General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The United States Is Awash in Public Stupidity, and Critical Thought Is Under Assault [View all]MrModerate
(9,753 posts)And people who talk like the author of this piece does do themselves a disservice by communicating so opaquely.
It's not just diction and syntax. The construct that I criticized "military-industrial-surveillance-academic complex" is not only difficult to parse, it's actually contrafactual. It conjures up images of an entity that does not exist. (In fact, the phrase "military-industrial-surveillance-academic-everything-else complex" would be equally apt which is to say, meaningless.)
And sloppy writing = sloppy thinking = sloppy joes for supper. And you've lost your audience.
I've read the entire article, and on the whole, I agree with the author. However, for the vast majority of readers, the author's language is so over-the-top as to lack credibility; for the minority of people who are either political junkies or happen to be drawn to this particular issue, the near-hysteria that bubbles under the piece may make them wonder whether they want to associate themselves with it.
I realize mine is a post about technique rather than content, but if the people the author is trying to influence won't or can't read what's been written or think the author's a little bit nuts because of the undisciplined way he expresses himself he ends up doing more harm than good.