GALLYBUSTERS

Mishka Zena: “What is Jane doing? All this talk about anarchy, terrorism, and now guns? This is a peaceful and civil protest. Why is she trying to portray the protestors as out of control and dangerous?”

Everybody’s starting to upset me. They continue to pull things out of context, and interpret things literally. They are choosing to ignore situational context, which is crucial to examining things in the light. (Read the blogs!)

Yes, in NBC 4 News video, Jane K. did say, “I’ve been threatened to be shot, yes”. But this was simply an answer to a reporter’s question. Look at the video again! EMPHASIS: Jane K. did not say anything about guns. This figuratively means she has been threatened by the protest to accept defeat, which she says she will not do. And besides, how else do you sign "SHOT"? Of course, the verbial sign is iconic of guns. I can see where the misunderstanding took place.

And yes, she also did say, “anarchy”. But if you look up www.dictionary.com, you will find that anarchy is 1) “a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society” and 2) “confusion; chaos; disorder”. She is simply suggesting that this group of dissenters is operating on anarchy in the sense that this “voluntary association of individuals” is “the principal mode of organized society” at Gallaudet, and perhaps also suggesting that this protest is bringing about a mass of confusion and disorder, which I’m pretty sure nobody will deny.

Will the misinterpreting ever stop? This form of communication, misinterpretation, is sure winning people.

No doubt about it, the army’s growing. And I still don’t get it.

# posted by Gallybusters @ 4:53 AM