“Can you deny your culpability?” was the question that a TV anchor asked the gentleman. I shall definitely face hardship if you ask me if a politician can be called a gentleman. But let us agree to give an equal treatment to a politician that we allow to other people in the society. The ‘gentleman’ tag applies then. Let us go on.
I was wondering why the anchor could not ask an unbiased question like “What do you have to tell about your culpability?” I was not sure if the wide options in the language were to be blamed for the biased tone, or it was the intention of the anchor.
It’s quite argued that the process of drawing out information from some people gets easier with difficult questions aka rather offensive questions. There is no end to this speculation. It is open-ended today, and perhaps, will remain so.
Going further with the effort of untying the mystery of the way the anchor was asking, we may ask, “Why do we blame people of particular ideology?”
“Why do some people present their thoughts violently or in a bizarre fashion?” Do these people assume that people who do not concur to their thoughts are less violent? It may be a general perception that opposing an argument on the side of a particular ideology will push ourselves into a rigid cocoon of the opposing ideology that fights it tooth and nail. Is this the reason why many people grab a reason to be silent while failing to remain at peace with themselves?
This goes so far. Anchor switches to another question before the ‘gentleman’ could fully respond to the first one. Noise prevails, reason withdraws into a bower, and culpability impatiently looks for the way to sneak into a perceptional realm.