Safety sign taken down because of "trigger"
-
J-Curl-BiggernBlacker — 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 12:20 AM)
There you go with that trademark Stammerhead wit. I used to loathe British humor, but now because of you, The Royal Family, and The Thicke It, I’m in love again. And I love, love, love it. I’m in love again.
Kiss my black ass! Toodles! -
Cerridwen — 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 12:25 AM)
^ This. The subject-verb agreement is incorrect. "All lives matter" is an emotionally-provocative slogan tied to a racist movement whilst "safety matters," which is what the sign attempted to say, is not.
Hark! Harold the angel sings. -
Lilith — 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 02:27 AM)
It doesn't appear another letter would fit on the sign.
It strikes me more as nit-picking than provocative when they town has this one road sign posted reminding people that to consider that lives matter.
Am I to understand that moving forward, from now on, those three words will no longer be tolerated in any form, regardless of context, for any purpose whatsoever, even as part of a larger sentence. Ever? There's a boycott on putting those three words together in any capacity for any reason and in any format?
I'm trying to truly emphasize that I'm asking this as part of a genuine ongoing discussion because it's part of something I sincerely cannot comprehend (ie: regarding who has the power to designate who does and doesn't have control over who does and doesn't have the ability to put certain words together regardless of intent, including if someone is projecting intent).
Along those lines, I agree with you that an alternative for the sign could be "safety matters" and the same message could be conveyed. No argument from me on that. (Still curious about the questions).
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Cerridwen — 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 03:13 AM)
This sign doesn't exist in a vacuum. Considering current cultural context, of course "ALL LIVES MATTER" will be incendiary to some passersby. Of course it will. Whomever designed this sign was oblivious at best and ignorant at worst. Your feigned confusion is transparent; you're smart enough to know that this result is not surprising, whether or not you feel it's warranted.
Hark! Harold the angel sings. -
️ Christina 1986-05-20 
— 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 03:39 AM)Interesting, not something I would say about her, but it's not really all a bad thing. That just shows how smart she is. Not sure if it's true, though.
½ S/N Asian (40%+ Chinese) ½ Norwegian/Danish-Irish Swiss (Amish/PA) German French Dutch? French+Dutch Celtic-Irish English-Irish?
..? -
Lilith — 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 05:11 PM)
It's not feigned confusion because I'm genuinely confused at why three words are getting targeted and used as incendiary if used in any context, ever, whatever the form or intent. THAT, I do find insulting. It's insulting to the community as if they can't tell the difference between people trying to use it as an inflammatory response, and traffic workers trying to remind people that their driving the speed limit is to protect everyone's lives.
It's at these junctures that I find things to be ridiculous. It's at these junctures where it feels like people are looking for things to be pissed about when we have bigger things to be angry about than street signs about speed limits.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 02:51 AM)
Lilith, it's grammatically incorrect. It should be the "Safety of All Lives Matters". For that reason alone it should be changed. To begin with though, it's a rather silly sign. Just get to the point.
SLOW DOWN. SPEED LIMIT WILL BE ENFORCED. But "The safety of all lives matter" is an ignorant thing to put on a traffic sign. I won't defend it.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
𝐸𝓇𝒾𝒸𝒶𝑅𝑒𝓃𝑒—𝒫𝓇𝒾𝒸𝑒
— 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 03:39 AM)Whoever created the message is either intentionally screwing with people or unintentionally bad at grammar. Either way it’s tone deaf to the current state of affairs in this country.
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon -
Platonic_Caveman — 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 05:10 AM)
I don't so much care about any racial implications. It's official. It's about safety. I don't like ignorance and cutesiness. Just get to the point. Give the speed limit and caution to slow down, but don't make subjective judgments about saving lives because that's not the point. Keep traffic signs simple.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
𝐸𝓇𝒾𝒸𝒶𝑅𝑒𝓃𝑒—𝒫𝓇𝒾𝒸𝑒
— 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 05:38 PM)“The safety of all lives matter” doesn’t make any sense because the subject of the sentence is “safety”, therefore “Matter” must be pluralized. You wouldn’t say , “safety matter”, because “ safety matters” is correct. What is confusing about that? This has been explained about three times now in this thread.
The person who made the sign either did that on purpose to send a political message or sucks at writing. Either way it’s an indictment on the person and whoever is responsible for checking an electronic road sign before it’s deployed.
"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon -
Lilith — 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 05:58 PM)
I concede.
I was approaching this on "lives matter" but I concede your point. Your explanation made sense and eplained in a way that I was apparently missing.
Thank you for that. That's all I ask for: dialogue. Sometimes things, even obvious, can genuinely escape me, and an explanation is all that's required. Thank you Erica.
As to the rest, look at the sign. Where would the "s" go? The sign barely fits the letters it does. I see this as trying to fit as many letters as possible within the allotment. I've seen some weirdly worded signs because of that.
Also as far as things being eplained to me three times, please remember that when I have explained things three times, and they still get twisted around.
Would this sign be as offensive it read: black lives as opposed to all lives? Again, this is a sincere question, because as a town trying to protect their citizen, and as one who genuinely doesn't see the problem with the sign, the mentioning of all lives on the sign is an all inclusive way to mention all citizens.
I believe all can coexist without detracting from the message from the other, and I don't see this as an "either/or" type of situation. I don't see one message taking away the power from another, and for that reason, do not understand why this simple street sign should have to cause such anger when there are more important things to get angry about.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith
— 5 years ago(July 10, 2020 12:17 AM)