An Unintended Prediction

Just saw this and it seemed relevant to what we talked about. From the article "How America’s treeless streets are fueling inequality":

Trees, and the shade they provide, are actually markers of race and class...According to the data collected by the Texas A&M Forest Service, in Houston’s "medium to high" developed areas, there are an estimated 3.7 trees per person. In similar areas in Austin there are 4 trees per person and in San Antonio there are 7.5.

"There is disparity here. [Houston has] low tree canopy cover and high heat."

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/houston-trees-shade-heat-temperatures-race-class

This is the mindset of CRT adherents. Seek out disparities between races, attribute those causes to racism that benefits white people, then ignore any alternatives no matter how reasonable they are. Because literally everything is racist. And racist tree planting is just one more reason to tear down our entire economy and give the government more power.

(2) $3,000,000,000 to provide multi-year, programmatic, competitive grants to a State agency, a local governmental entity, an Indian Tribe, or a non-profit organization through the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance program established under section 9(c) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2105(c)) for tree planting and related activities to increase community tree canopy and associated societal and climate co-benefits, with a priority for projects that increase tree equity;

Are you saying we should continue to spend billions of dollars on issues like tree equity?

Trees are good and more should be planted in urban areas.

The rhetoric used to justify the expenditure is extremely cringey but the left is a one trick pony these days, rhetorically speaking. Just because something is presented in a bad way doesn’t make it a bad idea

So the story is “poor communities have fewer trees”. The solution is “let’s plant more trees in poorer communities.”

The rest appears to be some weird hysteria.

I suppose you don't have any skin in the game since it appears you are a Canadian. But people who are concerned about government spending and the increasing national US debt should be concerned about this since these types of policies will not stop at tree equity.

I’d be down for planting more trees in Urban areas in Canada that don’t have as many; it’s not like the premise becomes automatically unreasonable when you cross the border.

But yeah, if there is equality in community environment, what’s next?? Infant mortality? Access to housing? voting rights? Where will it end!

Do you have a concern with massive government expenditures like planting trees in urban areas by the federal government considering the current US debt situation?

Do you believe that Democrats are justifying policies that discriminate against white people with rhetoric like this? Or what do you mean by it being cringey specifically?

I only meant that someone who is not an American would not necessarily have the same concerns about the massive national debt as an American. That is a significant factor in analyzing such a policy in the context of the American economy, though not the only one.

But yeah, if there is equality in community environment, what’s next?? Infant mortality? Access to housing? voting rights? Where will it end!

Why should the government enact discriminatory policies in order to ensure equality of outcomes? Because that is the only way to eliminate all disparities between racial groups.

Not really, it’s a pretty small portion of the national budget for something that would tangibly improve a lot of peoples lives.

The debt will eventually become an issue, especially if interest rates rise from their historical lows, but that will have to come through a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts IMO

Do you believe that Democrats are justifying policies that discriminate against white people with rhetoric like this? Or what do you mean by it being cringey specifically?

Yes I do believe that.

It seems that’s only ever an issue when the other side is in power.

Why should the government enact discriminatory policies in order to ensure equality of outcomes? Because that is the only way to eliminate all disparities between racial groups.

So you think planting trees where there aren’t as many trees is racist?

You mean taking issue with increasing the national debt? Some people may only take issue with that when the other side is in power. However, I think the national debt should be a pressing concern for both sides, and both are terrible at addressing it. But I have a bigger issue with what appears to be the justification for spending such large amounts of money. That is, addressing racial inequities such as the concentration of trees.

What I'm saying is that if the goal is to ensure the equality of outcomes between racial groups, the government must enact discriminatory policies. If white people have more of something, the government must take some of that thing away from white people, give some of that thing to black people, or both until the disparity is eliminated. Such a policy discriminates based on skin color, which most people would consider racist.

If the policy specifically stated that the entirety of that $3 billion must to go to black communities and could not go to white communities, would you consider that policy racist?

The money is not a huge investment - the national debt isn’t as bad as people make it sound,

and money for planting trees in neighbourhood that don’t have them doesn’t really sound unreasonable does it?

So on the back of a post that blasts the left for making everything about race: you suggest that planting trees in communities that don’t have them is racist? Is the irony lost in you?

If the policy specifically stated that the entirety of that $3 billion must to go to black communities and could not go to white communities, would you consider that policy racist?

But it doesn’t…

Something tells me you have a lot of personal debt.

and money for planting trees in neighbourhood that don’t have them doesn’t really sound unreasonable does it?

