You do understand this is a non-obligatory guidance document, right? You can continue to not read nor understand it and no one will be any the wiser. The NSA will almost certainly not put you on a blacklist someplace (no promises and all that). Then you can google "privacy framework" to find a wealth of other non-obligatory guidance documents more to your liking (most of which will reference a NIST document or two someplace, so be careful).
You're out of line, and the point they (and I) were making is that if you can't read this document and analyze it with your human mind to guide an organization's privacy policies, then you shouldn't be in the biz.
One's privacy policies can be built on, but not limited to, this document. Again, this isn't a deep technical spec like a crypto algo, that only a handful of people are qualified to analyze, upon which your entire org rests.
The disagreement here is you thinking that people are unable to process this for potential gaps, where others say you can.
Since I don't know who you are, who your perceived adversaries are or what your risk tolerance is, I'd be really disingenuous if I told you who you should trust given your concerns; for all you know I could be an NSA operative. So how precisely is "Google one that is more to your liking" being 'purposely obtuse'? Seems like pretty clear, unambiguous advice since there are dozens of possible options that only you can prioritize, but clearly that recommendation bruised your painfully thin skin.
