Somebody posted a youtube comment on my Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg video, I assume in response to my direct quotes from the trial transcripts.
Gag. Anything out of context could mean something else.
And that’s all the lazy fellow wrote. I call him lazy because he hasn’t bothered to say anything. This tiny example illustrates one of my biggest aggravations in public debate. You see it in PR and spin-management, too. A public figure says something outrageous or heinous or just downright wrong, and he defends himself with, “My statement was taken out of context.”
Well, duh. Every account of anything is — to some degree — out of context.
If you report a quote and recount the circumstances to provide context, there’s still a larger context in which that sits. And that context is plunked down in another one that’s bigger still. And so on. With apologies to Bertrand Russell, it’s context all the way down. Really, the only way to provide full context is explain everything that has ever happened. The best you can do is provide enough background to be fair in your account and give your audience a means to check up on you and keep you honest.
If an opponent accuses you of presenting something out context, don’t deny it. Just reply, “Go on…” They may stare at you blankly, so you might need to prompt them, “What context did you have in mind? And how does it change things?”
My lazy youtube commenter didn’t bother to explain that, so what he said has no point. Go ahead and claim something’s out of context, but realize you’ve barely said anything with that. Basically, all you’ve done is a promise a rebuttal. In your next sentence, it’s time to deliver.
I understand your pain. This past year at work has been full of that sort of stuff, as my workplace has been used as a political football in the state arena. But even worse than that, I’m getting really really tired of hearing “He’s got a right to his opinion,” when the referential statement isn’t opinion at all, but rather, ignorance or misleading claims not backed by any evidence. Know what I mean?
The commenter is even lazier than you claim, because taken IN the context you used them, the quotes very definitely did support your point.
Essentially, he was saying that not only did he not know the context, and not only did he have no intention of checking whether or not your comments were valid in the context you used them, but because he couldn’t be bothered to do so, he was free to construct any other context he chose and use that to invalidate your argument.
In essence, while he was appearing to say that quotes need to be used in context to be meaningful, he was actually saying that he was free to consider them to be completely context free in order to invalidate them.
I’m sure the commenter will try to defend himself by saying that his comment was taken out of context.
This question needs to be asked firmly and frequently. There have been many quotes supposedly “taken out of context” for which I cannot begin to imagine a context which would make them seem any less heinous.
Come now, you talk of free speech and many other things I agree with, but context truly is everything.
Sooty may refer to a very endearing childrens TV character from British TV of the 80s, or it may be taken as a vicious racial slur, entirely depending on context.
“I love you” can have a million meanings depending on context – I have even seen it used as a threat.
When someone says that their views have been taken out of context, what they are really saying is that what they said does not correspond to how you have interpreted what they said.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that their views are acceptible, but it does mean that you have misrepresented them.
NoBeerBelly, the last thing I meant to say is that context is unimportant.
I get that. My point is that it’s not enough to say your views have been taken out of context — you next need to explain how the missing context refutes the other side, and that’s the essential part that people often skip (like the commenter I cited above).
I do think the whole brouhaha regarding Shirley Sherrod is an example of something being taken out of context. She said something racist — but to illustrate her own journey of personal transformation and inclusion that led her to reject racist politics. Funny, the transformation part was not part of the original youtube video that got her fired, only that she ever said something racist. The reaction of the NAACP not finding out the “context” is very troubling but at least they apologized.
Rob reiterates in the comments again about the subtle-but-critical point that people cannot
just claim “out of context” as if it’s prima facie evidence that always exonerates them.
This recent trend (mostly among conservatives, but not always) reminds me of
something that Andrew Sullivan wrote in The New Republic (in the pre-Internet 90′s) about
how there are phrases that are employed as all-purpose defenses for some very slushy reasoning.
Back then, it was the all-purpose preamble “As a , I feel/know that..”,
and Andrew said that it was the all-purpose Identity Stop-Sign at which all argumentation must stop.
“Taken out of context” tries to serve the same purpose.