At least, that's what we assume the report says.
post
The title is kind of genius.
BTW I don't see this as an actual issue. The important factor is which people read them. If it's journalist who then report on them, and politicians who then act, then they are still effective. I don't see why any average citizen should want to go and read them directly
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.
To remain neutral or dispassionate to a freedom system is to be against freedom
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).
Anyone got a TL;DR?
The UN is struggling financially and this report makes the claim that there’s too many meetings and reports that no one reads. They said their most popular reports get 5000 downloads and 1 in 6 reports gets less than 1000 downloads.
Thought this would be NotTheOnion
Why don't more people think the UN is cool? It's like the real world Federation of Planets. Yes it's largely ineffectual as a tool of meaningful change, for now, but it's aspirations are epic and beautiful. Just look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
The UN is largely ineffective due to the security council. The fact that one country can effectively shut down a vote is the opposite of the Federation of Planets.
Now that I think of it, of course the UN is ineffectual. It's set up like the US system of legislature. A powerful smaller body that is largely disproportionate to the rest of the world fully controls everything the UN does.
I mean, it's much better than the alternative of said country starting nuclear war to get its way.
There's also the Uniting for Peace resolution.
It's a victim of our reality and can never be anything more without a lot of work from a lot of people who have equally bold aspirations.
Its a failed experiment. It had no real backing and thus has no real power.
Because all the agressor countries have veto power on anything, aka it's a useless organisation.
Without that, the UN would be even more useless. It’s a discussion forum, not a federation. You need to have ”evil” at the table. And nuclear capable evil won’t sit at the table unless they get a big veto to swing around.
But they are in fact at the table. Communicating. Most likely in bad faith, but still communicating and talking.
all 19 comments