Tag Politically Correct

Signs Point to a Slippery Slope Ahead

Michael Leave a comment

A few weeks ago I read a post that reminded me of signs around town (physical signs not harbingers of things to come) we used to see but now have disappeared. Perhaps they were non-inclusive or offended the sensitive driver. The referenced post alluded to drivers (safety challenged drivers apparently) who ride in the left lane with little or no intention of ever moving out of the left lane. (For America Driving Style challenged readers you may consider instead the “passing” lane (or perhaps known as the non-speed challenged lane).)

Trigger warning. The remainder of this post will directly quote signs designed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, also known as the Age of Darkness or the Sensitivity Challenged Era (SCE).

A sign I miss more often every day is the one I never see any longer, “Keep Right Except to Pass.” I mean, come on, this is a pretty darn straight forward direction and observing it can result in improved traffic safety and a reduction of highway violence or the threat of violence every time I come up behind Speed Challenged Driver (SCD) #1 doing 42 mph trying to pass SCD #2 going 41 mph in a 65 mph zone. I think the disappearance has something to do with the perceived Freedom of Choice (not one of the classically defined Four Freedoms yet often cited “freedom”) being violated by instructing drivers to maintain a conservative viewpoint. Either that or complaints were voice that keeping “right” meant there existed a “wrong” and thus non-inclusive of those identifying as “badasses.”

The next sign we need to bring back is going to be controversial. “Cross At Crosswalk.” I think the trend of crossing “willy-nilly,” ummm, “non-gender specific appellation – non-gender specific youth who politely refuses the company of others identifying as youths,” began as stores and shopping centers established building wide crossing areas from the parking lot to their doors and marking them with semi-official looking “Yield to Pedestrians” signs. A check of all of the state traffic laws that are easy to locate on-line (which number a mere three but I’m pretty sure the other 47 states and the variety of territories are the same) clearly state that drivers are to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks (emphasis added). Oddly enough, at least in my local area, the roadside traffic sign “Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk” abounds marking nearly every traffic-pedestrian intersection but the corresponding pedestrian signage “Cross at Crosswalk” has faded into history. A possible reason is that “pedestrian” is being viewed as “commonplace” or unimaginative” and since everyone is special, pedestrian rules are offensive and contrary to woke thinking.

Another sign that has disappeared from the local landscape is “Curb Your Dog.” Although classically an urban oriented signage, it was once seen across the country in parks and at highway rest areas. “Curb Your Dog” has two acceptable meanings, keep your dog under control or clean up after your dog has despoiled the landscape with its bodily by-product. Perhaps the sign offended those who feel man is not to control other living things on the planet but are to share the space, or perhaps cat owners resented that dogs get all the attention and even though the sign’s intent is more or less lost in the feline sense they weren’t going to stand for the continued second fiddle playing dog owners continued to foist upon their beloved companions.

“Road Closed” is disappearing much faster than roads are being closed. Again, this may be a regional thing but here the state Department of Transportation and all the little municipal road crews seem to prefer you just stumble across an impassable road rather than providing forewarning. I supposed it’s the totalitarian nature of “closed ” that offends sensitivities. If the road wants to identify as open let the road be open. Drivers will discover soon enough that the bridge has been wash away.

I could go on…”Do Not Enter” (too authoritative), “No Left Turn” (ideologically stifling), and the sorely missed “Do Not Block Intersection” (assumes intersections have less rights than through roads) …but the sign I miss most is “End of Construction.” I don’t think there is anything particularly offensive about it, they just never seem to finish any road work around here.

reflective-warning-signs-swerving-car-symbol-vc1687-lg

 

You thought that was politically incorrect?

Michael 1 Comment

Over the years we’ve rarely made specific observations of those people that we might feature in our posts.  There have been many of them but we’ve always spoken to what they’ve done, not who they are.

Our first mention of a real other person came in November of 2011.  We detailed the exploits of a shopper who startled She of We by screaming across a rather large store to a companion shopper.  We mentioned the shopper was screaming in a foreign tongue but we didn’t identify it and didn’t have to.  That wasn’t the story as much as the volume and not knowing the language therefore not knowing whether the scream was because Shopper #1 found a real bargain or a raging inferno.  (See “Clean Up on Aisle Ten,” November 10, 2011)

Throughout the next three years we visited waiters and waitresses that made our day (our favorite can be found at “How would you like your toast?” August 2, 2012), engaged couples becoming married couples in various culture settings (“Weddings Gone Wild…well, sort of,” July 1, 2013), and plane-mates with oversized (!) carry-ons (“We’re On Vacation, Part 1,” September 3, 2012).

In none of these stories did we consider the featured guest’s ethnic or racial background.  It didn’t seem to matter to the story. And if you speak to most people in the world, it doesn’t matter to them either.  Oh but when it comes time to complete a survey or an application for something, those authors delve into backgrounds that would be challenged as politically incorrect if they were to speak thusly in a lunch room of a company doing business with the government.

And there seems to be no consistency to their descriptions.  They may ask the survey taker if he or she is African American, Hispanic, or White.  That gives us one in an uncertain familial background, one as cultural descriptor, and one that’s a race identifier.  What does the white South African who grew up in Chile answer?  Is someone from the Black Sea village of Poti in Georgia just as Asian American as someone who grew up in Da Nang overlooking the South China Sea?  There is no good way to answer.

Is the term White used for those one cannot readily discern an ethnic background?  European American brings us back to a non-descript description but how much difference is there between an Italian American, a French American, and a German American other than what side of the Alps are the coffee shops?  And do any of these people get to use the description if they themselves actually spent no time in the called upon country or is that only available for continents?

We think we have the best idea.  If one is living in America one gets to be an American.  If you’re living somewhere else please check with your country’s version of the ACLU for guidance, then ignore them and do what we say instead.   When you read one of our posts you can’t tell if of whom we are speaking has a particular color skin, speaks with a certain accent, or is good at making ravioli at home.   You can tell if of whom we are speaking makes us smile doing the things that race, color, or national origin can’t control.  Like asking, “How would you like your toast?”

Now that’s what we think. Really. How ‘bout you.