Just What is (and what is wrong with) Political Correctness?

According to whom?

You're the person who decides what people are supposed to think?

I already know what your opinion about PC is, you wrote it and I responded with a question. Apparantly PC means we are supposed to think pure thoughts. Who decided this? Where did this come from?It's like saying that being polite means we are supposed to have no selfish thoughts.

If a politician said 'We bombed the sand niggers into oblivion, those that survived the blast will be useless cripples for the rest of their miserable existence. There were two civillians killed in the action: one was a fag and the other a slitty eyed rice pedaler. 'He would have made a political gaffe, since he would turn various groups of people against him. A politician has to word his phrases carefully to avoid getting fired by his employers/the voters.As such there is a correct way and an incorrect way to phrase things in the political arena. One way will lose you votes, that is politically incorrect. Another way will not lose votes^*, that is the politically correct way of talking.Naturally, meanings shift and change and phrases like politically correct are included. Politically correct is not inherently bad, since politicians have to appeal to their voters and that includes the Micks and the Spics. As social animals we are basically embroilled in our own politics on a daily basis - and pc language can help us not suffer social backlashes.It's basically verbal manners, since unintentionally offending people in groups gets easier the larger the group, the more we have to watch how we phrase things.In my closest social group we enjoy letting rip and being extremely un-pc to the max on occassion, but no offense is taken since the rules are known before it begins.^*Not counting the content of the speech itself.

Is hopelessly general. I'm a Leftist and am morally opposed to thought control through language. I'd simply rather call someone disabled as opposed to a total spacca, its simple social empathy. Its small potatoes compare with newspeak: Collateral damage, terrorists, nazis, axis of evil, friendly fire. We have also reduced the connotations of wars and invasions by calling them 'liberations', 'actions' and 'operations'. We don't like to bomb we like to provide air support or artillery back up...if we're being explicit we might call it 'shelling'. Corrupt governments under the perceived control of a friendly nation are 'puppet regimes'. We don't indiscriminately attack population centres we 'neutralize a terrorist threat'.That attempt to change mentality through dehumanisation is far more concerning than attempting to change mentality through excessive humanisation, don't you think?

The article read just like a rant by General Jack D Ripper, so absurd you question if should be on The Onion. I like the bit about how PC makes groups that are good, like homosexuals - it was a particularly amusing bit of propaganda.Anyway the quote above is a good one for EvC forum I thought. Mr Lind is strongly against criticizing a theory without presenting an alternative. I'm fairly happy to agree with him on that - I wonder if the Creos here do?

And yet, when pressed for specifics oft is the cry 'we don't need an alternative to show evolution is unscientific!' and upon being pressed the cry becomes 'god did it'. I'm sure you've seen it, I expect you'll call those that engage in it...and I'm not talking about broad concepts, I'm talking about the little details. Of course its by the by, but we both know now that not presenting an alternative is bad form.As for cultural Marxism, I haven't read a great deal about it. If it is as insane as the essay you presented then I don't want to subject myself to it. Any practical, modern examples that this is what PC is all about?You have accused me of being PC, yet I despise femi-nazis (I have no problem with feminism in the sense of women having equal pay for equal work etc), I can think of several gay people I don't like and who aren't 'good'. The idea that homosexuals are inherently good in PC-land is a pile of crap. In PC-land homosexuals are not inherently bad, which is a world of difference.

More specifically, 'special pleading'.

Lots of phrases were coined for one reason only to be adopted for another sometimes contradictory reason. feminazis refer to those who would have women as superior to men, not equal. Also, the lesser feminazis are those who impose their view on others due to a perceived threat to their gender. Why is that important to my point?

When I say 'little details', I refer to the specifics. Its more extreme than that. According to Lind they are good because they are homosexual, regardless of what they do. Another golden part is I've never seen anyone describe the entire works of Shakespeare to be about the suppression of women, and I have never seen anyone say the Bible is really all about race and gender...though I can imagine a Klan member saying it.If this is truly what you think PC is all about, one of us must be massively deluded. I might be forced to wear a rubber suit to make sure the PC/Marxist/Commies don't invade my bodily fluids.

I am aware of that - but I have never seen anybody say that 'all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women'. Those themes are present, but they are not the only themes. One can dedicate an entire book to the insights gained about Shakespeare's society gleaned from his writings but likewise you can dedicate books to Shakespeare that don't mention it at all.