I spoke for the first time about the disagreement between myself and my father, Ramadoss. I explained that I don't really care about having special roles in the party, but I was there because it was important at that moment. I mentioned that my father, the founder of our party, is still in everyone's thoughts, even though he wasn't at the meeting.

I believe that some people around my father are not being truthful and are causing problems. I said that I have tried to talk to him many times, about 40 times, with family and friends present. While he might agree in the morning, something happens later that makes him change his mind. I also shared that I feel a lot of pain from this situation, so much that it keeps me awake at night, even though I don't show it. I also mentioned that I don't respond to accusations against me because it would hurt my father's reputation.

The party's goal is to prevent the DMK from returning to power, and we will decide on alliances later. I was re-elected as the General Secretary of our party, the PMK, during this meeting. The issues between my father and me became more serious when he tried to remove people I had appointed and accused me of spying on him. I still believe that the DMK is responsible for the problems between my father and me.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided. The text describes a personal and political situation without offering any steps or guidance for the reader to take.

Educational Depth: The text does not offer educational depth. It shares personal feelings and political stances but does not explain the underlying causes of the disagreement, the history of the party, or the political systems at play in a way that would deepen understanding.

Personal Relevance: The topic has very low personal relevance for a general reader. It details a specific family and political dispute within a particular party, which is unlikely to directly impact the daily life, finances, or well-being of most individuals.

Public Service Function: This text does not serve a public service function. It does not provide warnings, safety advice, emergency contacts, or useful tools for the public. It is a personal account of a political disagreement.

Practicality of Advice: There is no advice or steps given in the text, so its practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The text has no discernible long-term impact for the reader. It discusses a current political situation and personal conflict without offering strategies for lasting improvement or planning.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The text conveys a sense of personal pain and frustration from the speaker. However, it does not offer any coping mechanisms or strategies for the reader to manage similar emotions, nor does it provide hope or empowerment.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The text does not appear to use clickbait or ad-driven language. It is a straightforward, albeit personal, account of a political situation.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The text missed a significant opportunity to provide guidance on conflict resolution within families or political organizations. For instance, it could have offered general principles for communication during disagreements, strategies for mediating disputes, or advice on how to navigate complex family dynamics in professional settings. A reader interested in understanding such issues could benefit from resources on effective communication, negotiation, or family therapy. They could also research case studies of political family disputes or organizational conflict management.

The described situation reveals a profound weakening of familial bonds and a disregard for the duties that ensure the survival of kin. The repeated attempts to communicate with the father, met with inconsistency and accusations, demonstrate a breakdown in the trust and responsibility that should exist between a father and his child, especially when the father is the elder and founder of the family's legacy. This inability to establish stable communication and resolve conflict peacefully within the family unit directly undermines the core principle of kin protection.

The focus on external roles and the attribution of internal family disputes to external forces, rather than direct familial accountability, erodes the natural duties of fathers and sons to uphold their shared lineage. The pain and sleepless nights experienced by the individual, while a testament to personal suffering, highlight a failure in the family's capacity to provide emotional security and a stable environment for its members, particularly the younger generation who are implicitly observing these dynamics.

The actions described, such as attempting to remove appointed individuals and making accusations, indicate a disregard for established familial roles and responsibilities. This creates dependencies on external validation and leadership rather than fostering self-reliance and mutual respect within the kinship structure. The emphasis on protecting the father's reputation by not responding to accusations, while seemingly a duty, in this context appears to be a mechanism that perpetuates the underlying conflict rather than resolving it, thereby failing to protect the family's overall well-being.

The consequence of such a breakdown in familial trust and responsibility, if allowed to spread, is the erosion of the very foundations of community. Children will grow up witnessing a model of fractured relationships, where elders are inconsistent and accusations replace open dialogue. This will diminish their sense of security, their understanding of duty, and their capacity to form stable, trusting bonds in their own lives. The stewardship of the land, which is often tied to generational continuity and familial responsibility, will suffer as the focus shifts away from enduring local duties towards external affiliations. The procreative continuity of the people will be threatened if the social structures supporting family cohesion and the care of the next generation are weakened to this extent. The real consequences if these behaviors spread unchecked are the disintegration of families, the abandonment of elders and children to instability, and the loss of the land's care as the bonds that tie people to their place and to each other are severed.

This text shows a bias by blaming an outside group for problems. It says, "I still believe that the DMK is responsible for the problems between my father and me." This statement points to the DMK as the cause of the family's issues without offering proof. It helps the speaker by shifting blame away from themselves or their father.

The text uses emotional language to make the speaker seem like a victim. It says, "I feel a lot of pain from this situation, so much that it keeps me awake at night, even though I don't show it." This makes the reader feel sorry for the speaker. It tries to show they are suffering, which might make people agree with them more.

There is a trick of presenting speculation as fact. The speaker says, "I believe that some people around my father are not being truthful and are causing problems." This is presented as a strong belief but is not supported by evidence in the text. It suggests wrongdoing by unnamed people to explain the disagreements.

The text also uses a technique to make the father seem easily influenced. It states, "While he might agree in the morning, something happens later that makes him change his mind." This implies the father is not firm in his decisions. It suggests that outside forces, not the father's own judgment, are causing him to change his mind.

The writer expresses a deep sense of sadness and pain stemming from the disagreement with their father, Ramadoss. This is evident when they state, "I also shared that I feel a lot of pain from this situation, so much that it keeps me awake at night, even though I don't show it." This emotion is strong and serves to elicit sympathy from the reader, highlighting the personal toll the conflict is taking. The writer uses the personal story of sleepless nights to make the pain relatable and to build a connection with the audience, aiming to garner understanding and support.

A feeling of frustration is also present, particularly in the repeated attempts to communicate with the father. The phrase, "I have tried to talk to him many times, about 40 times," emphasizes the persistent but unsuccessful nature of these efforts. This repetition of trying and failing conveys a strong sense of exasperation. This frustration is used to persuade the reader that the writer has genuinely attempted to resolve the issues, thereby making the father's perceived unresponsiveness or the influence of others more suspect. The writer is trying to shift the reader's opinion by showing their own diligent efforts, making the situation seem unfair.

There is also an underlying emotion of concern for the father's reputation and the party's well-being. The statement, "I also mentioned that I don't respond to accusations against me because it would hurt my father's reputation," shows a protective instinct. This concern is presented as a reason for the writer's restraint, framing their actions as selfless and aimed at preserving the family and party image. This helps build trust by portraying the writer as responsible and considerate, even in the face of personal attacks.

A subtle sense of pride can be inferred from the mention of being re-elected as General Secretary. While not explicitly stated with emotional language, this achievement, occurring within the context of the conflict, suggests a resilience and continued support within the party. This pride serves to reinforce the writer's position and credibility, suggesting that despite the personal difficulties, their leadership is recognized and valued. This can inspire confidence in the reader about the writer's capabilities.

Finally, the writer uses the tactic of blame shifting by stating, "I still believe that the DMK is responsible for the problems between my father and me." This is an extreme statement that attributes the entire conflict to an external party. This exaggeration aims to unite the party against a common enemy and to deflect from the internal issues, thereby steering the reader's attention away from the personal conflict and towards a shared political goal. The emotional weight of this accusation is intended to create a sense of urgency and solidarity, encouraging a unified stance against the DMK.