaching kids to refrain from jumping to specious conclusions or making/acting on hasty generalizations, specifically the kind that manifest themselves as or rely upon stereotypes about race in their decision making. The pedagogical point of the exercise is to provide a framework the teacher can use to catalyze instruction in that regard and about clear and rational/critical thinking.

What makes it clear the preceding is accurately adjudged as the points and approach of the exercise? The fact that, of all the traits provided, race is the only one that does not inherently have any relevant impact on whether the person is "worth" saving, from a practical and rational standpoint. For example, the construction worker could as well have been black or Latino, but his strength is of equal use no matter his race. The only relevance race has is its impact(s) on the thinking of one who thinks it makes a difference. In other words, race and whatever choices/leanings one makes/has pertaining to it are "all about" the person who allows race to be a factor, and not about the people of a given race.

To "succeed," the students must do one of the following:

• Point out the insufficiency of reasoning attendant with making choices about people based on arbitrary traits provided and that don't have anything to do with a person's fitness for a given task or with the likelihood of one individual's superiority (based solely on the information given/available) over others in a given situation.
• Articulate a choice (or approach to "narrowing the field") that is based on a line of sound critical reasoning, which necessarily must derive either (1) from practical exigencies that may be soundly inferred from the situational information given, or (2) from applying the tenets of a well developed system of moral philosophy/ethics (i.e., not because someone is a member of a given race) and that uses the intrinsic characteristics of the individual and situation as the basis of the decision. For example:
  • Choosing the construction worker because it can be inferred that he is likely the strongest, and his strength may be essential after the bombing is over, perhaps to open the door to get out the shelter if it's blocked.
  • Choosing the guy in wheelchair because choosing him is an act of kindness that, but for it, the man would surely perish.
  • Choosing the doctor because her skills will be essential for sustaining everyone's life during and after the conflagration.

This rant is way too long.

 

[yiostheoy]

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

Why did they mention skin colour etc?

I'm guessing to stimulate discussion about what characteristics are important to restart society. The assignment also mentioned age, skill set, disabilities, sexuality.

Age is relevant, for obvious reasons. So is Skill set, gender (as in the actual gender ) and ability/disability. Skin colour is clearly irrelevant, so are the descriptors Asian, Hispanic.

Gender is relevant depending on the respondent.

As ricechickie pointed out she wants the big construction worker for obvious reasons not just to build her a house.

As several of the guys pointed out we each wanted the Asian babe.

 

[yiostheoy]

And yet, a truly humanitarian group would find some way to sacrifice and include everyone in their survival scheme...

That was not one of the givens.

 

[ricechickie]

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

Why did they mention skin colour etc?

I'm guessing to stimulate discussion about what characteristics are important to restart society. The assignment also mentioned age, skill set, disabilities, sexuality.

Age is relevant, for obvious reasons. So is Skill set, gender (as in the actual gender ) and ability/disability. Skin colour is clearly irrelevant, so are the descriptors Asian, Hispanic.

Gender is relevant depending on the respondent.

As ricechickie pointed out she wants the big construction worker for obvious reasons not just to build her a house.

As several of the guys pointed out we each wanted the Asian babe.

Why, you little piggy!

If I wanted that, I would have set a real challenge and brought the priest in!

 

[dcbl]

SJWs

Single Jewish Women?

I was wondering about this too.

Normally we would say SJF.

For FEMALE.

Social
Justice
WARRIOR

 

[Coyote]

I think this exercise is fascinating and a good one. I don't see it as racist. It encourages participants to look the choices they would make, and why. Race, sexual orientation, gender, professions - those are all factors in Real Life. You can pretend they don't exist but they do, they are all around us. Those details make a much more interesting exercise them simply labeling professions and ages.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."​

I would choose:
The doctor - in light of her skill set, all else is irrelevent. Besides, if you wanted to repopulate, being lesbian doesn't preclude her from having children.

The Priest - because he is the oldest of the group, has a maturity and wisdom to guide a group, priests often have good listening skills and conflict solving skills. Could be a peacemaker.

The College athlete - she's young, fit, would do well.

The construction worker - hopefully his racist views would be tempered by getting to know a diverse group who will have to rely on each other, he has skills that are useful.


I hesitated over the others...the lawyer, being wheelchair bound could be a real survival problem in a post holocaust world. The pregnant woman with the child would count as two people, and that would leave out some important skills.

