Political Correctness

[bloodyminded]

My understanding of this term is that it was coined by progressives as a bit of a poke at themselves, particularly on issues of identity politics...notably race and gender issues. (To be more accurate, they didn't coin it, but re-invigorated a largely unknown term to poke fun at themselves).

Poking fun aside, it is a really-existing phenomenon.

But the term has changed meaning...and become so promiscuously used and unstable in denotation that it has to be looked at in a different way.

No longer is it restricted to issues of identity politics, of leftish 1980's convention of "correct" thought. It is now a weapon waged against the Left...but containing the seeds of its own application to the entire political spectrum, notably the political Right. Let me explain:

"Politically correct" now refers to any number of expressed ideas, of virtually any left-leaning analysis of both domestic and foreign events and policies.

To even argue with somebody about issues of race and gender is often dubbed "political correctness"....an astonishingly lazy "argument" designed to shut down debate, to chill the atmosphere and rhetorically intimidate those making charges of racism or sexism.

That is, anti-political correctness has itself begun to take on the attributes of political correctness.

Further, it has been wildly expanded. So if one opposes the war in Afghanistan, one can be accused of "political correctness," a label here used so unfairly that it beggars belief.

Those who accuse others of "political correctness" tend too often to view themselves as courageous defenders of speech, as opposing the ugly notion of "thoughtcrimes," and following good old-fashioned "common sense." (Beware those who continually claim "common sense" as an ideological defense. Hopefully I don't have to explain why.)

But in fact, there is nothing courageous about lazily invoking "PC" as an attribute of everything one's political opponents stands for. When I was completely supportive of the war in Afghanistan, it took no courage. Zero. Supporting and defending a war fought by the most powerful agents on Earth is not an act of courage...whether one is correct or not is irrelevant to notions of "bravery." This seems obvious enough. Further, I too have railed against "political correctness" in its traditional sense, and I can state unequivocally that it takes no guts, none at all. Again, this is aside from the question of whether one is correct in one's assessment.

At any rate, "political correctness" no longer is an attribute solely, or even mostly, of the political Left. If the complaints against it are valid (and I think they are, if the pejorative is used correctly, which it so often is not) then the "left" premise doesn't work.

Consider: the premise cannot be "political correctness is bad; it's a leftist phenomenon; so the Left is politically correct."

And that does seem to be the premise...by lazy thinkers frightened of examining the sacred cows that have served them so well in debate.

No, if political correctness is bad, it must be that something is bad about it...not that it's "Left-wing."

What's bad about it? Well, it's any argument, implicit as well as explicit, in which certain conventions of thought are held to be so inarguable, so lacking in complexities and nuance, that those who disagree feel chilled out of the discussion. They are cowed, or else frustrated that the attempt is to cow them.

For example--sticking to its older usage: if someone says "opposing affirmative action makes you a racist"....that is political correctness, and is patently unfair and bullying.

However, if you oppose it, and I disagree with you--that is, if I were to express support for affirmative action---that is not "political correctness." That's my political opinion. Political opinion, however orthodox to part of the political spectrum, is not political correctness. PC is not about opinion, but about method of debate, about the atmosphere created to try to shut up those who dissent.

At any rate, PC as pejorative has moved well beyonhd such issues of identity politics. Believe that the prevailing orthodoxies on capitalism to be woefully mistaken? Political correctness. Consider the wealthy, democratic powers to have violently imperial motives? Political correctness. Oppose a war? Political correctness. Defend the Palestinians? Political correctness. Think Palin is stupid? Political correctness.

It's absurd.

Further, if what is really the problem with PC is not "being a leftist," but rather focussed on what the intents and effects of PC are, we see it all the time, continually, daily, from the political Right, and from the political Centre, too.

Your criticism of Israel makes you an anti-semite?

That's political correctness.

Don't you support the troops? Or, "The troops have more honour in their little finger than you have in...blah blah blah..."

That's political correctness.

Pointing out the clear defense of and support for terrorism by the Western powers?

That's "moral equivalency" (virtually a nonsense term, by the way)...and is a type of leftist "political correctness"?

But in fact, that argument is political correctness...that is, the angry attribution of political correctness is here actually itself a type of political correctness. It's meant to cow the debater and shut down the discussion.

At bottom, we can say that PC is the black and white, austere notion that "some things shouldn't be said," allowing one a fallacious high ground in debate; an insistence that to dissent agaisnt conventional pieties is a sin, and proof of iniquity.

Believe me, that is not in any way the province of the political Left.

But as Hemingway wrote, "Isn't it pretty to think so"?

[Michael Hardner]

Political Correctness started out as a form of etiquette and social politeness - how to refer to people so as not to offend, and so on. It was politicized by the time George Bush Sr. referred to it in a political speech in the early 90s.

I never could figure out what the establishment found so threatening about it. By the time it became known as a "weapon against the left", the main purposes of PC had been achieved, and the general population was aware that it was polite to acknowledge and accommodate minorities and the marginalized.

