Things That Should Be Simple

For some reason, there’s been a slew of little minor social annoyances that simply Should Not Be. They’re easy to fix, and generally shouldn’t be a problem, but still (inexplicably) are. So today I bring you:

Things that should be simple

A list that’s sure to grow

  1. The automation of e-cards, especially when I’m one of a zillion people you cc’ed (instead of BCC’ed), makes that touch a wee bit less personal. That’s okay, just don’t expect the same reaction as you would have otherwise.
  2. Columbus mistakenly called Native Americans “Indians” five hundred years ago. We’ve changed a lot of things in the last 500 years; that “I’ve always called them Indians” is still a socially acceptable phrase (rather than a blinding stigma of racism and/or stupidity) demonstrates how racist/stupid our society is.
  3. “Christmas” means one and only one holiday. “Holidays” includes Christmas, but recognizes there are other holidays too. So deciding that “Happy Holidays” isn’t good enough for you is just being greedy and selfish.
  4. Christians used to use the symbol “x” for Christ, so Xmas is NOT inherently disrespectful. And, um, CHRIST is a title, not a name. If you’re going to be “offended” by disrespecting your religion, at least get the facts right, okay?
  5. If you’re going to publicly espouse any possibly contentious view (including these!), be prepared to have someone challenge it. Talking loudly in eating areas is “in public”. Having a conversation in the hall – or loudly on your phone – is in public.
  6. If one makes a rule, one should enforce it. If one is unwilling or unable to enforce the rule, don’t make it in the first place.
  7. If you’re breaking a rule in public (say, “no smoking” or “no cell phones”), you lose all right to be angry when someone calls you on it.
  8. Workers: When you say “Have a Nice Day”, look at the customer. Customers: When the worker says “Have a Nice Day”, respond to them as if you mean it
  9. The next person – and I’m lookin’ at you, Mike Huckabee – who uses reproduction of the species as an argument against gay marriage is risking violence. Because at that point, you’ve invalidated every couple who cannot have children for whatever reason. Considering the billions of dollars that pour into infertility treatments in this country, I don’t think that’s a trivial number of people whose marriages are being called inconsequential.

Have A Nice Day!

Was this post helpful or insightful? Buy me a coffee here or here and share this post with others!

Popular posts:

  • The difference between boundaries and rules
  • Two Ways to get CMYK Separation Using GIMP Instead of Photoshop in 2022
  • Weekend Project: Whole House and Streaming Audio for Free with MPD
  • Word Porn Quotes
  • Organizing and Tiling Your Windows on #Openbox Using Only... Openbox
  • Simple Smart Playlists for MPD (that work!)

Recent Posts