Politically Correct Is a Pejorative Slur and Not a Neutral Descriptive Term, Ok?

[Athos_131]

'Politically Correct' Is a Pejorative Slur and Not a Neutral Descriptive Term, OK?

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

^This.  So's "SJW" and just about any accusation you have in lieu of an argument?  Is not an argument.  "You're wrong because..."  Is not an argument, it's basically admitting you don't have one.

This just in:  NPR hasn't been what it used to be for a long long time. 

[Lois]

So what is "Being Polite"?

[psiberzerker]

So what is "Being Polite"?

Obsolete?  It's taken as a sign of weakness, and used as an excuse to deride you by outspoken antisocial assholes.

[Lois]

Political correctness spans a whole host of things.  Sadly, one thing it includes is simply being polite.  So if you hate political correctness, just ask yourself if it is really politeness you hate.

[_priapism]

Political correctness spans a whole host of things.  Sadly, one thing it includes is simply being polite.  So if you hate political correctness, just ask yourself if it is really politeness you hate.

Woo +1

[seveninchblues]

For myself, I have always taken being Politically Correct as afraid to speak the truth.
I would like to ask if anyone here would have found the
most impolite and offensive but decidedly socially conscious comic Lenny Bruce
to be politically correct. 
It is a scary world where we even have to continue to discuss
the connotations of this ridiculous terminology.

[psiberzerker]

To me, "PC" means renaming something as something else.  They're not ghettos, they're "Inner city neighborhoods."  It's not genocide, it's "Ethnic Cleansing."  Well, that doesn't sound so bad.  Let's just get rid of all these Spanish people, and that will make everything all white.  It's spin, to twist the point around to my political point.

TBPH, "PC" is Politically Correct.  

[phtlc]

Political correctness spans a whole host of things.  Sadly, one thing it includes is simply being polite.  So if you hate political correctness, just ask yourself if it is really politeness you hate.

They are not the same thing. I can disagree with you on a sensitive issue, and express thus while still being polite. Political correctness means never voicing opinions certain people disagree with

[MissBarbara]

Political correctness spans a whole host of things.  Sadly, one thing it includes is simply being polite.  So if you hate political correctness, just ask yourself if it is really politeness you hate.

They are not the same thing. I can disagree with you on a sensitive issue, and express thus while still being polite. Political correctness means never voicing opinions certain people disagree with.

Fun Fact: The term "politically correct" was coined by the Nazis. It was used in the context of a new law regarding the granting permits to journalists, and
the law specified that permits would be granted "only to pure 'Aryans' whose opinions are politically correct."

So, you're right: The Nazis certainly referred to "never voicing opinions certain people disagreed with."

Fast forward 85-90 years, and the term is now used pejoratively, as a way of condemning speech one doesn't agree with. It's flip side -- "politically incorrect" -- is also used as a badge of honor, by someone who wishes to say something potentially -- or actually -- offensive, granting themselves permission to speak under the guise of not cow-towing to silly liberal notions.

To take an extreme example, if someone asserts, "You should refer to gay men as faggots because it is offensive," that's not being "politically correct." It is, as Lois suggested, an encouragement to politeness. Yet many who deem themselves "politically incorrect" would object, labeling that statement a suppression of free speech, or an effort by the left to control dialogue.

In this light, it has little to do with respectful disagreement, or intelligent counter-arguing. It's simple polemical gamesmanship.

[Writers Bloque]

Political correctness spans a whole host of things.  Sadly, one thing it includes is simply being polite.  So if you hate political correctness, just ask yourself if it is really politeness you hate.

They are not the same thing. I can disagree with you on a sensitive issue, and express thus while still being polite. Political correctness means never voicing opinions certain people disagree with.

Fun Fact: The term "politically correct" was coined by the Nazis. It was used in the context of a new law regarding the granting permits to journalists, and
the law specified that permits would be granted "only to pure 'Aryans' whose opinions are politically correct."

So, you're right: The Nazis certainly referred to "never voicing opinions certain people disagreed with."

