• conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why not? We’re already measuring by geography when measuring by state. Let’s turn up the resolution a little.

    • SJ0@hilariouschaos.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      You measure literacy rate as literate people per 100 people because people are literate, pieces of land tend to be unable to read or write or do math on account of being inanimate objects. More importantly, we have voter totals and literacy rates per state where nobody is measuring square meters of literacy or square meters or Republicans because that’s silly.

      Now because this discussion is just stupid, let’s be real for a minute: the major factors for literacy isn’t left vs. right on a statewide basis.

      California is relatively illiterate, just like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and New York. They’re illiterate because people who barely speak English much less read and write it tend to end up in those places which is why new york is one of the outliers, the same way Toronto is Canada for many, New York is America for many and so they end up there as adults.

      Other illiterate states such as Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alabama are illiterate in part because of the legacy of slavery and past racist public policy, and in part due to long-standing (but apolitical) aspects of laid back southern culture.

      Among the most literate states in the union are blue new Hampshire and Vermont, and red Alaska and Montana. Which really is the point.