Well then we have a real problem in the political culture. If I said this obviously wasn't done by TPers, does that mean I'm saying it was Occupiers? That's idiotic.
Well that is idiotic, but then again you're not actually attempting to make sense so that makes sense.
If there are people on two sides of a room and I go "The left side of the room MUST'VE done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them..." then the realistic implication is that the people on the right side of the room must've done it.
If there are people going down stairs and people going up stairs and I say "The People going up the stairs MUST'VE done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them..." then the realistic implication is that the people down the stairs are to blame.
If there are a group of people and everyone is either wearing green shirts or yellow shirt and I say "The people wearing green shirts MUST'Ve done this action! Wait no, it couldn't have been them...." the implication is that the yellow shirts are to blame.
If there's a football team with a defense and an offense and you go "The Offense is CLEARLY to blame for giving up 40 points! Wait no, it couldn't be their fault...." the implication is that the defense is to blame.
When you take a group with two defined, sizable, related sides and CLEARLY go out of your way to indicate that one side WASN'T responsible, the logical conclussion a listener is going to make is that you're implying that the other side is to blame.
Liberals and Conservatives are diametric opposites with regards to political ideology. While the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are broadly ideologically on opposite ends of the scales, they are not diametric opposites are they are directly connected and measured against each other in various ways nor are the movement specific ideologies direct opposites of each other.
Then you go on to say "People can't read (my) mind." Well that's what you're trying to do, isn't it!
No, I'm not trying to read your mind because that's impossible. I
AM trying to make a logical inference into what the point and meaning of your statements are...that's what
EVERYONE does when in a conversation with someone. That's the whole purpose of the notion of context in terms of a discussion. That's why things like sarcasm are able to work in conversation.
The problem is that because people can't read your mind and KNOW for sure what you are thinking and meaning, the only thing they can go off of is what you actually say, the context surrounding, and the context of your history in terms of your views and statements makes judgements based on that.
Considering almost EVERYONE in this thread didn't "get" the "point" you THOUGHT you made...my suggestion was that the problem wasn't that it "went over our heads" but rather that you did a very ****ty job of presenting said "point".