this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
654 points (96.1% liked)

People Twitter

4979 readers
1592 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If you cut your lawn to ultra short levels and put fuckloads of pesticides on it, then chances are you arent actually USING your lawn anyways. If you actually use your lawn you know its way nicer to have a little wild growth with flowers and shit going on.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 43 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm very pro natural lawn. But this makes no sense

Tons of families use their textbook lawns for sports, playtime, etc

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe thats regional but in my experience living in a couple german cities, "textbook lawn" equals "unused lawn" that purely exist as wealth symbol. Not saying it cant be well kept but there are variying degrees of that.

[–] moon@lemmy.cafe 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I guess it's a regional thing to touch grass

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

It may be a regional thing to have grass that's touchable.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Short grass is important for a lot of yard games and more comfortable to lounge on. Wild growth seems nicer to look at and better for the environment but not better if you're actually using your lawn.