Thank you, Sharon. If I never hear you took that out of context again, it will be too soon. Especially when it’s people not wanting to face uncomfortable truths.
"The question is not whether context matters — of course it does. The question is whether we are willing to use it honestly, when it upholds our already-held views and when it refutes them." YES, SHARON!!!!!
Thank you for the post, you provided an excellent example. I am making a conscious effort to understand full context while forming my opinions. It is a work in progress, but so important.
It's interesting how many people have rushed to defend someone else's words after his death. Especially when those same people never listened to the speaker when he was alive, because they found the speaker to be too sharp. Interesting how it was quickly framed as an attack by the left and suddenly a whole section of the country who had never even heard of him felt the overwhelming need to defend his words. And another section felt the need to disect those same words to justify what happened to him.
Wow!!! This is an incredibly astute observation and absolutely wonderful explanation demonstrating how desperately important words are, particularly as we communicate with each other when we disagree. Emotions can run so high in these situations that taking time to understand other’s views, both logically and emotionally, can make all the difference. Thank you for your insight!!!
OK. You make your point. No arguement from this quarter. What I do wonder, where is the rest of your story. The essay refers to Charlie Kirk with respect to making sure the Context of his words need consideration. What is left out are examples, or at least one example, of how context is important in his communications. The essay seems incomplete as a result.
This was my original thought as well. I went and read it again and decided we being asked to infer. When I went back and re-looked at some of the speeches in which Kirk said some things I found objectionable, the context around it didn’t change what I found objectionable. He had a conversation about DEI before and after the comment about the Supreme Court Justice and an airplane pilot. They are not out of context.
I would venture to guess that Sharon’s omission in that respect is extremely deliberate, and I would further say it’s a mark of a really excellent teacher, which she is. She’s helping illustrate how to think about a general type of problem, rather than prescribing what to think about a specific problem. It’s a little like engineering school, having to calculate the drag of a given airplane. The professor makes sure you have the equation and you know what each of the variables mean, and where to plug in the wing area of the aircraft in question when you find it. But if she then calculates the wing area for you of any airplane you might encounter in the homework…well, what’s left for you to do and practice so you get better at applying the equation?
I think she's doing her part to teach media literacy without diving in to Charlie Kirk's words; there's not much to say about CK that hasn't been covered by a million content creators and publications.
Thank you for making this available to everyone ❤️
Thank you, Sharon. If I never hear you took that out of context again, it will be too soon. Especially when it’s people not wanting to face uncomfortable truths.
"The question is not whether context matters — of course it does. The question is whether we are willing to use it honestly, when it upholds our already-held views and when it refutes them." YES, SHARON!!!!!
Thank you for the post, you provided an excellent example. I am making a conscious effort to understand full context while forming my opinions. It is a work in progress, but so important.
It's interesting how many people have rushed to defend someone else's words after his death. Especially when those same people never listened to the speaker when he was alive, because they found the speaker to be too sharp. Interesting how it was quickly framed as an attack by the left and suddenly a whole section of the country who had never even heard of him felt the overwhelming need to defend his words. And another section felt the need to disect those same words to justify what happened to him.
Wow!!! This is an incredibly astute observation and absolutely wonderful explanation demonstrating how desperately important words are, particularly as we communicate with each other when we disagree. Emotions can run so high in these situations that taking time to understand other’s views, both logically and emotionally, can make all the difference. Thank you for your insight!!!
An exceptional example of painting a picture with imagery your audience will understand.
OK. You make your point. No arguement from this quarter. What I do wonder, where is the rest of your story. The essay refers to Charlie Kirk with respect to making sure the Context of his words need consideration. What is left out are examples, or at least one example, of how context is important in his communications. The essay seems incomplete as a result.
This was my original thought as well. I went and read it again and decided we being asked to infer. When I went back and re-looked at some of the speeches in which Kirk said some things I found objectionable, the context around it didn’t change what I found objectionable. He had a conversation about DEI before and after the comment about the Supreme Court Justice and an airplane pilot. They are not out of context.
This is what came to mind for me, yeah.
CK’s quote she shared was something like “When I see a Black pilot I hope he’s qualified”
His fans were very upset she did not include the full context which is more or less “…because of DEI.”
Missing the points entirely that its his willfully incorrect and racist interpretation of “DEI” we were objecting to
I would venture to guess that Sharon’s omission in that respect is extremely deliberate, and I would further say it’s a mark of a really excellent teacher, which she is. She’s helping illustrate how to think about a general type of problem, rather than prescribing what to think about a specific problem. It’s a little like engineering school, having to calculate the drag of a given airplane. The professor makes sure you have the equation and you know what each of the variables mean, and where to plug in the wing area of the aircraft in question when you find it. But if she then calculates the wing area for you of any airplane you might encounter in the homework…well, what’s left for you to do and practice so you get better at applying the equation?
I think she's doing her part to teach media literacy without diving in to Charlie Kirk's words; there's not much to say about CK that hasn't been covered by a million content creators and publications.
Well said.🩷