# Highlighting a relevant part of a quote is NOT selective quoting **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 7, 2023, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225 "2023-12-07T08:46:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/1 "2023-12-07T08:46:13Z")
[Here](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-the-taylor-swift-phenomenon-to-me/981339/664), I quoted from where @Darren_Garrison said “Why did they pick a photo that makes it look like she has no neck?” and called out the " she has no neck" part to make a point that he was body-shaming. His defence was that he was “clothes shaming” and that I was “manipulating the quote” At least one mod takes his side, clearly. Two things: a) there’s no mention of clothing even in his full quote b) I was calling out the part of his quote that mattered to my point, which was that he cared about how it made part of _her body_ look. The full quote doesn’t make that any different, despite what Darren says. This is leaving aside that his lechery elsewhere in that thread is still unmoderated. Seriously, I thought we were past the dirty old man stage of this board. How can any mods still be defending this kind of thing? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/2 "2023-12-07T10:41:50Z")
You were manipulating the quote. Even without the clothes part, it was clearly the intent that the picture was the thing altering her appearance, making her look “weird”. Now, the cat hair thing was uncool, and one could ask if we always have to comment on women’s appearance. However, this instance appears pretty benign as far as that goes. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/3 "2023-12-07T11:26:41Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > You were manipulating the quote. No, I was not - how is verbatim quoting “manipulating”? I was calling out the important part. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > making her look “weird”. So, her body…,. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/4 "2023-12-07T11:44:19Z")
Did not read the thread. Have no opinion on any other aspect of it. But sawing off the quote did change the sense of it. I know guys who are described as “having no neck” and that is definitely commentary on their bodies. Saying a photo angle makes it look like someone has no neck (or is missing an arm, or whatever) is not the same. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/5 "2023-12-07T11:44:38Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > she has no neck Why would you say that about her? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/6 "2023-12-07T11:56:25Z")
It’s still a comment on how it makes their bodies look, not their clothes. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/7 "2023-12-07T12:37:10Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I quoted from where @Darren_Garrison said “Why did they pick a photo that makes it look like she has no neck?” and called out the " she has no neck" part to make a point that he was body-shaming. In the old days, baseball had a player named Walt Williams who was known as “No Neck Williams”. He was fine with it and actually embraced the nickname. It wasn’t considered “body shaming”. Your accusation of @Darren_Garrison seems to be hasty and unfair. To me at least, his point was simply that they could have picked a more flattering picture ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/8 "2023-12-07T12:38:47Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > It wasn’t considered “body shaming” Neither was calling someone “Fatty” as a nickname. What does “the old days” have to do with what’s right? > [@Jasmine](#): > > He was fine with it and actually embraced the nickname Oh, and I’m sure a Black sportsperson in the 60s felt _totally_ free to complain about any nickname he was given… > [@Jasmine](#): > > I think you are circumventing the main thrust of my post, which was simply that his point was, “they could have picked a more flattering picture”. He could have made his point _without_ the body shaming (as Jophiel did later). And there’s nothing wrong with the picture, it’s perfectly fine. Very Little Ms America. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/9 "2023-12-07T12:41:20Z")
I think you are circumventing the main thrust of my post, which was simply that his point was, “they could have picked a more flattering picture”. They actually could have. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/10 "2023-12-07T12:50:01Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I was calling out the important part. You were calling out the part that made the poster look bad, while cutting out the part that provided the actual meaning of the sentence. The actual meaning of the sentence is that the perspective used in the photo altered her appearance in a way that the poster found notable. Altered. The part you cut out “photo that makes it look like” means that it’s the photo causing the issue, not the body. > [@MrDibble](#): > > So, her body…,. is a normal human body, which, like all human bodies, is subject to looking weird in photographs if the conditions are right. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/11 "2023-12-07T12:55:24Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > You were calling out the part that made the poster look bad, Well, yes. Why else would I call it out? > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > while cutting out the part that provided the actual meaning of the sentence. The part I cut out didn’t change the meaning in the slightest. Plus there’s the little arrow that lets you see the entire post the quote is from. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The actual meaning of the sentence is that the perspective used in the photo altered her appearance in a way that the poster found notable. And the way it altered it _was by making her look physically deformed._ The “issue” he highlighted with the photo is _how it makes her body look._ For him, that is. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > is a normal human body Tell that to the guy who thinks it looks deformed, not me. I already know it’s a normal body. ---