Fast forward 85-90 years, and the term is now used pejoratively, as a way of condemning speech one doesn't agree with. It's flip side -- "politically incorrect" -- is also used as a badge of honor, by someone who wishes to say something potentially -- or actually -- offensive, granting themselves permission to speak under the guise of not cow-towing to silly liberal notions.

To take an extreme example, if someone asserts, "You should refer to gay men as faggots because it is offensive," that's not being "politically correct." It is, as Lois suggested, an encouragement to politeness. Yet many who deem themselves "politically incorrect" would object, labeling that statement a suppression of free speech, or an effort by the left to control dialogue.

In this light, it has little to do with respectful disagreement, or intelligent counter-arguing. It's simple polemical gamesmanship.

Aerosmith said it best in the song "Living on the Edge"

There's something wrong with the world today
I don't know what it is
Something's wrong with our eyes
We're seeing things in a different way
And God knows it ain't his
It sure ain't no surprise, yeah
Living on the edge
Living on the edge
Living on the edge
Living on the edge
There's something wrong with the world today
The light bulb's getting dim
There's meltdown in the sky
If you can judge a wise man
By the color of his skin
Then mister you're a better man than I, oh
Living on the edge
(You can't help yourself from falling)
Living on the edge
(You can't help yourself at all)
Living on the edge
(You can't stop yourself from falling)
Living on the edge
(Everybody, everybody)
Tell me what you think about your situation
Complication, aggravation
Is getting to you, yeah
If Chicken Little tells you that the sky is falling
Even if it wasn't, would you still come crawling
Back again?
I bet you would my friend
Again, and again, and again, and again, and again
Yeah, tell me what you think about your situation
Complication, aggravation
Is getting to you
If Chicken Little tells you that the sky is falling
Even if it wasn't, would you still come crawling
Back again?
I bet you would my friend
Again, and again, and again, and again
Something right with the world today
And everybody knows it's wrong
But we can tell 'em no or we could let it go
But I would rather be a hanging on
Living on the edge
(You can't help yourself from falling)
Living on the edge
(You can't help yourself at all)
Living on the edge
(You can't stop yourself from falling)
Living on the edge
(Everybody, everybody)
Living on the edge
Living on the edge
Living on the edge
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah...
Get talkin' to me
Living on the edge
You can't help yourself from falling
Living on the edge
You can't help yourself at all
Living on the edge
You can't stop yourself from falling
Living on the edge
Living on the edge
You can't help yourself
You can't help yourself
Living on the edge
You can't help yourself at all
Living on the edge
You can't help yourself
You can't help yourself
Living on the edge
You can't help yourself
You can't help yourself
Living on the edge
You can't help yourself at all
Living on the edge
Yeah, yeah, yeah...

But ultimately to me in my humble dumb meat brick opinion, I would like to know who is ultimately in charge of what is "politically correct/incorrect?" If you were in a crowd of 100 people and everyone agrees with you, except one who finds your rational debate absolutely offensive, do they have the right beyond any rights and freedoms to label you derogatory for expressing your opinion in your debate. To me the world is tip toeing on eggshells to avoid offending the one person, instead of trying to actually, rationally lay out the differences of opinions and are quick to condemn and close off any consideration. Politeness is important, but not everyone's opinion will ever be taken politely. Its like this:

If I think that humanity is advancing to its own demise, some will nod their heads, while others will be quick to condemn me for speaking what I consider a polite opinion.

But also I think there is a huge difference in being "Polite" to not offend, and the distinct lack of the practice of having Tact, to know what to say to whom. Being polite is important, but having tact is more important. I work with a diverse group of people, some who absolutely disagree with some of my opinions, but instead of having a melt down, we sit and talk it out, and in the end I learn, and they learn and we can be civil and agree to disagree. But no one has the right to tell anyone what to say or how to say it. It should have been taught since birth and forcing it on grown people who should absolutely know how to speak and act in a civil society is the biggest problem.

