Sorry. I'm not sure I can make sense of all that.
And I thought pointing wasn't "accusatory", but a dominance
Hell, I thought pointing was a way of identifying one think out of a group of others - i.e. I would like that
lemon filled chocolate doughnut. - Now I'd hardly be planning to dominate the doughnut by pointing at it ... I'd merely be identifying the focus of my interest.
In the context I was referring to, it's a manipulative thing. Imagine pointing after every syllable: "You..will..do..as...I...say...or...else." You try the same without pointing and it's not as intimidating. People have all sorts of ways to cover up the fact that the content of what they are saying is all or mostly bullshit. Inflections and all that. And I know there's a place for all the rhetoric, but it's just interesting that it seems that those who are really good at rhetoric tend to have the least content. And when I see that the public in general is more persuaded by rhetoric than content, that is something I worry about. Seems like we've gotten really really good at bullshitting and the content is nowhere to be found. But they tell me I'm just getting older.