The current in-vogue spin-room phrase is “context is everything.” That phrase is used to provide an excuse for every unethical action, from teachers who are caught reading pornography to grade-school children, to politicians who vote to support “gender-affirming” surgery without their parent’s permission or knowledge.
To university presidents who use that phrase to excuse support for genocide or plagiarism, and to how judges hand down different punishments based on the perpetrator’s political ideology or financial connections.
When “free speech” advocates are questioned about their obviously ridiculous statements, they retreat into well-practiced “weave and dodge” responses. They use technicalities cloaked in legal non-answers. They don’t want to be held responsible for what they said.
“You need to understand the context in which those words were spoken.”
Um, no. We don’t need to understand the “context”. We can plainly see what was said. We heard it. We understood it. And we know you meant every word you said.
The City of Nashua has recently used those same “weave and dodge” tactics to avoid answering difficult questions about a recent election. “We followed the law”, they claim. They point at various NH RSAs and use “context” to explain why they can’t retrieve public information they are required to provide, by those same RSAs, to citizens requesting that information. They want to know why the information is requested, as if the “context” of the request would provide an excuse for not providing the information. They say that the information is stored in a “secure location” and thus cannot be retrieved – even when ordered to retrieve it by a judge.
It’s not “context” that’s the problem.
It’s the fact that the statements were made at all, or that the information was purposefully hidden from view and/or retrieval. Those who made the statements or hid the information knew exactly what they were saying and/or doing. Now, like a toddler caught with a hand in the cookie jar, they are trying to fool us into believing that their truth is the only truth, that we are at fault for even asking the questions.
Nobody should be surprised at this. The United States has been sliding away from truth for decades. It is only now that the slide has finally become noticeable as more and more people begin to wonder exactly why they can’t get a straight answer from city leaders. Or politicians. Or university presidents.
The latest of these “we know better” efforts to provide “context” is the “diversity”, “equity”, and “inclusion” policies being implemented in both public and private organizations. The stated goal was to “level the playing field” by ripping up the playing field and redesigning it into multiple incompatible levels. The redesign violates the “all men are equal” principle (and MLK’s principles, by the way).
“But you need to understand the context behind DEI”, one person says.
Um, we need to know why two equally-qualified individuals must be treated separately? “Why, yes. It’s all about the context in which the decision is being made.”
That word again: context. The same “I don’t need to explain it to you because you obviously aren’t intelligent enough to see it for yourself” explanation.
So, given the correct context, it must be OK to tell city residents that they don’t need to have FOIA information that they demand, especially if that information will expose corruption and bias. With the correct context, it must be OK to tell university students that some of them don’t deserve protection from attack because “they’re not as worthy”. Context explains why it’s OK for politicians to use unethical and possibly illegal means to enrich themselves in office even though there are laws that are specifically designed to prevent it. And context explains how it’s OK for both the government and private organizations to treat selected groups of people differently.
Why is this so? Context, of course. Context explains everything.
So the question remains: are you going to believe those who are using “context” to explain the need for corruption, the violation of morality and truth, and the imposition of unequal treatment?
Or, are you willing to ignore context and recognize corruption and unequal treatment when you see it with your own eyes?