Also MissB, it dates further back to the Roman Senate where they had a strict code of ethical speaking where if you offended someone it could be a crime, despite most senate meetings devolved into shouting matches.

As John Locke wisely said, 'New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.'

[Pornhubby]

I’m just happy to see phtlc posting again.

Chris Christie criticized his fellow Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley on Thursday over her failure to say slavery was the cause of the American Civil War, claiming she did so because “she’s unwilling to offend anyone by telling the truth.”

“She’s smart and she knows better. And she didn’t say it because she’s a racist, because she’s not. I know her well, and I don’t believe Nikki has a racist bone in her body,” the former New Jersey governor said at a town hall event in Epping, New Hampshire.

“The reason she did it is just as bad, if not worse, and should make everybody concerned about her candidacy,” he continued. “She did it because she’s unwilling to offend anyone by telling the truth.”

So what concerns me about everything going on these days is that both ends of the political spectrum are unwilling to speak honestly about things, for fear of angering their base. And our nation’s success and stability, depend on people willing to speak candidly about the issues of the day, and not pander to particular political extremists.

As Barb said so eloquently, “It's simple polemical gamesmanship.”

[MissBarbara]

Political correctness spans a whole host of things.  Sadly, one thing it includes is simply being polite.  So if you hate political correctness, just ask yourself if it is really politeness you hate.

They are not the same thing. I can disagree with you on a sensitive issue, and express thus while still being polite. Political correctness means never voicing opinions certain people disagree with.

Fun Fact: The term "politically correct" was coined by the Nazis. It was used in the context of a new law regarding the granting permits to journalists, and
the law specified that permits would be granted "only to pure 'Aryans' whose opinions are politically correct."

So, you're right: The Nazis certainly referred to "never voicing opinions certain people disagreed with."

Fast forward 85-90 years, and the term is now used pejoratively, as a way of condemning speech one doesn't agree with. It's flip side -- "politically incorrect" -- is also used as a badge of honor, by someone who wishes to say something potentially -- or actually -- offensive, granting themselves permission to speak under the guise of not cow-towing to silly liberal notions.

To take an extreme example, if someone asserts, "You should refer to gay men as faggots because it is offensive," that's not being "politically correct." It is, as Lois suggested, an encouragement to politeness. Yet many who deem themselves "politically incorrect" would object, labeling that statement a suppression of free speech, or an effort by the left to control dialogue.

In this light, it has little to do with respectful disagreement, or intelligent counter-arguing. It's simple polemical gamesmanship.

But ultimately to me in my humble dumb meat brick opinion, I would like to know who is ultimately in charge of what is "politically correct/incorrect?" If you were in a crowd of 100 people and everyone agrees with you, except one who finds your rational debate absolutely offensive, do they have the right beyond any rights and freedoms to label you derogatory for expressing your opinion in your debate. To me the world is tip toeing on eggshells to avoid offending the one person, instead of trying to actually, rationally lay out the differences of opinions and are quick to condemn and close off any consideration. Politeness is important, but not everyone's opinion will ever be taken politely. Its like this:

If I think that humanity is advancing to its own demise, some will nod their heads, while others will be quick to condemn me for speaking what I consider a polite opinion.

But also I think there is a huge difference in being "Polite" to not offend, and the distinct lack of the practice of having Tact, to know what to say to whom. Being polite is important, but having tact is more important. I work with a diverse group of people, some who absolutely disagree with some of my opinions, but instead of having a melt down, we sit and talk it out, and in the end I learn, and they learn and we can be civil and agree to disagree. But no one has the right to tell anyone what to say or how to say it. It should have been taught since birth and forcing it on grown people who should absolutely know how to speak and act in a civil society is the biggest problem.

Also MissB, it dates further back to the Roman Senate where they had a strict code of ethical speaking where if you offended someone it could be a crime, despite most senate meetings devolved into shouting matches.

As John Locke wisely said, 'New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.'

I don't think your opinion is dumb.