 

[yiostheoy]

Seriously who has a bomb shelter anymore?

Not since the Cuban missile crisis (which was also a Turkish missile crisis but for brainwashing purposes in the USA they never told you about the missiles the USA was putting into Turkey).

But if fat boy Kim in N.Korea ever gets accurate missiles and can miniaturize his A-Bombs and H-Bombs then you might see a rise in bomb shelters again, unless Trump can stop the fat boy dead in his tracks.

 

[yiostheoy]

I think this exercise is fascinating and a good one. I don't see it as racist. It encourages participants to look the choices they would make, and why. Race, sexual orientation, gender, professions - those are all factors in Real Life. You can pretend they don't exist but they do, they are all around us. Those details make a much more interesting exercise them simply labeling professions and ages.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."​

I would choose:
The doctor - in light of her skill set, all else is irrelevent. Besides, if you wanted to repopulate, being lesbian doesn't preclude her from having children.

The Priest - because he is the oldest of the group, has a maturity and wisdom to guide a group, priests often have good listening skills and conflict solving skills. Could be a peacemaker.

The College athlete - she's young, fit, would do well.

The construction worker - hopefully his racist views would be tempered by getting to know a diverse group who will have to rely on each other, he has skills that are useful.


I hesitated over the others...the lawyer, being wheelchair bound could be a real survival problem in a post holocaust world. The pregnant woman with the child would count as two people, and that would leave out some important skills.

It is racist.

It is also homophobe.

it is also anti-disabled.

 

[Coyote]

I think this exercise is fascinating and a good one. I don't see it as racist. It encourages participants to look the choices they would make, and why. Race, sexual orientation, gender, professions - those are all factors in Real Life. You can pretend they don't exist but they do, they are all around us. Those details make a much more interesting exercise them simply labeling professions and ages.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."​

I would choose:
The doctor - in light of her skill set, all else is irrelevent. Besides, if you wanted to repopulate, being lesbian doesn't preclude her from having children.

The Priest - because he is the oldest of the group, has a maturity and wisdom to guide a group, priests often have good listening skills and conflict solving skills. Could be a peacemaker.

The College athlete - she's young, fit, would do well.

The construction worker - hopefully his racist views would be tempered by getting to know a diverse group who will have to rely on each other, he has skills that are useful.


I hesitated over the others...the lawyer, being wheelchair bound could be a real survival problem in a post holocaust world. The pregnant woman with the child would count as two people, and that would leave out some important skills.

It is racist.

It is also homophobe.

it is also anti-disabled.

and anti-white
and anti-welfare
and anti-construction worker

 

[yiostheoy]

I think this exercise is fascinating and a good one. I don't see it as racist. It encourages participants to look the choices they would make, and why. Race, sexual orientation, gender, professions - those are all factors in Real Life. You can pretend they don't exist but they do, they are all around us. Those details make a much more interesting exercise them simply labeling professions and ages.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."​

I would choose:
The doctor - in light of her skill set, all else is irrelevent. Besides, if you wanted to repopulate, being lesbian doesn't preclude her from having children.

The Priest - because he is the oldest of the group, has a maturity and wisdom to guide a group, priests often have good listening skills and conflict solving skills. Could be a peacemaker.

The College athlete - she's young, fit, would do well.

The construction worker - hopefully his racist views would be tempered by getting to know a diverse group who will have to rely on each other, he has skills that are useful.


I hesitated over the others...the lawyer, being wheelchair bound could be a real survival problem in a post holocaust world. The pregnant woman with the child would count as two people, and that would leave out some important skills.

Coyote i thought you were female.

If you are female then you are going to need a sperm donor.

If you are male you are going to need a vagina.

Robert's your uncle, Fanny's your aunt, that's how you need to choose.

 

[yiostheoy]

I think this exercise is fascinating and a good one. I don't see it as racist. It encourages participants to look the choices they would make, and why. Race, sexual orientation, gender, professions - those are all factors in Real Life. You can pretend they don't exist but they do, they are all around us. Those details make a much more interesting exercise them simply labeling professions and ages.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."​

I would choose:
The doctor - in light of her skill set, all else is irrelevent. Besides, if you wanted to repopulate, being lesbian doesn't preclude her from having children.

The Priest - because he is the oldest of the group, has a maturity and wisdom to guide a group, priests often have good listening skills and conflict solving skills. Could be a peacemaker.

