3 ms·
And yet we have multiple comment threads on those "needless inclusions" and none actually trying to refute it on either a scientific or a rhetorical basis, so p
by kibwen 2y ago
And yet we have multiple comment threads on those "needless inclusions" and none actually trying to refute it on either a scientific or a rhetorical basis, so pardon me if I consider this to be an obvious attempt at retroactive justification based on an emotional response.
- ethbr1 2y agoThey're objectively rhetorically bad paragraphs, and they weaken the piece by including them. If the author had just left out the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs, their argument would have been more pursuasive. Specifically, because it would have had broader appeal to those who might disagree with the author on a political basis.
- hunter-gatherer 2y agoYes. She should have just left if politically neutral. If anything she is making an assertion that republicans are hostile towards "naturalizing" cityscapes and liberals are not, which is just not true. I think all people want to live in beautiful areas and have song birds and butterflies roaming and shit. She deliberately politized this topic for no reason and has potentially done more harm than good because of it.
- lolinder 2y agoYes. I wanted to like the piece, and wanted to share it with my dad who is getting super into natural local landscaping, but I couldn't because he'd be completely turned off by her implication that conservatives are the source of America's fixation on green lawns.