Arizona Looking to Dump Metric Signage on I-19

[Max Rockatansky]

It tracks considering it comes from Tucker Carlson.

You're a liberal.  We get it.  Jeez.

Like the other respondent, I lean way left of what passes for liberal in the US. Carlson's career exists to do one thing: fearmonger and keep a certain portion of the voter base irrationally angry at all times. It's a schtick that easily seen through. Any self respecting human should just disregard him as the guy who got mad about sexy M&M's

I'm not really someone who follows mainstream news.  What is this sexy M&M outrage about now?

[Molandfreak]

It tracks considering it comes from Tucker Carlson.

You're a liberal.  We get it.  Jeez.

Like the other respondent, I lean way left of what passes for liberal in the US. Carlson's career exists to do one thing: fearmonger and keep a certain portion of the voter base irrationally angry at all times. It's a schtick that easily seen through. Any self respecting human should just disregard him as the guy who got mad about sexy M&M's

I'm not really someone who follows mainstream news.  What is this sexy M&M outrage about now?

It's irrelevant and nothing more needs to be said about it, but here: https://www.npr.org/2023/01/23/1150844961/tucker-carlsons-war-on-m-ms

[kphoger]

What is this sexy M&M outrage about now?

[Max Rockatansky]

It tracks considering it comes from Tucker Carlson.

You're a liberal.  We get it.  Jeez.

Like the other respondent, I lean way left of what passes for liberal in the US. Carlson's career exists to do one thing: fearmonger and keep a certain portion of the voter base irrationally angry at all times. It's a schtick that easily seen through. Any self respecting human should just disregard him as the guy who got mad about sexy M&M's

I'm not really someone who follows mainstream news.  What is this sexy M&M outrage about now?

It's irrelevant and nothing more needs to be said about it, but here: https://www.npr.org/2023/01/23/1150844961/tucker-carlsons-war-on-m-ms

Yeah no, if this talking head subject to the topic of discussion today was worried about the female M&M not being sexy enough I would think it certainly speaks to credibility (or lack thereof).   

From what little I've heard of this guy he sounds like quite the character and generally unsavory.  Nothing discussed thus far in two articles he was cited in has really dissuaded me of that notion.

[JayhawkCO]

My point is that none of it needed to be said.  Let's keep the discussion roads-related, rather than signaling our own personal political alignments.  What each of us thinks of Tucker Carlson is irrelevant.

I agree that we should keep our own political leanings for the most part to ourselves. But in this case, if you're commenting about this topic and Tucker Carlson is quoted in the Wall Street Journal article referenced, personal opinions about the validity of his ideas are probably relevant to the conversation. Just my opinion.

[Scott5114]

If Tucker Carlson doesn't want to have his credibility questioned by roadgeeks, he shouldn't talk about roads.

[kphoger]

That is one hell of a leap in logic to claim that kilometers represent a national security risk.

It tracks considering it comes from Tucker Carlson.

If Tucker Carlson doesn't want to have his credibility questioned by roadgeeks, he shouldn't talk about roads.

Just as long as we're allowed to criticize, say, anything Justin Trudeau ever said about roads by retorting, "Of course it's illogical, considering it comes from Justin Trudeau".

[webny99]

If Tucker Carlson doesn't want to have his credibility questioned by roadgeeks, he shouldn't talk about roads.

I am tiptoeing out on the quoting-purple-text limb to dispute the premise that a media member, by talking about roads, should automatically expect to have their credibility questioned by roadgeeks. Pre-ruling out the possibility of a non-roadgeek having credible commentary about roads just doesn't sit well with me. In fact, it seems like high time for a self-awareness check.

But I can feel this limb creaking already, so I'll scuttle back to the bole...

[JayhawkCO]

That is one hell of a leap in logic to claim that kilometers represent a national security risk.

It tracks considering it comes from Tucker Carlson.

If Tucker Carlson doesn't want to have his credibility questioned by roadgeeks, he shouldn't talk about roads.

Just as long as we're allowed to criticize, say, anything Justin Trudeau ever said about roads by retorting, "Of course it's illogical, considering it comes from Justin Trudeau".

One is the former PM of Canada, and one is open to the idea of a flat earth. I don't think the value of Tucker's opinion is lessened because he's seemingly conservative. The value of his opinion, to me, is lessened because of the conspiracy theories that he espouses.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would've preferred if Interstate 19 had mileage-based exit numbers and distance signs. However, given Interstate 19 has had kilometer-based exit numbers and distance signs since it was first constructed, it is unlikely it will ever be converted (and the locals would stop any attempt to do so, anyway).

[Max Rockatansky]

That is one hell of a leap in logic to claim that kilometers represent a national security risk.

