Comment Of The Day: Why That “We’re Glad You’re Our Neighbor” Sign Is Unethical (As Well As Obnoxious)

Mrs. Q, who is keeping Ethics Alarms current on the oppressive politically correct environment slowly poisoning Portland, Oragon, was moved to issue another report in reponse to the Ethics Alarms post about a virtue-signalling sign popping up live wild-flowers on yards across America here is her Comment of the Day on the post, “Why That “We’re Glad You’re Our Neighbor” Sign Is Unethical (As Well As Obnoxious)”…(I’ll be back at the end.)

This yard sign is just about everywhere in the city including businesses, churches, schools, and city offices.


This one is also popular. I love how the “Science is real” part is in green.

Black Lives Matters signs often accompany the 2 above. Also on businesses, schools, etc.

This one is mostly on businesses/community centers but some residents have this sign taped to their living room windows.

What’s most interesting is that all the problems this town suddenly has with “hate” came after the anti-Trumpers started putting these signs up. I told a (former) friend that I thought these signs were virtue signaling and devisive and smug I didn’t appreciate that every day everywhere an average citizen can’t take a walk or go to the gym without knowing the political opinions of the home/business/agency owners.

She promptly quoted Eleanor Roosevelt’s “No one can make you feel inferior” mantra. Funny enough she’s white, I’m not, and instead of actually listening to me, you know as a special downtrodden minority, she dismissed my concerns altogether about how such signs may negatively affect a community (and then she cut me out of her life. Yep, so tolerant).

White liberals (not all obviously) dismissing minority concerns about virtue signaling has come up quite a bit among some of the more conservative minorities I know here lately. All talk but not much walk, as in actually listening to minorities who may disagree with the In Our America narrative.

Months ago I emailed a taco place whose white owners put a BLM sign in their window. I let them know that it made me feel more on display regarding race, not less, and that eating there now feels as if I’m making a statement like “hey I’m brown & down w/ the cause.” I asked him to consider just being an excellent business with an excellent product & excellent customer service. That such efforts would go far to make all people comfortable. He talked to his community “advisors” about my concerns and said that “they” said the sign stays.

Now his business is on a list for cultural appropriation & minorities are advised not to eat there.

Living in Portland is like Vaclav Havel’s Green Grocer has come to life, ubiquitous in the city, and unrelenting in preconditioned smug virtue.


I’m back. That first sign had been flagged in the thread by another commenter, and here was my response in part:

“It translates as “I embrace all Democratic/progressive cant, and am thus a good person: Police are out to kill blacks (and all shootings of blacks are presumptively murder; abortion on demand should be a right and what fetus?; boarders should be open, and laws don’t count when they stop likely Democratic voting block members; climate change and everything about it being said by alarmists is true and worth spending billions and forfeiting jobs for speculative solutions; same sex marriage, teacher student affairs, incest and man-boy sex are all swell, and if you oppose mass income transfer by the government, you’re a monster. This shows the idiocy of defining yourself by the mob and slogans, but at least it’s honest.

It also warns me that the person inside has the critical thinking ability of a mollusk.”


15 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: Why That “We’re Glad You’re Our Neighbor” Sign Is Unethical (As Well As Obnoxious)

  1. I seriously enjoy reading things like “Living in Portland is like Vaclav Havel’s Green Grocer has come to life, ubiquitous in the city, and unrelenting in preconditioned smug virtue.” that compel me to do some research.

  2. I miss signs that just said “Vote for _____.” Signs, stickers, memes, and tweets are the absolute worst possible way to discuss important issues. But they work as propaganda, so they aren’t going anywhere.

    That first sign could just as easily say,

    “In Our America
    No Individual Is Important
    Backroom Deals Subvert Law
    Cowardice is Celebrated
    Killing Children is Empowering
    Buzzwords are Valued over Logic
    Facts Are Suppressed”

    without changing a single thing about the sign-owner’s view of the world. You don’t inform anyone of anything by presenting such a sign. You simply assert that you are a better sort of person, without evidence or supporting facts.

    “Planned Parenthood sells baby parts” is a fact. “Donald Trump lied about the size of his inauguration crowd” is a fact. “Welfare perpetuates poverty” is a fact. None of those political statements has any business on the door of a coffee shop, but at least they are all facts. “We welcome all genders” is a passive-aggressive political statement with the added benefit of being complete nonsense.