**Author:** ![solost](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/solost/32/11776_2.png) [@solost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solost)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/12 "2023-12-07T13:06:47Z")
I was actively participating in and reading the Swift thread during the period relevant to this OP, the point since Swift was declared Person of the Year. I readily understood from context that @Darren_Garrison was criticizing the clothing choices and the posing of the photos, and not Swift herself. At no point did I get the impression that DG was engaging in body shaming. I don’t think that @MrDibble was intentionally trying to quote DG out of context and pull a ‘gotcha’, but I do think that they’re overracting a bit to what is essentially a non-issue. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/13 "2023-12-07T13:11:29Z")
> [@solost](#): > > I don’t think that @MrDibble was intentionally trying to quote DG out of context and pull a ‘gotcha’, but I do think that they’re overracting a bit to what is essentially a non-issue. It’d be more of a non-issue if he didn’t have form for that kind of post. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/14 "2023-12-07T13:21:09Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > You were calling out the part that made the poster look bad, while cutting out the part that provided the actual meaning of the sentence. The actual meaning of the sentence is that the perspective used in the photo altered her appearance in a way that the poster found notable. Yeah, that’s how I read it, too. The selective quote changes the meaning of the quote. It’s an odd photo to me, and it’s not because of Taylor Swift’s physical characteristics – it’s the choice of clothes, angle, etc. The photograph itself is weird (hence, “photo that makes it look like”), not her. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/15 "2023-12-07T13:23:23Z")
Did you know that it’s possible to fold a one-dollar bill in such a way that George Washington’s head looks like a mushroom? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/16 "2023-12-07T13:23:47Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > George Washington’s head looks like a mushroom Hey! Hey! **Thudlow Boink** is body-shaming George Washington! ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/17 "2023-12-07T13:24:17Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > The selective quote changes the meaning of the quote The “meaning of the quote” I was calling out was that he was talking about how a part of her body looked. Are you saying he _wasn’t_ saying she looked like she had no neck? Or that a neck is _not_ a body part? You’re all pointing out the _mechanics_ of how that look was achieved. I don’t dispute that. I’m talking about what he said _the end result_ was. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/18 "2023-12-07T13:25:47Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > And the way it altered it _was by making her look physically deformed._ > > The “issue” he highlighted with the photo is _how it makes her body look._ It is not body shaming to point out that a photo is altering the way someone’s body looks. It may be an inappropriate focus on a woman’s appearance, but it isn’t body shaming. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/19 "2023-12-07T13:28:22Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > It is not body shaming to point out that a photo is altering the way someone’s body looks When you compare them to Dana fucking Carvey as the Master of Disguise, it is. Hell, that’s _human_-shaming. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2023, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225/20 "2023-12-07T13:31:12Z")
I have not gone to see the thread where the OP’s issue arose. The title of _this_ thread is about highlighting. The substance of debate in these first dozen-ish posts seems to be about body-shaming and whether some post(s) arose to that level. With a side order of arguing about misleadingly-selective quoting. So we seem to have 3 topics at issue here. I’ll speak only to the title issue: highlighting. If I want to highlight a part of a snip, it’ll go like this (and deliberately choosing an innocuous post as an example): > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Did you know that it’s possible to fold a **one-dollar** bill in such a way that George Washington’s head Bolding mine. You know, it’s actually possible to fold _any_ bill that way. The difference is whether the result is a mushroom, or a fir tree, or a field of green depending on who’s head is on the bill. The point is to call out what I did in the very first sentence below the quote and to have that as a free-standing paragraph. Anyone missing my caveat isn't paying enough attention. That's (IMO) 100% on them, not me. I’m also cautious to not add bolding or italics to a snip that already has those features. Since very few people use underlining here, I’ll use that if I have to add my highlight to something that already has bolding or italics. As a separate matter here’s an observation about partial quoting. Back in the vBulletin days most of us where pretty darn reliable about starting or ending a quote with ellipses if we were not quoting the entire post. ISTM that about the time we switched to Discourse that habit dropped off. Now it’s commonplace to see partial quotes with no indication they are partial. Such as what I just did with @Thudlow_Boink’s post where I snipped off the last half with no indication of having done so. I suspect that change was triggered by the ease of partial quoting in Discourse, a feature vBulletin lacked. In vBulletin you had to quote (or multi-quote) the whole thing then manually delete the bits of someone’s post you didn’t want to include, which facilitated remembering to replace the removed portion(s) with ellipses. As a result, our current culture doesn’t quite align with our rules on this narrow topic. And other than when (possibly mistaken) accusations of bad-faith snipping crop up, this doesn’t seem to be a problem that _needs_ addressing. But might benefit from a bit more diligence on everyone’s part. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/highlighting-a-relevant-part-of-a-quote-is-not-selective-quoting/994225.md?page=2)