Nah. Plain language is good and we should all use it more but come on—the issue here is that a bad-faith pundit pulled language from an obscure grant application, which was written to appeal to specific donor parameters, *not the public.*
"Tree equity" makes perfect sense in the intended context!
"Tree equity" makes perfect sense in the intended context!
Reposted from
Bobby Big Wheel
I'm dead serious: we need to communicate at like an 8th grade reading level. The words "tree equity" should never leave our lips.
Comments
*Not anybody in this thread
Both things are true
But SO MUCH of this is about like “the right to be hard to understand”
It’s like the fantasy names in white authors books vs real names of people of color
It is on the whole, a terrible habit, one that folks on our side of the political aisle believe is evidence of the stupidity of the public rather than of our own arrogance. I think that's what's riling people up misguided as that rilement may be.
https://bsky.app/profile/gorlock.bsky.social/post/3ldm2gltnz22u
That's the world we currently live in.
Adapt.
It's weird they picked it, I'm still baffled all these years later.
That said, *in context* I suspect this donor has bad ends (NIMBYism).
Perhaps more intuitive in 2020.
Things that sound super pretentious to the layperson may be the ONLY WAY to perfectly articulate what the expert is trying to say. Just watch a modern fireteam respond to a house fire.
Specifically because not everyone has the same expertise.