It tracks considering it comes from Tucker Carlson.

If Tucker Carlson doesn't want to have his credibility questioned by roadgeeks, he shouldn't talk about roads.

Just as long as we're allowed to criticize, say, anything Justin Trudeau ever said about roads by retorting, "Of course it's illogical, considering it comes from Justin Trudeau".

One is the former PM of Canada, and one is open to the idea of a flat earth. I don't think the value of Tucker's opinion is lessened because he's seemingly conservative. The value of his opinion, to me, is lessened because of the conspiracy theories that he espouses.

If Justin Trudeau decided to chime in on the status of metric based signage on I-19 then conjecture about the merits of his opinion would be fair game also. 

But yeah, I don't think there is anything Tucker Carlson can do that will make me consider his opinions as valid.  Dude seems like a weirdo that somehow has undue influence over others for some reason.

[Scott5114]

That is one hell of a leap in logic to claim that kilometers represent a national security risk.

It tracks considering it comes from Tucker Carlson.

If Tucker Carlson doesn't want to have his credibility questioned by roadgeeks, he shouldn't talk about roads.

Just as long as we're allowed to criticize, say, anything Justin Trudeau ever said about roads by retorting, "Of course it's illogical, considering it comes from Justin Trudeau".

Bringing up the past statements of a political figure to provide context to their opinion on roads is fair game. For example, if, say, Kathy Hochul were to say some road project were unnecessary, it would be OK to point out her actions in support of the NYC congestion charge as providing context to her opinions on an individual highway project.

As for Tucker Carlson, while I don't think we should have an extended discussion about every conservative political position he espouses, if his opinions are out there enough that people feel puts his credibility in the same category as Art Bell, then it's fair game to note that. Likewise if he has some sort of credentials in the transportation field that would indicate he speaks credibly on the issue, those should be noted too.

Nobody should swallow everything committed to print without judging the source. If something is posted to the forum about roads and the source is questionable, forum members should be free to note that. While I can't imagine anyone hasn't heard of Tucker Carlson at this point, theoretically someone who hasn't could exist, and that person should be able to use the comments of others to gauge how much relevance Mr. Carlson's opinion should be given in deciding their own.

It should be noted that the "no politics" rule has always been intended to be quite a bit looser when it comes to discussion of the actual transportation system, since that is the purpose of the site. (In particular, that means you are free to discuss anything Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, or any of his predecessors in that office, says or does, so long as you follow the other site rules.)

[Scott5114]

I am tiptoeing out on the quoting-purple-text limb to dispute the premise that a media member, by talking about roads, should automatically expect to have their credibility questioned by roadgeeks. Pre-ruling out the possibility of a non-roadgeek having credible commentary about roads just doesn't sit well with me. In fact, it seems like high time for a self-awareness check.

His credibility isn't being questioned because he's not a roadgeek, his credibility is being questioned because apparently he wants to fuck an M&M.

M&M's will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous, until the moment you wouldn't want to have a drink with any one of them. That's the goal. When you're totally turned off, we've achieved equity. They've won.

[Max Rockatansky]

Stupid sexy M&Ms.

[DTComposer]

What is this sexy M&M outrage about now?

That's not the correct M&M. Refer to this image, specifically the green M&M:

M&M's will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous, until the moment you wouldn't want to have a drink with any one of them. That's the goal. When you're totally turned off, we've achieved equity. They've won.

It should be noted that the M&M in question (the green one) is not "androgynous" - the M&M is still completely female-presenting. All they did was de-gloss the lipstick and change out the boots for sneakers. Maybe Tucker has a boot fetish?

It should also be noted that the other female-presenting M&M (the brown one) didn't change (except maybe the glasses are a little bigger) - still wearing the low heels and giving a kinda librarian vibe. Maybe Tucker doesn't have a librarian fetish?

Regardless, the reason for questioning Tucker Carlson in the actual road-related matter is that, in reviving a decades-old debate that locals (the people who actually use the road the most) have already voiced their opinion on, and if enacted, would cost thousands and thousands of dollars when the administration is supposedly looking to cut needless spending, he cares less about the actual topic at hand than he does about rage-baiting both sides of the political spectrum, because that keeps him relevant (and paid).

[webny99]

His credibility isn't being questioned because he's not a roadgeek, his credibility is being questioned because apparently he wants to fuck an M&M.

And that's a fine reason (to the extent it's true, which we definitely don't need to debate), but that wasn't mentioned in your earlier post; only that by merely talking about roads, his credibility would be questioned by roadgeeks.

Then again, M&M's being media fodder was news to me...

[Molandfreak]

I have no idea how Carlson's viewership statistics are post-Fox, but it seems like the Wall Street Journal and the author of this article are doing a lot of signal boosting.