Political dogma happens on both sides, as you point out, but what brings an end to such dogmas ? Maybe success OR failure ?

[bloodyminded]

Political Correctness started out as a form of etiquette and social politeness - how to refer to people so as not to offend, and so on. It was politicized by the time George Bush Sr. referred to it in a political speech in the early 90s.

I never could figure out what the establishment found so threatening about it. By the time it became known as a "weapon against the left", the main purposes of PC had been achieved, and the general population was aware that it was polite to acknowledge and accommodate minorities and the marginalized.

Political dogma happens on both sides, as you point out, but what brings an end to such dogmas ? Maybe success OR failure ?

Sure, and I think everyone would agree that political dogma happens on both sides.

It's when you get specifically into "political correctness"--as the term is used now--and point out that the right, and the centrre, are easily as egregious as is the Left in its use...that's the part many people don't seem to see, until it's illustrated for them. For years, calling out "political correctness" (not always accurately) has been a cherished code for "the left," rather than for unsavoury debating tactics themselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

Political Correctness started out as a form of etiquette and social politeness - how to refer to people so as not to offend, and so on. It was politicized by the time George Bush Sr. referred to it in a political speech in the early 90s....

No...the term is far older than that, and was far more purposeful and aggressive. It is a second or third order product of any maturing political or social process.

The terms 'politically correct' and 'political correctness', in the sense defined above, entered the language via the U.S. feminist and other left-wing movements of the 1970s. The use of 'PC' language quickly spread to other parts of the industrialized world. The terms had been used previously though. The previous meaning was 'in line with prevailing political thought or policy'. I.e. the terms previously used 'correctness' in its literal sense and without any particular reference to language that some might consider illiberal or discriminatory. That usage dates back to the 18th century. For example, J. Wilson's comments in U.S. Republic, 1793:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html

[August1991]

Sure, and I think everyone would agree that political dogma happens on both sides.

It's when you get specifically into "political correctness"--as the term is used now--and point out that the right, and the centrre, are easily as egregious as is the Left in its use...that's the part many people don't seem to see, until it's illustrated for them. For years, calling out "political correctness" (not always accurately) has been a cherished code for "the left," rather than for unsavoury debating tactics themselves.

Dogmatism happens everywhere but the particular dogmatism of political correctness is typically leftist.

Why?

Because leftists typically want to improve individuals and society and make the world a better place. Political correctness is a synonym for progressiveness, as if human beings are perfectible (and I say that with a hint of sarcasm).

----

On a related note, I have been thinking about how both the modern Left and Right in North America have drawn two very different but legitimate lessons from World War II.

The Right has taken to heart the consequences of appeasement and Chamberlain. The French and British in the 1930s, tired of bloodbaths, chose to avoid another war despite the Nazi threat. North America's Right understands that this was a grave error, and it is better to confront bullies early, rather than later.

At the same time, North America's Left has drawn a different lesson from World War II and Nazism. For the Left, the Nazi regime and the Holocaust are horrific examples of what can happen when we treat people differently, along racial or religious lines. For the Left, all people should be treated the same, regardless of who they are.

At its base, political correctness is North American Leftist, and has at its origins a reaction to the Nazi death camps.

----

BTW, the term "political correctness" is difficult to translate into other languages. It's also typically North American. In French in Quebec, it is sometimes translated awkwardly as la rectitude politique. The term simply doesn't exist in Russian.

IMHO, political correctness manages to mix the righteous purity of Lutheran Protestants and the intimidating morality of Roman Catholics. No wonder that Canada's English Left are strong adepts of political correctness.

Edited September 12, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

The term simply doesn't exist in Russian.

That is of course because Russians have no use for such a term. There is no "political correctness" in Russia. The term for a black person is "negar", the term for a Jew is "ivrei" (a racial reference to ancient Israeli tribes), and Russia would not have it otherwise. Racism remains completely socially acceptable in Russia.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Bonam

[August1991]

That is of course because Russians have no use for such a term... Racism remains completely socially acceptable in Russia.

So you are prejudiced against Russians, just as the Nazis were prejudiced against Jews.

[bloodyminded]

Dogmatism happens everywhere but the particular dogmatism of political correctness is typically leftist.

Why?

No, it isn't. I went into this in some detail in the opening post. You take on none of the points raised.

Because leftists typically want to improve individuals and society and make the world a better place. Political correctness is a synonym for progressiveness

No, it isn't. That argument might have held water decades ago, but matters have changed...thanks to the people who use it a pejorative to mean "the left," exactly as you are doing here.

It's a convenient formulation, isn't it?: "Political correctness is bad; political correctness is synonymous with Progressivism; progressives are therefore by definition ensconced inextricably in political correctness; progressives are therefore bad."

That's a tautology, August, and so carries no useful information.

