1065
Florida Deploys Police To Stare At Crosswalks, Stop Them From Being Painted Rainbow Colors
(www.erininthemorning.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
1065 points (99.1% liked)
Not The Onion
18971 readers
1511 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:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...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
view the rest of the comments
the person speaking doesn't get to decide how their tone is perceived. repeating "civil and reasonable" in the face of people who say you're acting oppositely in some way is unlikely to change their opinion. even if it did, there is no way to phrase "painting a rainbow onto a sidewalk makes it less visible" in such a way that your tone makes up for the fact that the claim is absurd on its face. doubly so when you're not providing traffic data to support the claim. also, 'reasonable' suggests you subscribe to some reasoning, but the 'reasoning' provided is "it’s not far fetched to think that casualties may occur." okay well, color me skeptical. why do you believe that. i'll give you civil for whatever you think that's worth on its own though.
Have you read the comment? My reply does not allude to content, but to the insult. Part of my job is ergonomics. I'm stating a fact. That there has not been a casualty yet, does not invalidate my point.
you aren't stating a fact, you're speculating that colorful chalk on the crosswalk could contribute to an accident in some unspecified way. I've asked for what data could support your opinion (by way of observing its absence) and- you'll correct me if i'm wrong here- you've just agreed that in almost the decade since the pulse shooting there have been exactly no incidents that can be traced back to this potentially dangerous political statement that you 100% agree with. do i have this about right?
I have probably not explained myself well enough, or maybe you have not read, or understood correctly.
Here you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension.
Stating that something is safe because another event hasn't happened yet, is a logical fallacy. It's like stating that smoking isn't harmful because your grampa smoked until his 80's and didn't die of cancer.
no, you have this backwards and i'm not taking time out of my day to explain how to you.
Well, that's a relief!