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

[ricechickie]

The critical thinking comes when someone is forced to defend why they don't want the black lesbian in the shelter. People do take those things into account. Are you new here?

You are confusing your own manifest racism with critical thinking, here. Anybody who IS capable of thinking critically would realize that the whites are being portrayed as welfare trash, racist and bible thumpers, while the others are treated with respect.

if a similar assignment included options of sneaky, inscrutable Asians, 300 pound ghetto thug gangbangers or Lazy Mexicans pooping out anchor babies, you would be on it like shit on stink. Since you are an anti-white racist, however, you are not only giving it a free pass, but actively promoting the racism.

Yes, it actively defied the stereotypes you grew up with, except for the white male priest.

Have your cry over it. There, there.

 

[anotherlife]

The critical thinking comes when someone is forced to defend why they don't want the black lesbian in the shelter. People do take those things into account. Are you new here?

You are confusing your own manifest racism with critical thinking, here. Anybody who IS capable of thinking critically would realize that the whites are being portrayed as welfare trash, racist and bible thumpers, while the others are treated with respect.

if a similar assignment included options of sneaky, inscrutable Asians, 300 pound ghetto thug gangbangers or Lazy Mexicans pooping out anchor babies, you would be on it like shit on stink. Since you are an anti-white racist, however, you are not only giving it a free pass, but actively promoting the racism.

Yes, it actively defied the stereotypes you grew up with, except for the white male priest.

Have your cry over it. There, there.

Stereo type? I have seen gigantic black church women, bigger than three white priests can ever be, put together. Then I saw also a black lesbian teacher. That one was huge too, I was always afraid what if she stomps us all in the ground with her little toe. This is exactly what human survival needs. This thread is good news.

 

[Tilly]

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?

 

[Norman]

Most high school kids can't even name a single Founding Father. Why are they forced to play this stupid game where every answer can be interpreted as racist? Is it part of the democrat agenda to turn everyone into a victim and keep the racial pot simmering?

Sometimes I feel that this is just a shit test of colossal magnitude. They are trying to answer the question "just how retarded can I be and still get away with it?" As the hard left is their opponent, it turns out... a lot is the answer. It would take some serious skill to out-retard those idiots.

 

[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.

 

[Tilly]

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.

What is the relevance of black, white, Asian, Hispanic etc?

 

[Tilly]

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.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

What is the relevance of black, white, Asian, Hispanic etc?

In my opinion, none. Wouldn't it be a great discussion if others felt differently?

 

[regent]

Well the assignment seems to have worked on the boards, but I would have like to have seen how it went in the classroom. A lot of potential there.

 

[Tilly]

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.

But how on earth is skin colour a relevant characteristic?

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

 

[Tilly]

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.

 

[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.

But how on earth is skin colour a relevant characteristic?

I just answered that.

This assignment is a hypothetical. It's all made up. Like I have said, ad nauseum, I'm guessing that it's meant to stimulate discussion. If a teacher assigned this with some "correct" answer in mind, they are out of their gourd. On the other hand, simply mentioning race shouldn't cause this touchy reaction.

 

[Tilly]

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.

But how on earth is skin colour a relevant characteristic?

I just answered that.

This assignment is a hypothetical. It's all made up. Like I have said, ad nauseum, I'm guessing that it's meant to stimulate discussion. If a teacher assigned this with some "correct" answer in mind, they are out of their gourd. On the other hand, simply mentioning race shouldn't cause this touchy reaction.

What touchy reaction? People exasperated with lefty games?

 

[ricechickie]

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.

But how on earth is skin colour a relevant characteristic?

I just answered that.

This assignment is a hypothetical. It's all made up. Like I have said, ad nauseum, I'm guessing that it's meant to stimulate discussion. If a teacher assigned this with some "correct" answer in mind, they are out of their gourd. On the other hand, simply mentioning race shouldn't cause this touchy reaction.

What touchy reaction? People exasperated with lefties games?

Whining about racism, segregation, pontifications that the little high schoolers aren't capable of processing thoughts about race. Also the hilarious reaction that the white fictional characters are somehow being maligned.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yes, it actively defied the stereotypes you grew up with, except for the white male priest.

Have your cry over it. There, there.

I am not crying, you stupid racist.

 

[ricechickie]

Yes, it actively defied the stereotypes you grew up with, except for the white male priest.

Have your cry over it. There, there.

I am not crying, you stupid racist.

You're just doing a good impression?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

But how on earth is skin colour a relevant characteristic?

I just answered that.

This assignment is a hypothetical. It's all made up. Like I have said, ad nauseum, I'm guessing that it's meant to stimulate discussion. If a teacher assigned this with some "correct" answer in mind, they are out of their gourd. On the other hand, simply mentioning race shouldn't cause this touchy reaction.

What touchy reaction? People exasperated with lefty games?

She is as stupid as she is racist and so thinks her own brand of racism is justified by the one it replaced.

Morons like her can't seem to figure out that one does not combat racism by being just as big a racist as those they hate.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

But how on earth is skin colour a relevant characteristic?

I just answered that.

This assignment is a hypothetical. It's all made up. Like I have said, ad nauseum, I'm guessing that it's meant to stimulate discussion. If a teacher assigned this with some "correct" answer in mind, they are out of their gourd. On the other hand, simply mentioning race shouldn't cause this touchy reaction.

What touchy reaction? People exasperated with lefty games?

She is as stupid as she is racist and so thinks her own brand of racism is justified by the one it replaced.

Morons like her can't seem to figure out that one does not combat racism by being just as big a racist as those they hate.

What have I done or said that is racist? Be specific.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Why, then, are the individuals not identified solely on their skill sets? Who cares what race or gender a construction worker or doctor is? Why take any handicapped lawyer at all? A preacher, what additional skills does he possess? Pregnant mother with baggage, again, what skills does she bring with?
Of course the exercise is racist, sexist, and homophobic because it categorizes choices with irrelevant survival characteristics.