However, I think you -- like others -- greatly overestimate the power/authority of those you deem to be enforcing political correctness.

You ask, "Who is ultimately in charge of what is "politically correct/incorrect?"

The answer, of course, is no one. And that's a very good thing. In your example, it doesn't matter whether 99 people or 0 people agree with your statement. And even if 1 of the 100 people condemns your statement, that, too, doesn't matter. That objector's opinion may be legitimate, or it may not be. But, either way, both you are that person are offering opinions, and your right to offer your opinion is as valid as that other person's right to object.

Most important, the best response to "What you say is offensive!" is "That's nice."

I agree with what you say about tact, and I also agree with Lois's main point, above, about respecting other people, and making a personal effort not to offend other people. However, while a general consensus that it is wrong to offend people might exist, you remain free to offend, if you choose to do so.

There's also the difference between the world and the social media world. Depending on the social media site, there are many where if you offer an unpopular or blatantly offensive assertion, you'll get your ass handed to you. But that's what happens on social media, and any reaction you might receive is the fruit of your choice to write what you wrote.

Again, echoing Lois, the essence of political correctness is making an effort to respect other people and not to demean them. That's basic humanity. And the fact that, in many communities, a preponderance of agreement that respecting and not demeaning others is a positive, means that those choosing to be offensive or demeaning put themselves on the outside.

[Writers Bloque]

Political correctness spans a whole host of things.  Sadly, one thing it includes is simply being polite.  So if you hate political correctness, just ask yourself if it is really politeness you hate.

They are not the same thing. I can disagree with you on a sensitive issue, and express thus while still being polite. Political correctness means never voicing opinions certain people disagree with.

Fun Fact: The term "politically correct" was coined by the Nazis. It was used in the context of a new law regarding the granting permits to journalists, and
the law specified that permits would be granted "only to pure 'Aryans' whose opinions are politically correct."

So, you're right: The Nazis certainly referred to "never voicing opinions certain people disagreed with."

Fast forward 85-90 years, and the term is now used pejoratively, as a way of condemning speech one doesn't agree with. It's flip side -- "politically incorrect" -- is also used as a badge of honor, by someone who wishes to say something potentially -- or actually -- offensive, granting themselves permission to speak under the guise of not cow-towing to silly liberal notions.

To take an extreme example, if someone asserts, "You should refer to gay men as faggots because it is offensive," that's not being "politically correct." It is, as Lois suggested, an encouragement to politeness. Yet many who deem themselves "politically incorrect" would object, labeling that statement a suppression of free speech, or an effort by the left to control dialogue.

In this light, it has little to do with respectful disagreement, or intelligent counter-arguing. It's simple polemical gamesmanship.

But ultimately to me in my humble dumb meat brick opinion, I would like to know who is ultimately in charge of what is "politically correct/incorrect?" If you were in a crowd of 100 people and everyone agrees with you, except one who finds your rational debate absolutely offensive, do they have the right beyond any rights and freedoms to label you derogatory for expressing your opinion in your debate. To me the world is tip toeing on eggshells to avoid offending the one person, instead of trying to actually, rationally lay out the differences of opinions and are quick to condemn and close off any consideration. Politeness is important, but not everyone's opinion will ever be taken politely. Its like this:

If I think that humanity is advancing to its own demise, some will nod their heads, while others will be quick to condemn me for speaking what I consider a polite opinion.

But also I think there is a huge difference in being "Polite" to not offend, and the distinct lack of the practice of having Tact, to know what to say to whom. Being polite is important, but having tact is more important. I work with a diverse group of people, some who absolutely disagree with some of my opinions, but instead of having a melt down, we sit and talk it out, and in the end I learn, and they learn and we can be civil and agree to disagree. But no one has the right to tell anyone what to say or how to say it. It should have been taught since birth and forcing it on grown people who should absolutely know how to speak and act in a civil society is the biggest problem.

Also MissB, it dates further back to the Roman Senate where they had a strict code of ethical speaking where if you offended someone it could be a crime, despite most senate meetings devolved into shouting matches.