There's nothing inherently wrong with planting trees. However, spending $3 billion that we don't have to fight racism by planting trees sounds very unreasonable. Spending like this is the reason our debt really goes in only one direction.

So on the back of a post that blasts the left for making everything about race: you suggest that planting trees in communities that don’t have them is racist? Is the irony lost in you?

I didn't make it about race.

This policy gave resources to some people while simultaneously withholding those same resources from others, all based on the color of one's skin.

Was this policy racist?

Yes - if you purposefully try and make something reasonable sound unreasonable - if will sound unreasonable.

It’s not a lot of money, for planting a lot of trees.

• "There's nothing inherently wrong with planting trees. However, spending $3 billion that we don't have to fight racism by planting trees sounds very unreasonable."
  

That would depend. If, for example, minority farmers had missed out on $4bn in aid in the past due to various historical policies - I wouldn’t necessarily agree it’s the best approach - but it wouldn't be racist.

If an employer gives black employees an extra $50 because last year a racist boss with held $50 bonuses from minority employees last year - that doesn’t seem unreasonable. The real world has far more complexity than the analogy; but it does broadly illustrate the nature of the issue.

Or are you trying to make something unreasonable sound reasonable? 

What is considered to be a lot of money. Because some people would see $3 billion as a lot of money

This perfectly illustrates today's antiracism:

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

I doubt you will find a single person who suggests that planting trees in communities where there are no trees is not a good thing. Given that’s what’s happening - it seems inherently reasonable, no? You even implied the same a few posts ago.

• The environment might not be suitable for tree growth
  
• The trees may create a recurring expense for upkeep
  

What you’re doing is declaring that it is unreasonable because it’s been pointed out that minorities have disproportionately fewer trees (which is factually accurate)

If we can agree that trees are good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good; and communities not having trees is bad - then you’re agreeing with the problem; the motivation; and the solution.

...

So given that the problem, the motivation and the solution is largely uncontroversial; the only possibly controversial issue is how much should be spent:

Given health benefits (pollution, encouraging walking, lowering heat), and given the ballpark figure of trees I hear was around 500m trees (everywhere - not just for minorities) - though I am not 100% sure - likely over 10 years - so 400m a year - given Thats about what LA alone spends on park maintenance…

So you’re saying, if your black coworkers don’t get a bonus one year because your boss was racist; if the next boss gives those same coworkers a bigger bonus the next year to make up for missing out; you’d shout at him for being racist?

There might good reasons not to plant trees in communities without:

• The environment might not be suitable for tree growth
  
• The trees may create a recurring expense for upkeep
  

What you’re doing is declaring that it is unreasonable because it’s been pointed out that minorities have disproportionately fewer trees (which is factually accurate)

That is a wild assertion, not a fact. But it shows that you are supporting the idea that the government should enforce equality of outcomes based on racial categories.

I have not implied any of these things, nor do I agree with them. All I said was that planting trees is not inherently bad, which means that the problem, the motivation, and the solution is not uncontroversial.

Where did you hear those figures?

I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine:

There might good reasons not to plant trees in communities without:

• The environment might not be suitable for tree growth
  
• The trees may create a recurring expense for upkeep
  

I agree;

If we can agree that trees are good;

and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good;

and communities not having trees is bad

then you’re agreeing with the problem; the motivation; and the solution.

The “wild assertion”, was actually covered by the Nature study linked in the original story you posted.

Please walk me through the logic of how you got from me believing to “minority communities have fewer trees” to “You believe the government should enforce equality of outcomes.” It’s quite the obnoxious leap there.

I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine:

I did in post #19.

That would depend. If, for example, minority farmers had missed out on $4bn in aid in the past due to various historical policies - I wouldn’t necessarily agree it’s the best approach - but it wouldn't be racist.

There might good reasons not to plant trees in communities without:

• The environment might not be suitable for tree growth
  
• The trees may create a recurring expense for upkeep
  

I agree;

…given that the money is for community projects rather than forcing all communities, regardless of want or need, to plant trees - it appears this objection is largely moot.

The “wild assertion”, was actually covered by the Nature study linked in the original story you posted.

Is your claim that the Nature study from the article factually proved that minorities have disproportionately less trees than white people throughout the entire US? And not just as an extrapolation, but as a statistical reality?

Please walk me through the logic of how you got from me believing to “minority communities have fewer trees” to “You believe the government should enforce equality of outcomes.” It’s quite the obnoxious leap there.

You said that an unequal distribution of resources (in this case, trees) among racial groups was a problem.

Then, you said there is a motivation to work toward eliminating the unequal distribution of resources. Equity between racial groups is good and should be sought after.

