Style, Language, Framing, and Tone

Introduction

This article outlines the style and tone standards used for content on vBriefings.org, with particular emphasis on briefings. These guidelines are intended to help ensure that briefings, pages, and operational documents are clear, consistent, and effective in both written form and real-world conversations.

Briefings are designed to present complex ethical, scientific, and social issues in a way that is accurate, accessible, and easy to use. The goal is not only to inform, but to support understanding and discussion. Because of this, decisions about wording, structure, and tone are made with both clarity and rhetorical effectiveness in mind.

These standards reflect an evolving process. Some of the existing content was created under earlier conventions and does not fully reflect the guidelines described here. Revisions are ongoing, and this documentation is part of that effort.

Writers should view these guidelines not as rigid rules, but as a framework for making good decisions. When applied thoughtfully, they help ensure that briefings remain consistent in presentation while still allowing for flexibility where needed.

Style

Guides

We will use AP Style guidelines going forward, except where this guide specifies a different house rule or citation practice. When AP conventions and this guide conflict, follow this guide.

Our Chicago-style hybrid citation style is addressed in detail in “Presenting Evidence,” which offers guidelines on wording for factual claims, in-line source referencing, and footnote formatting. For citations, follow “Presenting Evidence” even when it differs from standard AP or Chicago conventions.

AP Style (Associated Press Style) guidelines are designed to promote clarity, consistency, and readability. They provide standards for grammar, punctuation, capitalization, abbreviations, numbers, and general usage, helping ensure that writing is clear, uniform, and easily understood by a broad audience.

Although AP Style is traditionally associated with journalism and news writing, its emphasis on clarity and accessibility makes it well-suited for vBriefings. vBriefings aims to present complex ethical, scientific, and social issues in a way that is both accurate and easy to follow, particularly in conversational contexts.

Adopting AP Style helps ensure that briefings are consistent in tone and presentation, reducing friction for readers and allowing them to focus on the content rather than the mechanics of the writing.

Active and Passive Voice

Prefer active voice for clarity and directness. Active constructions are usually easier to understand and more effective in conversation. In most cases, active voice makes it clearer who is doing what and helps keep sentences concise and engaging.

However, passive voice can be appropriate when the focus should be on the subject or outcome rather than the actor, when the actor is unknown or not relevant, or when a more neutral tone helps avoid assigning blame. Used thoughtfully, passive constructions can support clarity, emphasis, and a non-confrontational tone.

Examples:

Good: “The industry kills billions of animals each year.” (clear actor and action)

Also acceptable: “Billions of animals are killed each year.” (focus on scale of harm rather than the actor)

Good: “Animals are often confined in conditions that restrict movement.” (actor is generalized or not the focus)

Good: “The policy was adopted in 2020.” (actor not relevant)

Good: “Animals are routinely subjected to practices that cause significant suffering.” (neutral tone; focuses on harm without assigning direct blame)

Language

Language shapes how we think about others. Small word choices can either reinforce the idea that non-human animals matter less—or help recognize them as individuals with their own lives and interests. Some commonly used terms can obscure or soften what happens to non-human animals, or frame their use as neutral or expected.

Referring to Individual Non-Human Animals

Avoid language that reduces animals to objects.

Examples:

Why it matters: Using “it” frames an individual as an object. Using “they” or “who” reflects that the individual is someone, not something.

Note that grammar tools like Grammarly will likely try to correct using “they” and “who” in this context. Don’t let them.

Referring to Non-Human Animals as a Group

There is no perfect terminology here. Each of the commonly used terms—farmed animals, animals, non-human animals, other animals, sentient beings, and sentients—has its own limitations, so thoughtful use in context matters.