As John Locke wisely said, 'New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.'

I don't think your opinion is dumb.

However, I think you -- like others -- greatly overestimate the power/authority of those you deem to be enforcing political correctness.

You ask, "Who is ultimately in charge of what is "politically correct/incorrect?"

The answer, of course, is no one. And that's a very good thing. In your example, it doesn't matter whether 99 people or 0 people agree with your statement. And even if 1 of the 100 people condemns your statement, that, too, doesn't matter. That objector's opinion may be legitimate, or it may not be. But, either way, both you are that person are offering opinions, and your right to offer your opinion is as valid as that other person's right to object.

Most important, the best response to "What you say is offensive!" is "That's nice."

I agree with what you say about tact, and I also agree with Lois's main point, above, about respecting other people, and making a personal effort not to offend other people. However, while a general consensus that it is wrong to offend people might exist, you remain free to offend, if you choose to do so.

There's also the difference between the world and the social media world. Depending on the social media site, there are many where if you offer an unpopular or blatantly offensive assertion, you'll get your ass handed to you. But that's what happens on social media, and any reaction you might receive is the fruit of your choice to write what you wrote.

Again, echoing Lois, the essence of political correctness is making an effort to respect other people and not to demean them. That's basic humanity. And the fact that, in many communities, a preponderance of agreement that respecting and not demeaning others is a positive, means that those choosing to be offensive or demeaning put themselves on the outside.

I agree, but the crux of my point is, is that Where does it end? and What if you are trying to tell someone the truth without demeaning them in any way, and they cry foul for saying an innocuous truth? I mean I think we should all be civil to each other, but with tact and not have to try not to offend deliberately, because if you are being civil, then the discourse will remain civil or should, but who knows anymore. 

[MissBarbara]

I agree, but the crux of my point is, is that Where does it end? and What if you are trying to tell someone the truth without demeaning them in any way, and they cry foul for saying an innocuous truth? I mean I think we should all be civil to each other, but with tact and not have to try not to offend deliberately, because if you are being civil, then the discourse will remain civil or should, but who knows anymore.

Why do you feel compelled to tell someone the truth if it might potentially demean them, or it might offend them?

At the same time, if the person's objection to your "truth" is to cry foul, why does it matter? If their objection is reasonable, then it's food for thought. If it's not, then just roll your eyes, or laugh.

Believe me, I live in a liberal city and I work in a very liberal institution. While I do my fair share of eye-rolling, the situation is nowhere near as extreme or extensive as many make it out to be.

[Writers Bloque]

I agree, but the crux of my point is, is that Where does it end? and What if you are trying to tell someone the truth without demeaning them in any way, and they cry foul for saying an innocuous truth? I mean I think we should all be civil to each other, but with tact and not have to try not to offend deliberately, because if you are being civil, then the discourse will remain civil or should, but who knows anymore.

Why do you feel compelled to tell someone the truth if it might potentially demean them, or it might offend them?

At the same time, if the person's objection to your "truth" is to cry foul, why does it matter? If their objection is reasonable, then it's food for thought. If it's not, then just roll your eyes, or laugh.

Believe me, I live in a liberal city and I work in a very liberal institution. While I do my fair share of eye-rolling, the situation is nowhere near as extreme or extensive as many make it out to be.

Because I would rather take the L for telling the truth than to lie to someone when they expect honesty from me.

An Example:

This past Christmas. I was drawn into an anti-vax argument with my cousin who attempted to blame a GENETIC condition my niece was born with on vaccines. My niece has Di George syndrome, or the abbreviation of either the 21 or 22 chromosome. The worst case with the syndrome is spina bifida or cleft palette. My niece got lucky, and was only mentally and emotionally disabled by it. She is 18 with the mental and emotional maturity of an eleven year old. She might have to live in an assisted care facility if my brother or father pass on. My cousin spent an hour on her tirade about how vaccines are dangerous, and her knowing my stance, but not actually comprehending it fully, took it that I agreed with her. I dont.