The College athlete - she's young, fit, would do well.

The construction worker - hopefully his racist views would be tempered by getting to know a diverse group who will have to rely on each other, he has skills that are useful.


I hesitated over the others...the lawyer, being wheelchair bound could be a real survival problem in a post holocaust world. The pregnant woman with the child would count as two people, and that would leave out some important skills.

It is racist.

It is also homophobe.

it is also anti-disabled.

and anti-white
and anti-welfare
and anti-construction worker

Well everyone is anti welfare. Those people are slug parasites.

 

[Coyote]

I think this exercise is fascinating and a good one. I don't see it as racist. It encourages participants to look the choices they would make, and why. Race, sexual orientation, gender, professions - those are all factors in Real Life. You can pretend they don't exist but they do, they are all around us. Those details make a much more interesting exercise them simply labeling professions and ages.

According to the Facebook post, the choices are a "35 year old White male construction worker who is a racist," a "40 year old Black female doctor who is a lesbian," a "50 year old White male who is a Catholic Priest," a "25 year old Hispanic male who is a lawyer and is wheelchair bound," a "30 year old Korean-American female who is a former college athlete," and a "20 year old White female who is pregnant, has a two year old son and is on welfare."​

I would choose:
The doctor - in light of her skill set, all else is irrelevent. Besides, if you wanted to repopulate, being lesbian doesn't preclude her from having children.

The Priest - because he is the oldest of the group, has a maturity and wisdom to guide a group, priests often have good listening skills and conflict solving skills. Could be a peacemaker.

The College athlete - she's young, fit, would do well.

The construction worker - hopefully his racist views would be tempered by getting to know a diverse group who will have to rely on each other, he has skills that are useful.


I hesitated over the others...the lawyer, being wheelchair bound could be a real survival problem in a post holocaust world. The pregnant woman with the child would count as two people, and that would leave out some important skills.

Coyote it thought you were female.

If you are female then you are going to need a sperm donor.

If you are male you are going to need a vagina.

Robert's your uncle, Fanny's your aunt, that's how you need to choose.

Technically speaking...you only need one sperm donor to make a go of it...

 

[yiostheoy]

[
I'm a teacher.

I/E daycare provider.

Teacher.

But your attempt to demean me is noted.

ricechickie that's what this forum is loaded with.

If you cannot take the heat then you better stay out of the kitchen.

These monsters will use every rhetorical trick in the book.

Please be advised.

 

[yiostheoy]

Oh, they are but with examples of garbage such as above given.
Notice in the above they once again segregate?

What do you mean, they "segregate"?

Why did they mention skin colour etc?

I'm guessing to stimulate discussion about what characteristics are important to restart society. The assignment also mentioned age, skill set, disabilities, sexuality.

. Sexuality should have no place in public education other than one being recognized as a biologically born male or female. Sexuality or the sex of a child other than ones biological identity, absolutely has no place in the public education conversation. Period.

Once kids are in high school, they are aware of sexual orientation.

Not in MY Catholic high school we did not.

We did not learn about queers until Psychology 101 in college daze.

And back in those days they taught that homo boys were mistreated by their mothers so they naturally hated women.

And homo girls were abused by their fathers and therefore naturally hated men.

 

[yiostheoy]

Absurd. If those were my ONLY choices? I would lock everyone out (including myself ), the hell with the human race.

MaryL my dear sweet friend you seem to be somewhat self destructive and suicidal.

Trust me you like ricechickie would both want that big construction worker.

He can build you a house to live in and he can knock you up.

 

[yiostheoy]

Not when I was in high school. The only sexual orientation relevant to us was, "does she, or doesn't she"...and we weren't interested in her hair color, either. These days, students have to be extra-special careful about what pronouns they use to refer to other students, and probably faculty, too. To my knowledge, the English language officially has three recognized pronouns: he, she, or it. If the object being referred to is masculine, it is "he". If the object is feminine, it is "she". If the object is neutral or indeterminate, it's "it". Anything else...yeah, whatever...

In Catholic high school if you "did" and you got caught then you were expelled.

Better to wait until you got to Notre Dame to boink.

 

[dcbl]

homo boys were mistreated by their mothers so they naturally hated women.

And homo girls were abused by their fathers and therefore naturally hated men.

sounds legit