• Farmed Animals
  • When referring specifically to animals raised on a farm, use the term farmed animals. Farmed animals is preferred over farm animals because it emphasizes the exploitation process.
• Animals
  • This can obscure the fact that humans are also animals, and reinforce the erroneous idea that humans are separate from and above non-human animals.
  • Use after you’ve already established that you’re referring to non-human animals. Repeating non-human animals in close proximity can become distracting or draw attention to the wording itself, so “animals” keeps the writing smooth and readable.
  • Example: Non-human animals are treated as property under the law. Animals raised for food are among the most affected.
• Non-Human Animals
  • While precise, it can sound technical or cumbersome, and repeated use can disrupt readability. Paradoxically, it enforces a dichotomy between humans and other animals, yet, technically, makes it clear that humans are animals too.
  • Use when you want to be explicit or emphasize that humans are animals too, especially when “other animals” might be confusing or awkward.
  • Example: Non-human animals are used in research and agriculture.
• Other Animals
  • This is less familiar to some readers and can feel slightly awkward or unclear in certain contexts. It can also reinforce the idea of “othering,” a familiar concept in social justice circles.
  • Use as a more natural, conversational alternative that still includes humans within the broader category of animals, especially when the comparison to humans is clear or explicitly stated.
  • Good Example: Just as we don’t judge humans’ worth by intelligence, we shouldn’t do so for other animals.
  • Good Example: Our relationship with other animals is shaped by culture.
  • Bad Example: Other animals are used in research and agriculture.
    • The example is unclear and may cause confusion, as it may not be clear to non-animal-rights audiences that “other” means “other than human animals.”
• Sentient Beings
  • This can sound abstract or philosophical, and may distance the reader from the concrete reality of animals’ lives. Some may also interpret it as excluding animals whose sentience they question.
  • Use when emphasizing the capacity to feel, suffer, or experience well-being.
  • Example: These policies affect sentient beings who can experience pain.
• Sentients
  • This term is shorthand for sentient beings, and will be unfamiliar to many. It can sound jargon-like, reducing individuals to a category label.
  • Best used sparingly, if at all, and only when the audience, such as animal advocates, is likely to understand the term. If spoken instead of written, it might be confused with the word sentience.
    • Example: How we treat sentients reflects our values.

Using Reality-Based Wording

Be mindful of wording that obscures what happens to animals or distances the reader from the reality being described.

• Prefer language that makes clear what happens and to whom, rather than phrasing that abstracts or softens the action. Instead of “Animals are processed for food,” write “Animals are killed for food.”
• Avoid framing animals primarily in terms of their use or function (e.g., “units,” “stock,” or “production”). Instead of “The farm increased its stock,” write “The farm increased the number of animals confined there.”
• When appropriate, name the practice rather than relying on generalized or softened terms. Instead of “Animals are used in food production,” write “Animals are confined and killed for food.”

Addressing “Humane” and Similar Claims

Terms such as humane, free-range, or cage-free can suggest improved conditions without explaining what they involve.

• Avoid using these terms without clarification. Instead of “Humane farming practices improve animal welfare,” write “So-called ‘humane’ practices can still involve confinement, separation, and killing.”

Framing

Avoiding Blame and Explicit Judgment

Avoid phrasing that implies blame or moral judgment directed at the reader. Focus on actions, systems, and norms rather than assigning personal fault. When discussing harm, frame it in a way that encourages reflection rather than defensiveness. (That said, in actual conversations where sufficient rapport has been established, use your judgment; a more direct approach may sometimes be more effective.)

Choices: Instead of “You are contributing to animal suffering every time you eat meat,” write “Eating meat supports systems that involve significant animal suffering.”

Awareness: Instead of “People who buy these products are choosing to ignore cruelty,” write “Many of these practices are not widely known, and the system often keeps them out of view.”

Moral Framing: Instead of “If you cared about animals, you wouldn’t eat them,” write “Many people who care about animals are surprised to learn how these practices affect them.”

Responsibility: Instead of “You are responsible for what happens to animals in factory farms,” write “Consumer demand plays a role in sustaining systems like factory farming.”

Health: Instead of “You’re harming your health by eating animal products,” write “Some research suggests that diets higher in plant-based foods are associated with better health outcomes.”

Environment: Instead of “Your food choices are destroying the planet,” write “Food systems, particularly those involving animal agriculture, contribute significantly to environmental damage.”

Ethical Prompt: Instead of “Why would you support something so cruel?” write “How do you think our food choices relate to the treatment of animals?”

Consistency: Instead of “People say they love animals but still eat them — that’s hypocritical,” write “Many people care about animals while also participating in systems that harm them, often without fully examining the connection.”

Industry Framing: Instead of “You’re paying for animals to be abused,” write “Purchasing these products helps fund practices that can involve significant harm to animals.”

Invitation: Instead of “You should stop eating animal products,” write “If it’s possible to meet our needs without causing harm, it’s worth considering what changes might be practicable.”

Avoiding Identity Framing

Word choices should prioritize understanding, accuracy, and usefulness in conversation rather than signaling affiliation or ideology.

