Adding context and meaning through interpretation of a given statement, especially those made by political leaders, is not an "ability" or skill but a daily and rather mundane task performed on a daily basis. To understand, or rather to try and understand, the true intent - we all associate a statement with perceptions, opinions, facts for adding context. We add context to statements made by girlfriends, mothers, bosses, friends, clients, landlords, and of course politicians.
Most statements are taken at face value and people are held accountable for what they say. You on the other hand want to hold people accountable for your interpretation of what they say
....have your every tried that in real life ? If a pretty girl says hi, you may interpret it as a invitation for sex
For most people, that 'hi' is just a 'hi' ..maybe a 'hello'
The "unsaid" needn't be, and is certainly not, as outlandish as you have tried to make it out to be. To be naive or callow, prompted by fantasy induced admiration of a slightly above average leader, and to disregard the possibility of layering of messages (leave alone exploring the potential and likely context), casts a shadow over the objectivity and nature of your claims and speaks ill of your ability to welcome multiplicity of opinions.
The measure of your interpretation of what is 'unsaid' is only limited by your paranoia and imagination. I am certainly not interested in debating your
conjecture. It would be a pointless exercise
....If there are any 'facts' you want to discuss there there is scope for debate.
I am open to listening to opinions when they are backed with facts ....... not opinions based on speculation or 'interpretation of the unsaid'.....to do so would be to suffer fools gladly and to encourage schizophrenic thoughts and conspiracy theories.
If you want to read between the lines and insists other do the same, it has to be backed by some collaborative facts, otherwise it casts a shadow on your objectivity not mine.
The refusal to acknowledge even the potential of depth in a statement by a crafty politician, and to insist on and to demand asininity from one and all to take the message at face value - all because it doesn't sit too well with your fanciful narrative - is nothing short of cowardly. And for this alone, many would deem your other claims unworthy of reasonable discussion or debate.
So far you have insinuated Modi's "Indian First" statement is an attack on minorities because its your opinion that certain minorities put "Religion First". This is your "fanciful narrative" not mine .......I dont deal with narratives ....only with facts. So far all your outlandish claim have been debunked. You are left to debate on your conjectures ....and you want to drag me down to that level.
But I will, however, oblige with respect to my take on "hindu supremacists". Firstly, I did not call anyone a "hindu supremacist" but rather had observed how some people border being termed as hindu supremacists. With that out of the way, my definition is quite simple - the emasculated few, who feel empowered by the charade of strong-man politics, which is often confused with a license to loose control over one's ability to exercise control over one's testosterone induced ugly rage fits, which more often than not are directed at minorities - with the minorities ranging from religious minorities to regional to minority by choice of lifestyle or opinion, etc.
So based on your new clarification you have earlier claimed that Modi championed the cause of "the emasculated few, who feel empowered by the charade of strong-man politics, which is often confused with a license to loose control over one's ability to exercise control over one's testosterone induced ugly rage fits, which more often than not are directed at minorities - with the minorities ranging from religious minorities to regional to minority by choice of lifestyle or opinion, etc."
In short you are calling the people of Gujarat, who's cause he has been championing for the last 10 years as "emasculated people, who feel empowered by the charade of strong-man politics, which they confused with a license to loose control over their ability to exercise control over their testosterone induced ugly rage fits, which more often than not are directed at minorities in Gujarat - with the minorities ranging from religious minorities to regional to minority by choice of lifestyle or opinion, etc." ...........what was that advice about Not wrestling with the Pig ? ..sound like good advice to me
..........you of-course is free to assume anything ...even that the earth is flat...that is your prerogative.
. Move on. Thanks for your time.