The solution is to distribute more of a resource to one group if they have less of that thing than another group. This creates a more equitable outcome.

You support government intervention for the purpose of creating a more equitable outcome in terms of the distribution of trees among racial groups.

Now before you respond that this is only a single example of such a policy promoting equity, can you answer whether or not you believe that systemic racism is a real problem that needs a solution in the US? Systemic racism being, in general terms, not based on individual thoughts and actions but a permanent feature woven into a society's institutions, policies, and practices. And this question is relevant to the point.

You didn't actually answer the question. You just posed a hypothetical scenario and commented on that. I was looking for a clear yes or no on whether the actual Biden policy cited was racist or not.

Chopping out a part of my post that tells you exactly why the remainder of your point is irrelevant; only to reply with the same point - does not exactly encourage me that you’re trying to argue in good faith.

This is an example of the proving too much fallacy. Arguing that the whole thing is bad because in some very limited hypothetical scenarios circumstances - it is bad.

My claim is that the evidence provided by the Nature article renders the premise credible and far exceeds “wild speculation” - as you called it.

can you answer whether or not you believe that systemic racism is a real problem that needs a solution in the US?

Yes I do: but the role of the government is to redress disadvantages caused by the consequences of historic and systemic racism  - not to inherently enforce equality of outcomes. There’s a key difference there.

Actually, if you pay close attention that’s not what I’m doing. What I’m doing is suggesting that the law alone is not sufficient for me to determine whether the law is racist: it all depends on other contingent factors - such as whether black farm owners have been historically disadvantaged by that amount in the past.

The Arbor Day Foundation will send you 10 trees for free just saying.

Chopping out a part of my post that tells you exactly why the remainder of your point is irrelevant; only to reply with the same point - does not exactly encourage me that you’re trying to argue in good faith.

I don't agree to your statements either way, so your point here is moot.

That is not what I did. This link explains a proving too much fallacy to be "an argument that reaches a conclusions which contradicts things that are known to be true, or contradicts the premises in that argument."  https://www.logicalfallacies.org/proving-too-much.html

All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.

You can’t call trees good because there are cases were trees are burdensome.

My claim is that the evidence provided by the Nature article renders the premise credible and far exceeds “wild speculation” - as you called it.

Is that what I called it?

Yes I do: but the role of the government is to redress disadvantages caused by the consequences of historic and systemic racism  - not to inherently enforce equality of outcomes. There’s a key difference there.

But the very concept of systemic racism assumes that racial disparities are the resultant disadvantages of racism, and therefore must be redressed. Systemic racism (allegedly) results in disparities. How do you eliminate disparities between racial groups except by striving for equality of outcomes?

I think when it comes to planting trees; that if we’re planting trees, they should go to communities who have fewer. What that is the government should prioritize resource allocation based on who needs the resources most not that the government should enforce equality of outcomes.

The latter is just a huge straw man. The first is just putting money where it is needed and can be practically used, the second implies using excess money to enforce parity in the face of practicality.

For example: would I support tens of billions of dollars with the express goal of making every black community have an equal number of trees to white communities regardless of any practical considerations - no.

And you are doing so based on a definition of racism that is consistent with CRT to justify present discrimination. That is the difference between social justice and actual justice. And that is why you fit Ibram X. Kendi's quote so well:

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

Antiracism is discrimination.

That would move it from being racist - where one side is being purposefully disadvantaged because of the colour of their skin, to giving equivalent financial access that was previously being denied to someone due to the colour of their skin.

if your black coworkers don’t get a bonus one year because your boss was racist; if the next boss gives those same coworkers a bigger bonus the next year to make up for missing out; you’d shout at him for being racist?

If an employer gives black employees an extra $50 because last year a racist boss with held $50 bonuses from minority employees last year - that doesn’t seem unreasonable. The real world has far more complexity than the analogy; but it does broadly illustrate the nature of the issue.

I raised a series of points that any rational person would conclude are an on balance, or general statements.

You are disagreeing with those statements on the basis that there are very specific and limited exceptions where or could be bad.

Wild assertion - sorry: either way it’s clearly not.

Far be it from me to get in the way of you arguing against the argument you want to oppose - rather than the one I’m making. But the bolded part is pretty key here. There’s a difference between equity of outcome and equity of opportunity.

...

It is particularly difficult to argue someone who deliberately omits key passages that specifically clarify what I mean - only to then completely misrepresent the thing I just clarified. 

If you don’t want an argument - just stfu; don’t chop out responses you don’t like because they don’t gel with the argument you want to make.