"Political correctness" as an epithet (which it practially universally is at this point) is about method of discourse; it's about proclaiming that certain ideas and opinions are "correct," and that to deviate from them is to automatically lose, and be chilled out of discussion through rhetorical intimidation.

Not a specifically "leftist" or "progressive" phenomenon at all.

For example: "You don't even care about our troops!" (A regular refrain.)

That's political correctness. Precisely that.

Or "criticism of Israel is anti-semitic."

More political correctness. And designed as such.

Or if I say racism still exists in Canada against the Native People--not exactly a radical hypothesis--I can be guaranteed to be named "politically correct" by some wag here. But saying that there remains racism agaisnt the Native people is not in any way, shape or form "political correctness." It's a political opinion, not a freezing out of alternate opinions.

And sicne no one wants to be termed "politically correct," and so might try to avoid issues which will incorreclty get rthem labelled as such, has resulted in folks prefacing all their opinions with tons of qualifiers and so on; in effect, labelling people as "political correct" has itself become a type of political correctness....because what matters is the intent and effect of holding the "correct" opinions. It makes no difference whatsoever from what side of the fence those opinions have their genesis.

The Right has taken to heart the consequences of appeasement and Chamberlain. The French and British in the 1930s, tired of bloodbaths, chose to avoid another war despite the Nazi threat. North America's Right understands that this was a grave error, and it is better to confront bullies early, rather than later.

There is an unexamined premise here, an elephant so large I'm afraid only the indoctrinated among us could fail to see it.

Your premise--which is quite explicit--is that the tiny global minority called "the North American Right" is not only correct (as opposed to overwhelming global opinion generally, by any measures we can perceive); it is noble. It's intentions are Just and Benign. The itnentions? To fight evil, on one side, and naivety and appeasement on the other. You know, the rest of the planet, all falling into these two camps, except for the North American Right.

You know this because....powerful people and their little coterie of intellectual defenders have stated it. Therefore it's true. QED.

It's the philosophy of the Commissar. No difference at all.

[Argus]

But the term has changed meaning...and become so promiscuously used and unstable in denotation that it has to be looked at in a different way.

You mean like terms like "racist" and "homophobe" and "islamophobe"?

"Politically correct" now refers to any number of expressed ideas, of virtually any left-leaning analysis of both domestic and foreign events and policies.

No it does not. It is generally used to refer to an expressed idea which seems mindless in intent, polispeak, an expression of what the speaker believes to be the "politically correct" viewpoint, but which the speaker does not actually understand and has put no real thought into. It's a reflex position taken by people on the Left.

To even argue with somebody about issues of race and gender is often dubbed "political correctness"....an astonishingly lazy "argument"

For the most part, when the PC term is used it comes after the leftie catchward "racist" used intemperately by certain Left wing supporters against any and all arguments they discern as being offensive to this or that minority group. This includes any call to limit immigration, for example, or any complaints about immigrants who commit crimes, or in fact, any expressed suspicion or doubts about foreigners (unless they're white and Christian).

Have a look at the following story. These people are the poster children for political correctness.

National Post

designed to shut down debate, to chill the atmosphere and rhetorically intimidate those making charges of racism or sexism.

Irony. You're complaining about an attempt to shut down debate against people who use charges of racism to shut down debates. Those making charges of racism and sexism are normally people who absolutely can not stand the thought of debate or discussion, who regard anyone who disagrees with them as inherently evil.

Those who accuse others of "political correctness" tend too often to view themselves as courageous defenders of speech, as opposing the ugly notion of "thoughtcrimes,"

And often are. When the Left has people who want to make it a crime to express your opinion, to offend people, to even disagree about matters like global warming. Many on the Left have little patience for the concept of free speech because of their intolerance to any speech which challenges their ideology and beliefs.

At any rate, PC as pejorative has moved well beyonhd such issues of identity politics. Believe that the prevailing orthodoxies on capitalism to be woefully mistaken? Political correctness. Consider the wealthy, democratic powers to have violently imperial motives? Political correctness. Oppose a war? Political correctness. Defend the Palestinians? Political correctness. Think Palin is stupid? Political correctness.

It's absurd.

Well, it -would- be, if those examples were realistic. They're not. There might be some few individuals who will use the PC term for such things, but I've rarely seen it. Oppose the war? Well, that depends why. I suppose if one has that generally reflexive anti-militarist sense of much of the Left your opposition could be based on political correctness. But not necessarily. Anyway, I've never seen it used thusly. I think Palin is an idiot and I'm pretty shaky in supporting the war myself. I think much about capitalism is mistaken and a lot of bankers and brokers ought to be in prison, but I doubt many consider me to be politically correct, and no one has ever used the term to me.

Your criticism of Israel makes you an anti-semite?

That's political correctness.

What if you ARE an anti-Semite? As the saying goes, not everyone who hates Israel is an anti-Semite but all anti-Semites hate Israel.

