Here is what dictionary.com offers:
politically correct
adj. Abbr. PC
Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.
To me, it’s just being polite. The people that have objected to “political correctness” usually just tried to tell a joke about blacks or gays, and got a dirty look.
To be politically correct is to use certain language (terminology) which is less likely to offend a greater number of people, when other language, while technically correct, may be offensive to some.
Some terms which are generally regarded as indictative of “PC” language:
“Differently abled”
“Correctional Facility”
“Happy Holidays”
“Humankind”
PS: It’s bad, when a perfectly good word is no longer able to be used in speech because the speaker is subject to violent attack.
An example of PC being bad:
Oh how soon you forget, or are too young to remember.
I was in college around 1989 or 1990 when I first heard the phrase “politically correct” and it invariabably referred to action as well as speech.
One example that stuck in my mind was that it wasn’t politically correct, according to a certain lefty campus paper, to patronize a certain coffeehouse because some of their coffee was grown in El Salvador.
The correctness of said speech and behavior, of course, is to be set by those who have been enlightened by years of study in postmodern deconstructionist feminism, of course. And vetted by meetings at the local Green Party headquarters.
We now look at this as somewhat rediculous, but I found this frighteningly Orwellian at the time. Control the way someone speaks and the way he behaves, ansd you’re well on the way toward controlling the way he thinks.
Political correctness is the right thing to do when a person is truly and actually offended by something. It is a very bad thing to do, however, if the “victim” is simply looking to abuse the system for power, recognition, or personal glory.
Personally, I see only a few words and phrases that have been historically and commonly used to offend particular ethnic groups. The usage of these should be opposed.
But, the large majority of phrases are harmless and should be ignored until and unless their usage increases to the point where they are commonly used and vulgar.
People tend to get offended very easily nowadays. :rolleyes:
As often in an ox fight, it depends on whose ox is being gored.
There has been an attempt on a number of school campuses to restrict “hate speech” with the original worthy intention of reducing the amount of verbal intimidation that some students could inflict on others. This has led, in some cases, to utterly absurd situations. (The "niggardly"example, above, is not so much a case of Political Correctness as sheer ignorance. Nigger is a hateful term and mistaking niggard for nigger is an example of abysmal ignorance.) However, there have been genuine cases of PC run amok, as in the case of the Penn State student who was reprimanded for calling a bunch of boisterous drunks “water buffalo” when he was a white male and the drunks were black females. (This led to some really strained attempts by some twits to create a “racist” epithet out of a word that had no history of racial connotations, hurled at loud drunks–giving opponents of PC legitimate ammunition in some cases for their outrage.)
In these cases, PC is generally a negative term applied by the Right (with some reason) to language issues raised by the Left.
On the other hand, in some cases, PC is nothing more than consideration, as noted by Hugh Jass. There have been any number of insulting terms for various people that are no longer used in polite society. Ethnic slurs, referring to women (especially in a professional capacity) as “girls” or “broads,” dismissive terms based on physical disabilities, referring to homosexuals as faggots or dykes: all these have been put under tabu. (Claims by the bigots on the Right that we are “not allowed” to use some terms are, of course, nonsense. While the terms African-American and Native American are preferred by some people, the terms black and Indian are actually preferred by majorities of the people who could be so identified and claims that we “can’t” use those words are hysterical whines (generally from people who would prefer to use nigger and redskin).)
On the other hand, the Right has its own form of political correctness (which actually preceded the Left’s PC) that generally involves making tabu any negative references to actions that are not perceived as suffiiciently patriotic or religious. We simply have not yet come up with a scathing term for the Right’s censorship.
In some cases, there are claims made against PC that are, themselves, utterly stupid. A number of terms for people with physical or mental handicaps have undergone a continuous process of re-invention, with successive terms used in an attempt to remove the stigma associated with the earlier terms. This attempt to find non-pejorative terms extends back into the nineteenth century and long preceded the Political Correctness movement that only got going in the mid to late 1970s. When someone moans because they can no longer call a person with Down Syndrome “dummy” because it is not “politically correct,” they are not merely abusing the phrase “politically correct,” they are displaying an abysmal ignorance of the changes in language that preceded the PC movement. (On the other hand, I will note that the contiuous process of changing terminology is pretty much a waste of time and energy. As soon as “mentally challenged” was put forth as a term, it immediately became a joke phrase used to mean “stupid.” Years and years ago, the slowed development of some people was noted in their “retarded development” which almost instantly became the playground catcall, “REE-taaaard!”)
Some PC is politeness and some PC is an attempt at “mind control.” There is not a single answer to cover every application, because so many people use the phrase to mean different things.
It’s perjorative term, so asking if it’s good or bad makes as much since as asking if perverts are good or bad. Thus, the epithet “political correctness” is just a tool re-marignalize minorities. Anything that respects someone other than a Christian white male is smeared with that term. The Sacajawea dollar was “politically correct” because it featured an Native American woman. Recognizing that not everyone celebrates Christmas is “politically correct”. John Stewart on the Justice League is “politically correct” just because he’s black. By only aknowledging straight white males, you can cleanly avoid the stink of political correctness. I know that sounds cliched and conspiracy theory-like, but it’s not necessarily something that arose as a consious conspiracy; just a naturaly spreading trend among individuals.
