Such texts are boring not because of their content but because of how they are written. The style of these texts is almost intended to prevent the reader from getting anything out of them. It’s believed that just by publishing these manuals and reports they meet a certain standard of democracy. But what this kind of writing does is to turn people away from reading. Such writing is, therefore, antidemocratic.
I feel like I comment this like once a week but plain language, y’all. Learn it, push it down people’s throat. Force everyone you know to use it, especially if you work in any kind of writing environment. I’m done with academia, corporate, or other bullshit writing. We need accessibility.
Vijay Prashad:
I feel like I comment this like once a week but plain language, y’all. Learn it, push it down people’s throat. Force everyone you know to use it, especially if you work in any kind of writing environment. I’m done with academia, corporate, or other bullshit writing. We need accessibility.
Ironically, the UN itself includes plain language in its definition of communication (in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).
“Plain language? Similar to the wording used by the filthy plebeians? Pah!”
That also explains most countries’ stupid legalese in how laws are written.
To remain neutral or dispassionate to a freedom system is to be against freedom