And frankly, much of the western criticism of Israel IS politically correct, based on the reflexive anti-militarism born of the 60s which sees men in uniform with guns to be evil, and "the little guy" who opposes them to be good. It's a reflexive support for the underdog against an "militarized American lackey", and it's the product of unceasing television coverage which confuses the foolish into thinking what happens there is so much more shocking than what happens all over the world every day. Nobody gave a damn when Iraq and Iran were slaughtering each others people by the tens of thousands, but let one Palestinian rock thrower catch a bullet and the indignant protesters are out in force.

Pointing out the clear defense of and support for terrorism by the Western powers?

That's "moral equivalency" (virtually a nonsense term, by the way)...and is a type of leftist "political correctness"?

I don't think I've used the PC term for that. I might have used moronic, stupid, and pointless, though. And yes, it is moral equivalence. It's the same sort of thing which happens whenever anyone complains about Muslim political violence. Some politically correct type will instantly leap - superhero like - to the defense of Islam, even if he has to dredge up Christian political violence a thousand years in the past to do it, waving it triumphantly, jaw thrust out heroically, trumpets blowing, no doubt, at least in his own mind.

And so stretching the facts to try and make the argument that western governments are as enthusiastic as Muslim ones in supporting terrorism is basically saying "Oh stop complaining about those nice Muslims! They're no worse than us! We do exactly the same sorts of things! So no actions against them are justified."

But like it or not there is a vast moral difference between propping up an ugly government, and standing around a table plotting how to get a mentally retarded suicide bomber into a disco full of teenagers so he can blow everyone up.

. It's meant to cow the debater and shut down the discussion.

I think it's meant to convey the contempt for the suggestion, actually.

At bottom, we can say that PC is the black and white, austere notion that "some things shouldn't be said," allowing one a fallacious high ground in debate; an insistence that to dissent agaisnt conventional pieties is a sin, and proof of iniquity.

Or it's a dismissal of mindless, brainless, thoughtless Leftist Kant which is unsupported by evidence or reality.

[Michael Hardner]

No...the term is far older than that, and was far more purposeful and aggressive. It is a second or third order product of any maturing political or social process.

The terms 'politically correct' and 'political correctness', in the sense defined above, entered the language via the U.S. feminist and other left-wing movements of the 1970s. The use of 'PC' language quickly spread to other parts of the industrialized world. The terms had been used previously though. The previous meaning was 'in line with prevailing political thought or policy'. I.e. the terms previously used 'correctness' in its literal sense and without any particular reference to language that some might consider illiberal or discriminatory. That usage dates back to the 18th century. For example, J. Wilson's comments in U.S. Republic, 1793:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html

Yes, I remember having a professor refer to it in the early 1980s - but as an extension of grammar - i.e. using gender neutral language in essays and so on.

[bloodyminded]

You mean like terms like "racist" and "homophobe" and "islamophobe"?

Your first response sums up the error that pervades the entirety of your argument: an error, I'm afraid, that is only possible if you did not carefully read my post.

So (to repeat, since I was already perfectly clear): I am not saying there is no use of political correctness from the Left. I didn't hint at, vaguely suggest it, nor coyly imply it in any way.

I said it was not restricted to the left.

It is generally used to refer to an expressed idea which seems mindless in intent, polispeak, an expression of what the speaker believes to be the "politically correct" viewpoint, but which the speaker does not actually understand and has put no real thought into. It's a reflex position taken by people on the Left.

Your first sentence is, I think, broadly correct. your second is your own thoroughly unexamined premise, and is dead wrong.

Irony. You're complaining about an attempt to shut down debate against people who use charges of racism to shut down debates.

No I'm not. On the contrary. In fact, while quoting my post, you conveniently left out an example I gave, and which rather undermines your cheap and lazy point here:

for example, if someone says "opposing affirmative action makes you a racist"....that is political correctness, and is patently unfair and bullying.

However, Argus, this doesn't mean that ALL complaints about racism or bigotry are automatically "political correctness," based on "reflexivity" and ill-thought out ideas. Hell, we on this board have all read racist comments, by at least one or two posters...that is, almost all of us agree that these one or two posters have been expressing racist and bigoted opinions.

Hell, here's YOU, later, in the same post:

What if you ARE an anti-Semite? As the saying goes, not everyone who hates Israel is an anti-Semite but all anti-Semites hate Israel.

Are you being politically correct, Argus?

I don't think so....but by your own standards, you certainly do.

Those making charges of racism and sexism are normally people who absolutely can not stand the thought of debate or discussion, who regard anyone who disagrees with them as inherently evil.

That's bullshit. Some are, some aren't. That's my radical opinion. Yours is far more black and white, unthinking and reflexive, than mine is.

Well, it -would- be, if those examples were realistic. They're not. There might be some few individuals who will use the PC term for such things, but I've rarely seen it.

That's because they're not aimed at you, Argus. They're aimed at me, and at others who have the affrontery to disagree with your worldview.

