If words DO exist without context, then you have no complaint about "African American". Can't have it both ways; either they have context, or they do not.
"African-American" is not an accurate description of black people. 99% of black people in the US have no more connection to Africa than I do. Oh and besides that, there are white people in Africa too, so there's a ton of reasons the word is just PC bullshit.
"Black" is an accurate description - well, unless you want to split hairs and make the argument that black people are brown. Still a hell of a lot more accurate than African-American.
So no, there doesn't need to be context to object to the ridiculous term, "African-American".
Frankly, when some pretentious prick says "African-American", I hear, "jungle bunny". When people say, "black (man, woman, person, etc)", I think Tyrese, Lawanda, Sam, Paulette, Edward, Lamonte, etc.
"Accuracy" has never the point
Precisely the problem!
Libtard logic: "Better to call somebody something that isn't even vaguely descriptive of who they are, thereby creating a lie about them in order to create a false sense of offensiveness for previously used terms which are actually descriptive of them."
Let's apply your PC logic to you, Pogo.
You are no longer a man. Men are brutish boors. You are now a gecko. Geckos are cute and make wonderful car insurance commercials. You must now get offended when someone refers to your gender, as you no longer identify with your masculinity.
MAKES COMPLETE SENSE!
See what I mean? "Libtard"?
Are you unable to engage in simple analysis without the personal soap opera? Is that where you live?
As long as one party can't keep his head on straight, no discussion can progress.