The whole movement is flawed, as it is based on the supposition that one should be able to go through life without being offended.
That concept is offensive to me!
I’d rather use my ability to ignore something offensive, as opposed to asking everyone to observe my personal value system.
Political Correctness consists of making up reasons to criticise or hate someone when any tangible or coherent excuse is lacking.
Wow, Spoofe! That’s very impressive, so succinct, so direct! Unencumbered by the nonsense so many Dopers use to obscure thier opinions…you know, cites, quotes, authorities, silly crap like that. But not you! Nosirree, Bob, you just lay it out, cut and dried, staight from the shoulder…
Was it Berkely? Did they cook this up in Berkely? I’ll bet it was Berkely. They were sitting around, trying to come up with some way to criticize and hate perfectly innocent citizens and then somebody has a brilliant idea…(Was it Angela Davis? You can tell me, SPOOFE…)…of inventing an Orwellian doublespeak to intimidate and humiliate thier upstanding, patriotic, real American mortal enemies!
Oh, those cunning rascals! No wonder they succeeded in flouridating our water so easily! We should all be grateful to alert and vigilant Americans who can penetrate these conspiracies so readily, and advise us with such economy of verbiage!
So the Red Scare is PC? The Yellow Menace is PC? Rush Limbaugh is being PC when he reviles “feminazis”? Jim Crow laws are PC?
Interesting.
Well I think that any limitation of free speech is a bad thing. Yes, yes, we all know about the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater scenario, but the result there is physical harm to others. Although words can certainly hurt someone emotionally, that can’t be measured to any discernible degree (physical harm, on the other hand, can certainly be proven in court). And besides, everyone has a different threshold for being offended.
In certain situations, laws that limit free speech are useful. For example, workplace harassment laws should exist to protect people from unfair treatment via potential discrimination. But even in these situations the whole PC argument is really irrelevant. A single word wouldn’t really make a difference in a relationship. But actions, even minor ones, can be very damaging to a person if they are continuous. So harassment can exist without the presence of any un-PC language.
It seems ridiculous, however, to punish someone for using unacceptable speech, as many colleges do. Too often, the verbal abuse hurled at someone who lets slip an un-PC term is even more offensive than the term itself. The PC laws may have been helpful in fighting racial intolerance in the 70s, but they now seem to exist (and be perpertuated by) solely for the advantage of certain groups.
tomndebb: The Red Scare and Jim Crow laws are not examples of political correctness, but they are examples of limitations on free speech.
Based on SPOOFE’s definition, the Red Scare and Jim Crow laws are PC. (Of course, that just might mean the definition needs some work.)
We have PC laws? Or do you mean that a number of individual institutions have imposed rules on their staff and clients? I do not recall any PC laws passed by Congress.
Elements of PC speech seems too much like newspeak to me- attempts to nullify or avoid the debate controlling, dictating the terms in which the debate will be conducted.
Overlooked examples of PC speech that I personally find annoying:
homicide bomber for suicide bomber
Most successful bombers are homicide bombers, (unless their goal was only to destroy property), whether they plant a mine, or drop a bomb out of a USAF jet. Homicide just means that they killed someone else with their explosive. To use homicide bomber for suicide bomber removes an essential element of meaning, the suicide. Limiting the term of the debate in this way removes an important aspect of reality from the language of the discussion. IMHO, this is, at best and at least, disingenuous.
insisting that US’s military, foreign policy venture in Iraq be described as a liberation rather than an invasion
Even if you choose to think of the venture as a liberation of Iraq, there was still an invasion. You know, tens of thousands of armed soldiers violently inserted into a country, guns, tanks, bombs, planes, missiles and all the accoutrements of modern warfare. You know, an in-va-sion.
Maybe this should go to the Pit.
No, of course I meant rules present on college campuses. But, in a certain sense, they are laws. After all, if a professor loses his job for un-PC speech (and there have been some very unreasonable instances of this), is it not an undue limitation on his freedom of speech? I feel that our society is increasingly concerned with banning specific words instead of actually looking at people’s behavior. So what if someone uses the word “nigger”? It may offend you, but you should also consider why it offends you.
Or, to use a personal example, take the issue of gay rights. I am very much for gay marriage and hope that gay people will finally be accepted by society and treated just like heterosexuals. Yet, I still crack gay jokes and freely use words like “fag” and “dyke.” Granted, the “anti-gay” jokes are said in a more or less sarcastic tone, but the point is that I use words that are un-PC but still support what are ostensibly (socially) liberal causes.
It’s interesting that while many liberals trumpet that “the personal is the political,” they don’t seem to be as willing to apply the same logic where free speech is concerned. If one does not like another person’s opinions or the way in which they are expressed, one need not maintain a relationship with that person. Seems much more sensible than trying to institute your own rules.
Invasion and Liberation are not mutually exclusion. Even when you say the words r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y.
Exactly my point.
Thanks for reading.