And I humbly suggest that I know what's aimed at me--continually, mind you--more than you do. further, I suggest that I have in all liklihood been the target of such political correctness, here on this board, more than you have.

Oppose the war? Well, that depends why. I suppose if one has that generally reflexive anti-militarist sense of much of the Left your opposition could be based on political correctness. But not necessarily. Anyway, I've never seen it used thusly.

Again, no one uses it agaisnt you. But what does or doesn't happen to you is not the world entire, as shocking as that might seem. I have frequently been informed that, while I'm sitting in the comfort of my "armchair" criticizing a war (which is to say, criticizing a government policy), our "brave troops" who are "far more honourable" than I am, are "fighting for our freedom" & co & co.

If you can't see--plain as day--that that is political correctness, and nothing more, than you are thoroughly indoctrinated, and yourself a believer in the use of political correctness when it suits you.

It's not an argument. It's a cheap, angry, lazy use of political correctness. "The troops" are constantly invoked in this way.

I think Palin is an idiot and I'm pretty shaky in supporting the war myself. I think much about capitalism is mistaken and a lot of bankers and brokers ought to be in prison, but I doubt many consider me to be politically correct, and no one has ever used the term to me.

They have to me. So there it is.

What if you ARE an anti-Semite?

But I'm not an anti-semite. And the few mouth-breathers here who have accused me of it (three of them, to my knowledge) have refused to offer any evidence in my own words of my anti-semitism; in fact, they don't try to. Not even dishonestly or disingenuously. That's because there is no evidence for it (how can there be, when I'm not an anti-semite?).

They don't even believe I'm an anti-semite, unless they're more stupid than they appear.

But that doesn't stop them from using the term of abuse to try to take some imaginary high ground in debate...and to shut the debate down altogether. (On more heavily moderated sites, this type of moral relativist will intentionally get threads closed through invective designed to break the terms of service, to literally end the discussion.)

If it's not political correctness, argus...then what is it?

It follows all the prerequisites you claim comprise political correctness....except the ideological position of the whiners and baiters.

You can't have it both ways.

And frankly, much of the western criticism of Israel IS politically correct, based on the reflexive anti-militarism born of the 60s which sees men in uniform with guns to be evil, and "the little guy" who opposes them to be good. It's a reflexive support for the underdog against an "militarized American lackey", and it's the product of unceasing television coverage which confuses the foolish into thinking what happens there is so much more shocking than what happens all over the world every day. Nobody gave a damn when Iraq and Iran were slaughtering each others people by the tens of thousands, but let one Palestinian rock thrower catch a bullet and the indignant protesters are out in force.

But this is thoroughly beside the point. The point isn't even about who is right or wrong on the debate.

The point is political correctness used to shout people down...people who most certainly don't deserve it. If I criticize Israel, and immediately am termed an anti-semite...well, if you're defending that, then you adore political correctness.

I don't think I've used the PC term for that. I might have used moronic, stupid, and pointless, though. And yes, it is moral equivalence.

Now I know you didn't read my post carefully. If you had, you would not make this inane remark.

Because:

And so stretching the facts to try and make the argument that western governments are as enthusiastic as Muslim ones in supporting terrorism is basically saying "Oh stop complaining about those nice Muslims! They're no worse than us! We do exactly the same sorts of things! So no actions against them are justified."

Leaving aside the fact that you're inventing your opponents' views, and then caricaturing your own concoction (a piss-poor method of debate) you've taken my statement here,

"Pointing out the clear defense of and support for terrorism by the Western powers?"

...and turned it into this:

"And so stretching the facts to try and make the argument that western governments are as enthusiastic as Muslim ones in supporting terrorism."

My remark was of the ordinary and obvious truth of the matter...not some comparative analysis of whose terrorism is worse.

You're of course welcome to undertake that analysis yourself...though it would involve your admitting the objective truth of our direct and intentional complicity in terrorism. Which I'm beginning to perceive is well beyond your sensibilities, and so de facto beyond your abilties.

But like it or not there is a vast moral difference between propping up an ugly government, and standing around a table plotting how to get a mentally retarded suicide bomber into a disco full of teenagers so he can blow everyone up.

We've been through this, Argus. Again: we did not "prop[...] up an ugly government"; the governments of a few wealthy democracies, including our own, materially aided massive state terrorism, knowing they were aiding massive state terrorism, supporting the illegal invasion and involving themselves--again, knowingly--in the mass murder of perhaps a third of the population. That you don't like it is irrelevant; I don't like it either. Who cares if we don't like it? It's true.

I think it's meant to convey the contempt for the suggestion, actually.

Do you mean the suggestion which is your own caricature of what I said?

Or do you mean contempt for the stating of what occurred, as it doesn't fit the proper, triumphalist, "fightin' for freedom and human rights" narrative cribbed from well-heeled PR specialists paid to devise these claims, which so often don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny?

