this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
865 points (99.1% liked)

Not The Onion

17791 readers
1893 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

No, I'm sorry but no.

For any movement to cohere they have to fundamentally agree about the nature of reality. As long as you continue to insist that the artwork in this image displays some legitimate traffic risk, we're not living in the same reality. until the day that you understand why i can't pretend you didn't just say two incompatible things about the nature of this erasure: that it's an excuse to exercise bigotry and also a reasonable point about safety, we are not on the same side. it's past time to figure out which reality you're living in.

say what you will about conservatives, they struggle to see the world differently than how they are told to see it. They share a very firm consensus reality.

[–] AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works 1 points 55 minutes ago (1 children)

For any movement to cohere they have to fundamentally agree about the nature of reality. As long as you continue to insist that the artwork in this image displays some legitimate traffic risk, we're not living in the same reality.

This has been described multiple times throughout this thread that describes why this can be a traffic risk. Without a reflective paint you impeed visibility in low light conditions, fog, night time, heavy rain, etc. Without the right paint you reduce friction in wet conditions that can cause accidents for those on motorcycles or bikes. Unfortunately this administration is clearly not going to repaint this memorial with the appropriate paint to facilitate that, which means its going to pose a risk unless those repainting it can use something appropriate. Its not the art itself that is a problem but the quality of paint used to make it. I have no problem with the memorial when its done right but to ignore that it does carry risk with its current implementation that people are using is being obtuse and means you are fundamentally ignoring parts of basic physics.

Like seriously no one is trying to applaud the conservatives efforts to erase this monument, we are only pointing out better ways to do this in the future. Like make your gripes make sense please because it seems you are to hung up to admit the reality that this memorial was implemented in a sub optimal way originally, there is no reason why we cant accept something wasnt done right the first time and strive for it to be done better next time. Like why continue to paint the crosswalk when people could be painting the sidewalk or using chalk on the sidewalk instead. that doesnt fuck with road safety and continues to keep a memorial in place. Like seriously, how is pointing something like that out incompatible with your reality?

[–] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 1 points 6 minutes ago* (last edited 5 minutes ago)

okay. i'm going to pretend for a moment that this is not the obvious bogus excuse for bigotry you've already described it as, and that there is some merit to the traffic claim on the grounds that its obstructing the reflection off the paint in a way that the neglect I referred to wasn't already doing, which I've already agreed would cause issues in certain rare but distincly possible conditions, like if that giant fucking overhead light turns off and also at the same time your headlights dont work and also at the same time it's night and/or foggy and also at the same time are driving too fast for those conditions all at the same time. i'm going to pretend that i can't take exception with any of that, and that I didn't hear out of ron desantis' mouth and see it on his twitter feed that he is taking this step to suppress politcal speech, and i'm going to pretend that there has been shown any data at all to support the conclusion that this chalk artwork has had any measurable effect on traffic incidents at that intersection.

how do I get from "you can make reflective paint non-reflective by coloring it with chalk," which I have already granted, to "you're not allowed to put chalk in the spaces between the reflective paint?"

is it a basic physics lesson now? teach me. how does adding colors to the spaces between the reflective paint reduce visibility?