People are so much allergic to contentions, with that corrections, they would use innuendoes.
The first thing that set apart one thing and another is their contexts, if you use the wrong context in order to convey the message, it's as if the reality is not that sophisticated that there's such thing as such that requires not the proper context.
There's something special about every single thing, and to use innuendoes to negotiate is as if you don't acknowledge that and then would proceed with your next decision (often times on other people).
It's just pure display of political power, and even it contains the audacity that you don't have to worry about the proper context or that you know that it's definitely not accurate and still you'd proceed with your desire.
----------------
Blatant spoken word, pen on paperness, is not a guarantee that the decisions would be right, but to me at least what needs to be considered were considered, the issue were put on the proper context to be assessed accessibly by the relevant parties, by the relevant concerns easily, as hard as it's supposed to (usually).
At least it's not making it more inaccessible by the other party like innuendoes would.
Again people need to separate idioms, jokes, illustrations from innuendoes. Because the later is all about not being responsible for the things conveyed, not giving the attribution to yourself things that you conveyed and not letting yourself be reviewed as result of your conveying of the meaning. On top of that because the context is different, there would be more or less extra procedures to put the issues at their proper contexts which were different, therefore you've just incurred costs of conversions for the whole audience of your innuendoes.
I'm not being autistic or whatever it is like that, this is normal, innuendoes are guaranteed innaccuracy. If it's not then it's not what I'm talking about.
ON TOP OF THAT, when you put things in their proper contexts it would be revealed the nuances that would make everything meaningless. But when the utterer was supposed to take responsibility of it, they'd just acted like it weren't like that.
ON TOP OF THAT, because such cowardice permeated into a lot of people, it became culture... so those who were just being straight, was being held "responsible" for the innuendo meanings of what they were not meaning to convey, now everything is off limits and the one who determines the meaning is the one in power... which is dictatorship.
There are different details for every part of the Truth. If we were to set for the preservation of the Truth, to make it desireable, to make it wonderful, amazing, and heaven, we shouldn't underestimated the Truth. Please, I'm not being overdramatic or wanting everything to be ultra polite or something like that, casual things are casuals because they are within the Truthful safety of the Truthful context, including jokes, but when you take away responsibility out of your words, who's going to be responsible?