People who do not already identify with these ideas are often less receptive to language that signals group membership or ideology. Clear, descriptive wording keeps the focus on the ideas themselves, making them easier to understand, discuss, and repeat. This supports rhetorical efficacy by helping ideas connect with the reader rather than triggering resistance.

When identity‑oriented or ideological terms are used (for example, anti‑speciesism or carnism), follow the spellings in “Style: Other Terminology” but treat them as exceptions, not defaults.

Examples:

Identity Signaling: Instead of “As a vegan, I oppose the exploitation of animals,” write “Using animals for food involves practices that cause significant harm.”

Ideological Framing: Instead of “Animal liberation requires dismantling speciesism,” write “Many practices involving animals are based on treating them as having less moral value.”

In-Group Language: Instead of “We need to challenge carnism,” write “Many cultural norms encourage eating animals without questioning the practice.”

Abstract Terminology: Instead of “This reflects systemic oppression of sentient beings,” write “These systems cause harm to animals who can feel pain and distress.”

Advocacy Identity: Instead of “Animal rights advocates believe this is unjust,” write “These practices raise ethical concerns about how animals are treated.”

Jargon-Heavy Phrasing: Instead of “This is a clear case of anti-speciesist ethics,” write “This reflects the idea that animals’ interests should be considered alongside human interests.”

Movement Language: Instead of “This is part of the broader animal liberation movement,” write “This is part of ongoing efforts to reduce harm to animals.”

Polarizing Phrasing: Instead of “The meat industry exploits animals for profit,” write “The meat industry involves practices that prioritize production and profit, often at the expense of animals’ well-being.”

Identity-Based Appeal: Instead of “If you care about justice, you should go vegan,” write “If reducing harm matters to you, it may be worth considering how food choices affect animals.”

Label-Driven Explanation: Instead of “This is a speciesist practice,” write “This practice treats animals’ interests as less important than similar human interests.”

Avoiding Unrealistic Standards

Avoid phrasing that implies absolute or idealized standards when the relevant standard is a reasonable effort under real-world conditions. At the same time, avoid language that weakens the expectation or suggests that meaningful change is optional. The goal is to communicate a clear standard: harm should be avoided when it is reasonably possible to do so, not only when it is convenient.

Examples:

Instead of “If harm can be avoided, it must always be avoided,” write “When it is within our control, harm should be avoided.”

Instead of “It is possible to avoid all animal products,” write “In most situations and in most societies, it is possible to avoid most animal products without significant burden.”

Instead of “We should avoid all forms of harm,” write “We should make a good-faith effort to avoid harm where it is within our control.”

Instead of “Everyone can go fully vegan in all situations,” write “While it is likely that there are locations where a vegan lifestyle is not possible, it is possible in many, if not most, places.

Considering Rhetorical Efficacy

Briefings should be written with an awareness of how ideas are received, not just how they are stated. The goal is not only to be correct, but to be effective. This means choosing and presenting ideas in a way that can be easily repeated in conversation, anticipating common misunderstandings or objections, and framing points so they connect with the reader’s existing perspective.

Tone

Briefings should be written in a clear, respectful, and serious tone, while remaining accessible and conversational. The goal is not to impress, but to communicate effectively. In many cases, the difference between being understood and being ignored comes down to how something is said.

Here are the goals for tone:

• Be direct. Use straightforward language and short, well-structured sentences. Avoid unnecessary complexity, jargon, or overly academic phrasing. Readers should be able to quickly understand the point being made without having to interpret the wording.
• Be conversational, not casual. Briefings are meant to support real conversations. The tone should feel natural and easy to follow, but not informal or chatty. Avoid slang, exaggeration, or rhetorical flourishes that draw attention to the writing itself.
• Be serious, not overstated. The subject matter is serious, and the tone should reflect that. Avoid sensational language, emotional exaggeration, or attempts to shock the reader. Let the facts and reasoning carry the weight.
• Be respectful and non-frontational. Write in a way that invites understanding rather than defensiveness. Avoid language that feels accusatory, dismissive, or morally superior. The goal is to inform and engage, not to alienate.
• Be precise but readable. Be accurate in wording and careful with claims, but do not sacrifice readability for technical precision. When possible, choose language that is both correct and easy to understand.
• Stay consistent with purpose. Briefings are not essays or opinion pieces. They are structured, fact-based resources designed to explain clearly, support discussion, and provide reliable information. The tone should support these goals at every level.