I agree with the sentiment, but in some cases it is not dumbing down but making it clearer.

For me, the gold standard of this is Carl Sagan writings. Beautiful ideas, explained in the clearest language possible.

> destroy[ing] society

More precisely: not just having people less intellectually exercised¹, but also and especially creating some sort of "demand" that "things have to be simple". Non-recognition of complexity is also one of the cracks allowing populism. Your duty is to "spend one further thought", while some instances seem to defend an idea of an "as-if-constitutional right to reduced consideration".

(¹ I wrote the other day, «I also believe that "Now drop and give me twenty" will return us fitter personnel than "Please, be fed from a straw"»)

Don't agree. Like the commenter upthread, I have for some years had the feeling that my language is bloated with subordinate clauses, and that I use too many ten-dollar words. It's easy to use flowery language to conceal from yourself the shallowness of your understanding. So I get out my Xacto knife, and cut out the crap. Sometimes.

When I compare modern thinkers to those of say 150 years ago, I find that modern thinkers not only use a simpler style, the ideas are better too.

To quote the late philosopher Dr. Rick Roderick, "Deeply rooted in our culture is anti-intellectualism; our fear of eggheads. The work of intellectuals has always been separated off from the work of ordinary people - you have to be freed from the constraints of manual labor. When I was a dishwasher, I didn't have time to do this. Any time I was involved in manual labor, I didn't really have the time to do this intellectual work."

Most people do not have time, nor desire to do additional intellectual work after slaving away doing whatever it is they do for income.