Some of the worlds worst diseases for children were wiped out in one or two generations because of vaccines. Polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. I fully vaccinated my children when it came time to. Its not the vaccine I have issue with for covid, its the fact that covid was spreading like wild fire, and the best they came up with was in my opinion a joke compared to those angels who stomped out polio, or measles. Not that I think the covid vaccines are bad, but to me kind of rushed. But I have no problems with it, or those who got them. I got covid two years ago, and I said never again, even though my symptoms was mostly severe vertigo, to the point where I could not bend over, or I would faceplant. on top my bad leg it was not something I wanted to do again.

So I calmly and politely set my eggnog down, and truthfully told her that they do not vaccinate embryos in development. I told her that the center of her debate was flawed, since she was trying to appeal to emotions, rather than using any sort of factual evidence to support her argument. Then she (she is a member of a church that is so out there, that it would melt minds to try to find any logic in it. I am a Pentecostal man, but her throwing that God forbids vaccines almost made me laugh angrily. So I retorted that if god did not like vaccines, then why did he allow it to be discovered. She could not answer. It took every ounce of will I could muster to not start screaming at her. So I said my piece and went in for seconds on some awesome exploded snowman desert. It was cherry jello mixed with whipped cream, marshmallows and fruit. It did not set well, and it looked like frosty was in Mortal Kombat, and was exploded.

I tend to hold a naive belief that If I tell the truth, hopefully others would be truthful with me. Because without honesty, the ground in a civil discourse can never be even, and without even ground, no one learns anything but how to lie further. In my honest opinion.

MissB, I love your discourse on this. I respect you for it. I honestly think that if more people thought along the lines you do, then we probably would not have this discussion, and could sit back with a warmed and spiced brandy, complaining about how its exactly ten degrees colder than last year.

[Pornhubby]

I recently took the deposition of a Pentecostal minister. By the time I through cross-examining him about seeing visions, speaking with God daily, prophesying, speaking in tongues, casting out devils, anointing people with oil to heal them, etc., his lawyer was pretty upset.

I spent six years at my mother’s Pentecostal church. It’s pretty far out there. Don’t want any holy rollers on this jury.

[MissBarbara]

I agree, but the crux of my point is, is that Where does it end? and What if you are trying to tell someone the truth without demeaning them in any way, and they cry foul for saying an innocuous truth? I mean I think we should all be civil to each other, but with tact and not have to try not to offend deliberately, because if you are being civil, then the discourse will remain civil or should, but who knows anymore.

Why do you feel compelled to tell someone the truth if it might potentially demean them, or it might offend them?

At the same time, if the person's objection to your "truth" is to cry foul, why does it matter? If their objection is reasonable, then it's food for thought. If it's not, then just roll your eyes, or laugh.

Believe me, I live in a liberal city and I work in a very liberal institution. While I do my fair share of eye-rolling, the situation is nowhere near as extreme or extensive as many make it out to be.

Because I would rather take the L for telling the truth than to lie to someone when they expect honesty from me.

An Example:

This past Christmas. I was drawn into an anti-vax argument with my cousin who attempted to blame a GENETIC condition my niece was born with on vaccines. My niece has Di George syndrome, or the abbreviation of either the 21 or 22 chromosome. The worst case with the syndrome is spina bifida or cleft palette. My niece got lucky, and was only mentally and emotionally disabled by it. She is 18 with the mental and emotional maturity of an eleven year old. She might have to live in an assisted care facility if my brother or father pass on. My cousin spent an hour on her tirade about how vaccines are dangerous, and her knowing my stance, but not actually comprehending it fully, took it that I agreed with her. I dont.