Or are you offering apologetics for our behaviour, again, like when you assumed Suharto had "fooled us," though declined to offer even a hint of evidence for this unsubstantiated claim?

Or it's a dismissal of mindless, brainless, thoughtless Leftist Kant which is unsupported by evidence or reality.

Nope.

("Kant"?)

Edited September 12, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, I remember having a professor refer to it in the early 1980s - but as an extension of grammar - i.e. using gender neutral language in essays and so on.

Being older than you, and coming of age in 1960's America, I can assure you that the term was used before the 1980's in the modern context, if only as a reflex to very polarizing advocates for political, social, and economic change.

"Political Correctness" is the natural outgrowth and backlash to free speech rights.

[Michael Hardner]

Being older than you, and coming of age in 1960's America, I can assure you that the term was used before the 1980's in the modern context, if only as a reflex to very polarizing advocates for political, social, and economic change.

Firstly, why would anybody bring their age into an argument ? "I'm older than you, therefore... " therefore what ?

The term was used before the 1980s, ok. Again, so ? Give a specific example, as I did, and bring some light onto the subject.

"Political Correctness" is the natural outgrowth and backlash to free speech rights.

I think, rather, it was a reaction to those who misunderstood free speech to mean that they could be impolite and impose their narrow thinking on speech in any setting. It's not so. In professional circles, in academia, and in most social groups there is decorum. Making assumptions about gender, race, sexual preference is not universally acceptable, so PC was a good way to tell people to mind their manners.

That's my experience of it. Let's hear yours.

[bush_cheney2004]

Firstly, why would anybody bring their age into an argument ? "I'm older than you, therefore... " therefore what ?

Because you were not alive to experience the reality, let alone reside in the USA. It's not an argument as much as an earlier point of reference.

The term was used before the 1980s, ok. Again, so ? Give a specific example, as I did, and bring some light onto the subject.

I have already done so in the way of an OP from the United Kingdom. Your references are late in the game.

I think, rather, it was a reaction to those who misunderstood free speech to mean that they could be impolite and impose their narrow thinking on speech in any setting. It's not so. In professional circles, in academia, and in most social groups there is decorum. Making assumptions about gender, race, sexual preference is not universally acceptable, so PC was a good way to tell people to mind their manners.

I disagree, as American free speech concepts specifically and purposely were designed to break that paradigm and extend the power of expression regardless of fallout.

My first experience with the actual term was in the later 1960's within secondary ed history classes. It was a combination of WW2 victor's storytelling and Black Power movement (e.g. Eldridge Cleaver). Women's rights soon followed, as these things were happening in real time. Any challenge to the progressives as they made great gains were suffocated with the new PC religion.

Edited September 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

My first experience with the actual term was in the later 1960's within secondary ed history classes. It was a combination of WW2 victor's storytelling and Black Power movement (e.g. Eldridge Cleaver). Women's rights soon followed, as these things were happening in real time. Any challenge to the progressives as they made great gains were suffocated with the new PC religion.

That's nonsense. Movies with cowboys fighting Evil Indians could be seen on network television ten years after this "suffocation" of which you speak. In the seventies, there were loud debates over whether or not women had the actual capacity to do traditional male jobs.

Your memory is faulty.

[Michael Hardner]

Because you were not alive to experience the reality, let alone reside in the USA. It's not an argument as much as an earlier point of reference.

What does residing in the USA have to do with it ?

I have already done so in the way of an OP from the United Kingdom. Your references are late in the game.

I mean - if your age and experience are germane, then tell us why - give us some reason to bring that into it. "I'm older than you, and here's a link from the UK" ... I don't get it.

I disagree, as American free speech concepts specifically and purposely were designed to break that paradigm and extend the power of expression regardless of fallout.

I don't think that Jefferson ever indicated that he eagerly anticipated having the right to fart at dinner parties. Maybe he did, but I doubt it....

We have lots of rights, but exercising them will always have correct social limits, as well they should. Go ahead and offend people in the wrong situation, and you will be tossed out into the street.

My first experience with the actual term was in the later 1960's within secondary ed history classes. It was a combination of WW2 victor's storytelling and Black Power movement (e.g. Eldridge Cleaver). Women's rights soon followed, as these things were happening in real time. Any challenge to the progressives as they made great gains were suffocated with the new PC religion.

How about some details ? All of these sound like interesting exchanges and yet you just say "they happened to me"... don't shortchange us...

[bloodyminded]

How about some details ? All of these sound like interesting exchanges and yet you just say "they happened to me"... don't shortchange us...

The trememdous "suffocation" under political correctness in the late sixties is invention.

[Michael Hardner]

The trememdous "suffocation" under political correctness in the late sixties is invention.

We won't know anything if b_c doesn't tell us his story. We only get glimpses of it as it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

What does residing in the USA have to do with it ?

Nothing that Google can't solve, right?

[Bonam]

So you are prejudiced against Russians, just as the Nazis were prejudiced against Jews.

