zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. tptace+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-04-07 01:23:54
It's discussed in the article.
replies(1): >>marcus+j5
2. marcus+j5[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:10:50
>>tptace+(OP)
That’s interesting, because I read the article and it seems like a straightforward rant against billboards. The discussion here - except for your comment - is about either billboards or advertising in general.

If the article is really a metaphor for something else (racist town ordinances? zoning in general? something else?) I think a lot of us have missed it. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

replies(1): >>tptace+c7
◧◩
3. tptace+c7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:29:14
>>marcus+j5
I don't think it's a metaphor, I just think it observes a municipality demanding a business tear down and rebuild a facade for aesthetic reasons and uses that as a justification for banning billboards. Ban all the billboards you want, but municipalities should not be enforcing those aesthetic rules.
[go to top]