      • Chris,

        What part of the videos and other proof that PP sells the unborn do you dispute? There are several spin attempts on this basic fact, but all do not deny that research companies are buying human remains for PP.

        The fact is objective. Justification for doing so is in the eye of the beholder.

      • It really, really isn’t. The group that made those tapes crashed their effort by getting fixated on this, and by doing so undermined the credibility of their entire project, which did show how shockingly PP personnel display a complete of concern for the lives they are ending.

        Cautionary tale.

            • Lets assume is correct, for the sake of the discussion.

              Therefore, ‘PP is selling baby parts’ is a true statement, just as Isaac asserted. Selling at cost is still ‘selling.’

              ‘Profiting’ is subject to debate. A reasonable fee would depend on many factors. One of those factors would be a cost of materials.

              What is PP’s cost for the parts they ‘process’ and sell? The former mother fed, nurtured and grew their livestock without charging them anything; indeed, PP charged to take the livestock off of the former mother. The charges must cover all costs of the procedure (the abortion and associated disposal of remains) or simple economics dictates that PP would be out of business, failing a greater source of income in another business line. (Pure speculation: perhaps my taxes make up the difference?)

              Now, PP cannot sell every part of every baby, as damages DO occur during removal (killing can be messy and imprecise: ever visit a chicken processing plant or kill food for your table?) This leaves three choices, from an accounting point of view: either a) the prices you charge for removal of the ‘growth’ from the mother cover all aspects (and any consequent sale is profit); or b) you statistically find what percentage of the take will be viable in setting your prices (meaning profit will vary as statistics swing to both sides of the bell curve; or c) you operate at a loss for every abortion, thus eliminating profit from the equation.

              I am open to logical additions to the above.

              Is PP operating at a loss regarding abortions? Do the $30 to $100 they claim to make from selling human remains make them break even across all abortions, considering operational losses inherent in such a procedure?

              Since my tax dollars pay for these services, I have a right to know. Not holding my breath, though. 🙂

        • Jack, I ask you the same question I asked Chris: selling human remain for research purposes is established fact. We have testimony, video, and PP executives commenting that ‘they need a new car.’ when talking about selling parts of babies.

          Is it the ‘selling’ part that you think is not true? But if the parts were donated, why all the fuss? Why mention a car, or a price schedule, for that matter?

          Serious question: my reality has this as established fact: aborted babies are going to research companies. Planned Parenthood is compensated (at a profit or not.) Is this not true?

          • Selling baby parts is misleading and intentionally pejorative, suggesting that “baby parts” are being made as a product. They abort fetuses, creating available organs. They provide the tissue and organs to labs at al., and ask for a contribution to cover costs. Is that better than just throwing the tissue away? Sure.

            Selling is technically accurate, but the way it is represented misleads.

            • Uh, this smells like semantics to me, Jack. I admit a bias in that I think killing babies, -I mean, abortion on demand- is wrong both ethically and morally, and further cheapens the value of human life.

              ‘Baby parts’ may be a rough way to state it, but it is true that they are a product being sold. The left has spun this issue (in defiance of logic and science) since the early sixties, at least. Remember the ‘lump of tissue’ argument for discernible babies, and later the ‘they don’t feel pain’ narrative? All debunked by science.

              But using inflammatory rhetoric is not what I set out to do here: just statement of facts. We can agree to disagree on this, if you are willing.

              I am much more interested in your take on my comment at 2:11 pm today (above)

              Willing to learn about another point of view. I will never change my mind that abortion is an offense to humanity as well as God.

            • I agree with Jack’s statement; even if it fits the technical definition of “selling,” to most readers that implies profit, and thus the statement (without more context) is misleading.

  3. Now I’m wondering if they decided to give up on the Black Lives Matter sign when it didn’t protect them from the “cultural appropriation” police.

    Also, did it ever occur to people that everyone has the right to copy any cultural ideas they want, by dint of existing? They’re open source, or at worst trade secrets (e.g. the process of making silk, long ago), but they can’t be copyrighted. It’s always good to actually study and get a sense of something before you copy it, but food is actually one of the easiest and least offensive aspects of culture to copy.

    Closer to the topic at hand, these signs remind me of this webcomic: Behold the strawman nutrition fact, weaponized for marketing purposes.

    I hate it when people only think in soundbites, because it makes it harder for them to understand others and subsequently make themselves understood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.