3 ms·

> My theory is that the uglier the word sounds, the less it will be used, the less popular the concept will be, which in this case is probably a good thing. Bu

> My theory is that the uglier the word sounds, the less it will be used, the less popular the concept will be, which in this case is probably a good thing. But the word brings attention to an issue. "Stroads" are already commonplace but people don't have a word to identify the problem. Since the word isn't popular people don't have a framework with which to understand and communicate the problem.

readonthegoapp 5y ago
I get the argument That we need _something_, some word or phrase, to discuss and describe what is the problem But in this case and in many others I feel like the word is counterproductive This is, imo, coming from the Jane Jacobs school Where she was very (extremely?) particular about the words and phrases we use to describe things Think Frank Luntz meets urban planning Which is exactly what every 'good urban planning advocate' should be overly concerned about, imo. ...and I think this is the kicker, as a general lesson -- if you actually care about the cause you are ostensibly promoting -- say, 'good urban planning' -- then the language you use to describe the problem and proposed possible solution is actually crucial to _actually_ solving the problem. So if you want to just win a political argument, then do whatever will win, do whatever frank luntz says you should do, etc. But if you are interested in the right answer as in the best possible outcome -- maybe for your kids or humanity or rich people or however you define that -- then the language you use is crucial because it will shape both how to think about a problem and its possible solutions. And, just to spell out a simple example, if you think of the problem of roads having 'too much traffic', you're probably not conceptualizing the issue appropriately, imo. The actual problem, imo, is an inability of normal people to walk or bike or train or bus to where they need to go -- relatively easily and with dignity intact. At that point, the solutions completely change -- and if you do not understand how or why, then you are going to end up where we are today (in America).

readonthegoapp 5y ago

I get the argument That we need _something_, some word or phrase, to discuss and describe what is the problem But in this case and in many others I feel like the word is counterproductive This is, imo, coming from the Jane Jacobs school Where she was very (extremely?) particular about the words and phrases we use to describe things Think Frank Luntz meets urban planning Which is exactly what every 'good urban planning advocate' should be overly concerned about, imo. ...and I think this is the kicker, as a general lesson -- if you actually care about the cause you are ostensibly promoting -- say, 'good urban planning' -- then the language you use to describe the problem and proposed possible solution is actually crucial to _actually_ solving the problem. So if you want to just win a political argument, then do whatever will win, do whatever frank luntz says you should do, etc. But if you are interested in the right answer as in the best possible outcome -- maybe for your kids or humanity or rich people or however you define that -- then the language you use is crucial because it will shape both how to think about a problem and its possible solutions. And, just to spell out a simple example, if you think of the problem of roads having 'too much traffic', you're probably not conceptualizing the issue appropriately, imo. The actual problem, imo, is an inability of normal people to walk or bike or train or bus to where they need to go -- relatively easily and with dignity intact. At that point, the solutions completely change -- and if you do not understand how or why, then you are going to end up where we are today (in America).