Haha nope, I AM from Russia which is why I have first hand knowledge of it. Don't know how you got that from my post anyway. My point was that the term political correctness doesn't exist in some other languages because the cultures associated with those languages have no need of such a term. To be "politically correct" in the common definition is really something that is part of the culture only in North America, Western Europe, and Northern Europe.

Now as to the topic of this thread... political correctness really does have a pretty specific meaning. Specifically, it refers to self-censorship and silencing of debate when it comes to issues such as racism, gender equality, religious tolerance, immigration, minority rights, and related subjects. To be politically correct is to avoid disagreeing with the common ("progressive") views on these topics and to be outraged when someone else does disagree.

Now, bloodyminded brings some examples of what he also calls political correctness but on the other side, examples such as "support the troops" and "criticizing Israel = anti-semitism". Now, these rhetorical techniques are also obviously flawed and fallacious. But they are distinct phenomena. "Support the troops" when used as a reason to wage unjustified wars could be termed "propaganda" or "warmongering" perhaps, but it is not an example of political correctness. The anti-Semitic accusation against people who are making reasonable criticisms of Israel (as opposed to actually anti-Semitic statements which are becoming ever more common) is simply an argument out of desperation. When it is used wrongly in this way, it does the opposite of silencing debate, rather it invites all the wolves out to the feast. Although, it does have more similarities to political correctness in that it originates from the same type of reaction as screaming "racist" at the first sign of criticism, but it has evolved into something separate. By the way, just for reference, the "politically correct" view on the Arab-Israeli conflict is "both sides do bad things, both sides commit war crimes, Israel should give the Arabs some land". Arguments that deviate significantly from this (in either direction) are seen as extremist.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now as to the topic of this thread... political correctness really does have a pretty specific meaning. Specifically, it refers to self-censorship and silencing of debate when it comes to issues such as racism, gender equality, religious tolerance, immigration, minority rights, and related subjects. To be politically correct is to avoid disagreeing with the common ("progressive") views on these topics and to be outraged when someone else does disagree.

Agreed....PC is a suffocation of views and expression that is inconsistent with progressive thought. Free speech is so inconvenient that way! LOL!

[bloodyminded]

Now as to the topic of this thread... political correctness really does have a pretty specific meaning. Specifically, it refers to self-censorship and silencing of debate when it comes to issues such as racism, gender equality, religious tolerance, immigration, minority rights, and related subjects. To be politically correct is to avoid disagreeing with the common ("progressive") views on these topics and to be outraged when someone else does disagree.

Now, bloodyminded brings some examples of what he also calls political correctness but on the other side, examples such as "support the troops" and "criticizing Israel = anti-semitism". Now, these rhetorical techniques are also obviously flawed and fallacious. But they are distinct phenomena. "Support the troops" when used as a reason to wage unjustified wars could be termed "propaganda" or "warmongering" perhaps, but it is not an example of political correctness. The anti-Semitic accusation against people who are making reasonable criticisms of Israel (as opposed to actually anti-Semitic statements which are becoming ever more common) is simply an argument out of desperation. When it is used wrongly in this way, it does the opposite of silencing debate, rather it invites all the wolves out to the feast. Although, it does have more similarities to political correctness in that it originates from the same type of reaction as screaming "racist" at the first sign of criticism, but it has evolved into something separate. By the way, just for reference, the "politically correct" view on the Arab-Israeli conflict is "both sides do bad things, both sides commit war crimes, Israel should give the Arabs some land". Arguments that deviate significantly from this (in either direction) are seen as extremist.

You make a good argument here (one with which I don't totally agree, obviously), so I should clarify a point or two about my argument.

Years ago, your analysis of what, exactly, constitutes political correctness would probably be accurate enough. However, times have changed, and so have the connotaitons and usage of the term--particularly by the political right.

The epithet (because that's what it always is now, although Michael Hardner makes a case for its good use in certain situaitons, one which differs not terribly far from good manners) is used so constantly, so continually, and in so many varying contexts that it doesn't apply only to the matters which you lay out. Them too, certainly, but not only them.

What we've been left with now is a tautology; and it's unfair even by tautological standards, which are quite low to begin with. The tautology is as follows: political correctness is a leftist phenomenon; the left can scarcely be distinguished from it, because it's part of what they are; and political correctness is (at least mostly) a bad thing.

Therefore, leftists are--automatically, by definition of being leftist--bad, wrong, foolish.

Now, certainly one can believe this if they wish. But it's an emotive notion, rather than a rational and thoughtful one. (And at any rate, it would seem I am far more generous in my view of conservatives than this view would suggest they are of me; no small matter).

But if political correctness, in its contemporary connotation as something bad and unpleasant, is to have any meaning, we have to decide why it is bad. What, exactly, is bad about it.

To say "It's bad because it's leftist"--which is the underlying premise here, though (usually) unspoken--is terrifically insufficient. So we have to determine the properties of it that we don't like.