Some of the worlds worst diseases for children were wiped out in one or two generations because of vaccines. Polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. I fully vaccinated my children when it came time to. Its not the vaccine I have issue with for covid, its the fact that covid was spreading like wild fire, and the best they came up with was in my opinion a joke compared to those angels who stomped out polio, or measles. Not that I think the covid vaccines are bad, but to me kind of rushed. But I have no problems with it, or those who got them. I got covid two years ago, and I said never again, even though my symptoms was mostly severe vertigo, to the point where I could not bend over, or I would faceplant. on top my bad leg it was not something I wanted to do again.

So I calmly and politely set my eggnog down, and truthfully told her that they do not vaccinate embryos in development. I told her that the center of her debate was flawed, since she was trying to appeal to emotions, rather than using any sort of factual evidence to support her argument. Then she (she is a member of a church that is so out there, that it would melt minds to try to find any logic in it. I am a Pentecostal man, but her throwing that God forbids vaccines almost made me laugh angrily. So I retorted that if god did not like vaccines, then why did he allow it to be discovered. She could not answer. It took every ounce of will I could muster to not start screaming at her. So I said my piece and went in for seconds on some awesome exploded snowman desert. It was cherry jello mixed with whipped cream, marshmallows and fruit. It did not set well, and it looked like frosty was in Mortal Kombat, and was exploded.

I tend to hold a naive belief that If I tell the truth, hopefully others would be truthful with me. Because without honesty, the ground in a civil discourse can never be even, and without even ground, no one learns anything but how to lie further. In my honest opinion.

MissB, I love your discourse on this. I respect you for it. I honestly think that if more people thought along the lines you do, then we probably would not have this discussion, and could sit back with a warmed and spiced brandy, complaining about how its exactly ten degrees colder than last year.

"A warmed and spiced brandy"?

God, no. A nice glass of Jameson with one ice cube. It's warm and cool, smoky and delightful, with just a hint of sweetness.

What you describe here is tragically common. But it's not "political correctness." It is, with all due respect to your cousin, aggressive ignorance and blatant science denial.

And it's doubly-tragic, since your cousin's ignorance, which is likely politically-based, and not scientifically-based, could have tragic consequences for her daughter. In that light, you were almost compelled to say something, since it directly impacted on another person.

Of course, there are times when we don't say what we want to say for the sake of family unity or friendship. But that's not "political correctness," either.

I, too, appreciate this discussion, and your courteous and intelligent replies.

[phtlc]

Fast forward 85-90 years, and the term is now used pejoratively, as a way of condemning speech one doesn't agree with. It's flip side -- "politically incorrect" -- is also used as a badge of honor, by someone who wishes to say something potentially -- or actually -- offensive, granting themselves permission to speak under the guise of not cow-towing to silly liberal notions. To take an extreme example, if someone asserts, "You should refer to gay men as faggots because it is offensive," that's not being "politically correct." It is, as Lois suggested, an encouragement to politeness. Yet many who deem themselves "politically incorrect" would object, labeling that statement a suppression of free speech, or an effort by the left to control dialogue.
In this light, it has little to do with respectful disagreement, or intelligent counter-arguing. It's simple polemical gamesmanship.
[/b]

 I agree that there are some individuals who use “anti political correctness’ as a justification for spewing intolerant views, up here in Canada most people who object to “political correctness” are simply objecting to the fact that they cannot make arguments on sensitive topics without risking their careers.

However, I think you -- like others -- greatly overestimate the power/authority of those you deem to be enforcing political correctness.

It’s hard to debate this with you as I am speaking from a Canadian perspective (where our conservatives are to the left of your democrats), but up here, expressing the “wrong” opinion can lead to being fired even under circumstances where the “reasonable” person can see that the person was not being intolerant.

God, no. A nice glass of Jameson with one ice cube. It's warm and cool, smoky and delightful, with just a hint of sweetness.

Ice?!?!?!?!?!?

Really?!?!?!?!?

Why would you do that?!?!?!?

Granted Jameson is not a top whiskey, but why would you put ice in it? It’s like putting pineapple with pizza!

[Pornhubby]

Granted Jameson is not a top whiskey, but why would you put ice in it? It’s like putting pineapple with pizza!

Apparently, a lot of people like pineapple.