I'm dead serious: we need to communicate at like an 8th grade reading level. The words "tree equity" should never leave our lips.
Reposted from
Daniel Kay Hertz
This is an interesting case of language overriding substance in determining the ideological valence of an issue because “every neighborhood should have parks and street trees” is the most anodyne statement of environmental justice possible
Comments
should always be at the tips of our tongues.
(Chorus of knowing hmms and grunts)
Shade is nice.
Everyone should get some shade.
We want to plant trees.
That would give more people shade.
There are more reasons trees are good.
But then again I’m a narcissist who gets mad that expertise other than my own exists
just read plato's gorgias, for crying out loud. this issue is thousands of years old, you really shouldn't be stepping on rakes about it in 2024
It doesn't need to be part of the broader discussion about the value of trees, parks, and other green space.
is the shared purpose of "plant more trees" not good enough on its own, and if not, why not
do you feel the benefits of planting more trees are not self-evident?
The new play area is built and once building 1 goes up people can move to that building, thus emptying the one on the land where building 2 is going. But the community is already a bit fractured
Plant more trees, to some people, means "make a superficial change that you will then use to justify putting up rents"
i mean, I have a different set of problems with that line of thinking that I think is probably self-evident
Fixing this problem is my actual job
Because trees don't just go into the ground, you have to take care of them. That costs money
Placement matters too. Plant a meter from a property, and it's going to fuck up the sewer
I'm not too fond of some of those other uses of 'equity' either, FWIW. 'Transit equity' makes sense to me. 'Climate equity' sounds like nonsense.
Feels like overusage.
A paper is telling a story!
The people who write these requests are professionals, and it's very, very likely that the language style is dictated by the Bezos Foundation, and the writers themselves think its overly-academic, too.
Actual scientists want nothing more than to proliferate understanding of our natural world.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.7
Let me give you an example.
like this graphic is on the live-laugh-love side despite a brief mention of diversity/equity
/rimshot
This type of thinking is why Harris lost.
The politics of smell is totally fine, because it clearly describes a problem/issue. You're going to have to read it before concluding it's silly.
"The Republican mission is to give everything to rich white men and to get everyone to suck rich white cock. When they're in charge, laws don't matter, people don't matter, all that matters is how much cock you can suck. Don't be a cocksucker."?
Woke: Protein equity.
https://bsky.app/profile/p-a-s.bsky.social/post/3ldmaatwexk24
How’s that for 8th grade level comprehension?
Online, the average person is reading at a 4th grade level.
Keep it simple.
Very simple.
Use short sentences and smaller words.
This is partially because education is a mess.
But it's also the nature of the medium.
People don't read skeets like a novel.
there is even a way to analyze it within word to check yourself
which do you think more people will understand
2nd grade. That's where half our college seniors are currently at.
That said, the examples given look like academic grant proposals, not political statements. I presume grant proposals will be written in the lingo the authors feel most likely to win the grant.
"Urban forest advocate"… maybe.
E.g. within the high level concept of "environmental justice", what name can you give the concept of ensuring sufficient greenspace in lower income urban communities, without referring to equitable distribution of greenspace
Just use the clear, simple, concise language! You have it!
… there’s a reason I leave this to other people…
This is like grabbing a cancer treatment journal article and going “why do they have to say oncology and not cancer like a normal person” and then complaining about drug names
burn it all down and start over good god
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tree_Cities_USA
This helps communicating what it is to normies and also limits the possible ways to attack the cause just based on the language used.
No politicians or groups that communicate policies to the public use language like this.
I'm not sure why it's being used to make that point.
Istg this thread makes me wanna throw shoes
Such an easy fix
This inert social media discussion thinking it's more real than that is the silly part
It's not really fair that they have to do this at all, but Yglesias had to track this down to make an issue of it.
(Yes this question is rhetorical)