And put simply, the properties are this: conventional "truths" among a like-minded group of people, any deviation from which is to be treated with hostility, and a method of exclusion, through self-righteous anger that chills the debate, or attempts to do so.

That's all it is. And as such, it's not only used equally by the Right (and the middle, incidentally); it's a normal weapon in their debate arsenal.

Since the right (especially) has become so promiscuous about its use--calling out "political correctness" literally only because they disagree with an opinion, or wish to take the moral high ground and use it to shut down debate--exactly as they charge the left with doing--the term has changed in meaning. Words and terms do this all the time, as language is not static.

So no, political correctness is no longer only about the "correct" ways to speak about race, gender, identity politics; it is about debate methods, first and foremost. The only residual continuation of its old meaning is that there remains "conventional wisdom", and to deviate from it will invite charges...not only of racism or sexism, but of "not supporting the troops" (code for "not supporting government's foreign policy, literally); for not being harsh enough about (Islamist) terrorism; for any number of outrages against received convention.

These are the same in both intent and effect; and that's all that matters.

So when you say,

When it [the use of "anti-semitism") is used wrongly in this way, it does the opposite of silencing debate, rather it invites all the wolves out to the feast. Although, it does have more similarities to political correctness in that it originates from the same type of reaction as screaming "racist" at the first sign of criticism, but it has evolved into something separate.

I totally disagree. It's not at all separate; it's precisely the same thing. That there exist plenty of genuine anti-semites is not relevant; becasue you and I agree that accusations of, say, racism (against blacks, say, or Natives) and sexism can be clear examples of irrational and unnuanced and hostile political correctness; but we also both know, without a glimmer of a doubt, that this sort of racism and sexism does indeed exist. Political correctness is not about chilling the debate on issues that aren't real; it's about misdirecting the hostility.

Edited September 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

PERSONALLY speaking ....I at my age am sick and tired of forced tolerance and social intimidation through the blunt force tramatic political correctness....comes a time when you have to eventually make some honest judgements...when you have to sort out the difference between the bull shit and the bull rushes... so to make a long story short _ from here on in I don't care if people do not like me _ I am going to do and say what is right no matter what....It's a dirty job telling the truth but someone has to do it........Policial correctness thus far seems to protect evil twits...I see no other use for it...do you?

[Pliny]

I don't know when the term originated and became popularized but the concept originated in the sixties and the term came into common usage in the late seventies.

Several posters have come close to defining it and some have parts of it. About 5 years ago I wanted to get a precise concept of what it was exactly and I believe I accomplished that.

It arose out of the femisit movement for "equality". It moved to racism and "equality" and the idea was developed to ward a broader application that included all minorities being considered "equal". So basically it is the attempt to "make" things, equal "correcting" injustices and inequities and fostering the concept of equality in future political policy. Of course it is a leftist concept to make all persons equal and that is why it applies to the left.

In the late seventies and eighties political correctness, brought us the Equal Rights Amendment and Affirmative action. All designed to abolish prejudices and discrimination and bring "equality" to the workforce.

Of course making things equal brought about it's own prejudices and discrimination against majorities and this prejudice and discrimination seemed an absurdity in that the policies were about "equality".

So basically, minorities were privileged, this being a demonstration of "correcting" the past inequities and granting equal opportunity to all disadvantaged minorities, the irony of it being that majorities were now unequal. It was politically incorrect to speak in terms of race, religion, gender and references to gender, race or religion were being eliminated. Especially in feminism, where "Mrs." and "Miss" became "Ms." and women had to to have equal representation in all areas of work. There had to be an equal number of women in politics, as business execs, as "actors" and they had to be able to be trades"persons" and certain absurdities were being presented by extremists. This was political correctness run amok.

Being a minority isn't the full qualification for being considered to be made "equal". You also had to be "disadvantaged" or marginalized by society or by some majority or some power. The left always defends the minority who are, or seem to be, the disadvantaged and hypocrisy seems to make no difference. they will defend the minority disadvantaged religion over the majority religion even though they dislike all religions. They will defend the "illegal alien" and protect his rights even though they are not citizens while they erode the rights of citizens by eliminating means to detect "illegal aliens".

That the term is misused is understandable calling all left wing persons politically correct would not be far from the truth. The right is about equality under the law but not making everyone equal through the law. It is obvious that women are not men but some feminists would like to see themn being the same thing. It is obvious that there is differences in intellect, size, ability, and political correctness is about ignoring differences, not mentioning them out of courtesy to the lesser advantaged. We get schools that try to eliminate competitive sports or reward losers equally with winners or not keep score. This is political correctness.

[Michael Hardner]

That's quite a pretzel, Pliny.

Correcting inequalities means fostering inequality. This concept proves that rightist academics have the same delusions and addition to blather that leftist ones do.

If I punch you in the face, then offer you a band-aid, am I doing you a favour by offering the band aid ?