[Henry]

I would've preferred if Interstate 19 had mileage-based exit numbers and distance signs. However, given Interstate 19 has had kilometer-based exit numbers and distance signs since it was first constructed, it is unlikely it will ever be converted (and the locals would stop any attempt to do so, anyway).

I'm sure those who live in Phoenix, Flagstaff and everywhere in between would object to the changing of a certain other Interstate's miles and exits to the normal scheme (0 to 146 instead of 194 to 340), so as a result, AZ has two quirky interstates, and they love it. Perhaps the threat of I-11 encroaching on I-19's route might have something to do with the conversion proposal, not that I'm saying it did.

[Scott5114]

I have no idea how Carlson's viewership statistics are post-Fox, but it seems like the Wall Street Journal and the author of this article are doing a lot of signal boosting.

WSJ is owned by the parent organization of Fox. It's plausible that the author might want to help a former colleague out.

[MikeTheActuary]

I have no idea how Carlson's viewership statistics are post-Fox, but it seems like the Wall Street Journal and the author of this article are doing a lot of signal boosting.

The WSJ A-Hed column (which tends to focus on non-news or news-adjacent topics of quirky interests) actually has a surprising number (i.e., more than zero) of roadgeek or roadgeek-adjacent articles.

The A-Hed is how I learned about the old misc.transport.road USENET group back when it was viable, and how I learned that county counting wasn't just a weird hobby that my father and I engaged in.

Occam's Razor suggests that there's no need to read anything more into the decision to fill space with the I-19 story.

[formulanone]

Every time I read bullshit like this, I feel like I'm viewing the out-takes of America.

But since many are both desperate for sequels and prequels, we allow these ragemonkeys spout millions of near-meaningless petty distractions, which signals that these kooks need a lot of ADHD medication as a chaser for their unquenchable thirst of attention.

[Quillz]

It tracks considering it comes from Tucker Carlson.

You're a liberal.  We get it.  Jeez.

Like the other respondent, I lean way left of what passes for liberal in the US. Carlson's career exists to do one thing: fearmonger and keep a certain portion of the voter base irrationally angry at all times. It's a schtick that easily seen through. Any self respecting human should just disregard him as the guy who got mad about sexy M&M's

Just remember Fox News successfully argued in court that they are entertainment, not news, and no reasonable person should take anything they say seriously. (And for bonus points, this was specifically referring to Tucker Carlson).

And that really goes for all the other propaganda that pretends to be news.

To bring this back on topic: if the 19 signage gets redone to have just imperial units, fine. The metric signs were a product of their time. But as always, I'll believe it when this happens. The fact this thread goes back to 2014 and still nothing has changed tells me it's more something they "want to do" but won't actually do. Classic grandstanding.

[Quillz]

His credibility isn't being questioned because he's not a roadgeek, his credibility is being questioned because apparently he wants to fuck an M&M.

And that's a fine reason (to the extent it's true, which we definitely don't need to debate), but that wasn't mentioned in your earlier post; only that by merely talking about roads, his credibility would be questioned by roadgeeks.

Then again, M&M's being media fodder was news to me...

It wasn't media fodder, it was a "Fox News story." As someone who lives with people who watch Fox 24/7 and have let it rot their brain and permanently impact their world view, that's how it works. Very little of what they talk about is a real story, it's just made up manufactured outrage to keep their viewers angry, scared, and tuned in. After all, if M&Ms are out to get you, what else is out to get you? Most of their recent stories are designed to remind their views that climate change isn't real, it's okay to break laws as long as they're "your guy," that anyone who doesn't look like me is evil, and so on.

There's a whole bunch of "Fox News stories" that never actually get much real media traction because they're not real things to begin with.

[Quillz]

"When you're driving in the United States, it should be unmistakably American—not modeled after foreign systems."

On the one hand, it would be very strange to keep driving south into Mexico and find signage in miles instead of kilometers along Carr. Fed. 15.

But on the other hand, US Customary units are modeled after a foreign system.  So...

It also forgets that the entire interstate system is based on the German autobahn network.

[Quillz]

However it is illegal to drive a semi or other commercial vehicle in the US if you cannot fluently speak and read english. Mexican truck drivers are arrested all the time for this.

As I perused 11 year old posts to get down to the new stuff, I saw this. Two days after an executive order was issued that requires commercial drivers to be able to speak English. Why the EO if it was already illegal? Or was it made legal sometime in the past decade?

Grandstanding, most of the time. EOs can and have been struck down. If this one is doing something that is already illegal, it will be struck down. But that doesn't make the news, the issuing does. And look, now "my guy" "did something" that I guess I agree with, because it hurts people I don't like, supposedly.

It's basically just another form of political grandstanding.