Why exactly does this tweet trouble me?
I am autistic. Stuff bothers me. Sometimes little things, sometimes big things. I don't always know if it's a big thing or little thing that has set me off.
The above tweet, as innocuous as it at first seems really upset me. It upset me to the point I lost sleep.
Here are my thoughts.
It's the language.
One "has" principles,
One "sticks to" principles
One "acts according" to principles.
One "believes" in a set of principles
One does not "indulge" in principles. They are binary. One has them, or one does not.
People with principles can't switch them off. It's not a choice.
To indulge: All meanings from the
Oxford English dictionary.
Which principles is he suggesting would let down the British people if he ceased to be involved with them?
Integrity? Loyalty? Compassion for the unfortunate? Belief in preserving the NHS? Belief in socialist values? Respect for the democratic process? Respect for the wishes of voters?
Principles are at the core of one's moral compass, surely?The post implies that the writer would ensure all principles would be suspended or cast aside in order to win.The principle of playing fair, for example. Not lying is also a principle. The principle of doing what one says one will do. Does he expect the reader to believe that somehow principals will be reinstated after achieving the goal? The post implies that he may do as he jolly well pleases once elected.
In the study of psychology this is a prime example of parapraxis, a Freudian slip. The author has made a subconscious faux pas. I do not except that it was a accidental poor choice of word. These people are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds and have minions to get it right.
I argue that the writer has no principles at all and attempts to win at all costs. This is a person more concerned with being right than doing right.
So rather than increase my trust in Owen Smith, this post has decreased it.
