You're missing my specific point, and his if you still disagree with me over this. I clearly wasn't talking about what he was doing with his whole set, or making any other point about his set which you might want to talk about instead. I was just talking about a very specific part of it, and in that very specific part he was doing exactly what I said, and it supports my point, as I've demonstrated. I'm not interested in your disjointed thoughts and misinterpretations. He was very clearly suggesting improper usage. That was what was made it so funny, and it wouldn't even make sense otherwise, let alone be funny. So I don't want to waste any more of my time arguing with you about that. He explicitly ruled out the examples as counting as political correctness, properly speaking, putting it down to confusion.

He was suggesting the complaint was improper because the "PC" in the case, health and safety laws, are justified. In other words, his Nan should only have cold tea (and maybe not even that, given spilled liquids can be dangerous) at the workstation because the safety concern is legitimate.

Any improper usage is just referring to the mismatch between the example (cold tea/health and safety laws) and what people are often railing against when complaining about "PC" (having to respect minorities in thoughts, speech and other action).

Lee was not suggesting "PC" concerns were somehow empty or mistaken. In every case he talked about, he was suggesting "PC concerns" were genuine and so the complaint "political correctness gone mad" is illegitimate-- i.e. he's at least on Fooloso4's side, if not more.

So yes, I definitely disagree: you are basically trying to suggest Lee was saying the exact opposite of what he was regarding "PC" concerns.

"Basically, there's a whole generation of people who've confused political correctness with health and safety legislation".

That could hardly be any clearer. He is very clearly suggesting that it's improper to call that political correctness. That is the confusion he's referring to!

↪aporiap Interesting. I suppose the etiquette that I would advocate is being honest. If someone expresses an offensive view, then the correct response is to refute it rather than try to censor it. Generally the gross stereotyping of which you speak is wrong and can be refuted. However artificial blindness is not the solution. Artificial blindness and bigotry feed into one another. A man notices a social phenomenon and proposes a typically false explanation; the academic says "this is a stereotype" or "this is a generalization," the man looks at it again and says that it is definitely going on, so he decides that the academic is full of crap and goes on with his bigoted explanation. The real way to deal with this is to realize that, if something exists at a rate greater than chance, then there must be a reason for it, although it is usually not the reason that you expect. So the generalizations and stereotypes should be used as grounds for further research to find an actual explanation. — Ilya B Shambat

I don't think mere honesty is etiquette. Just imagine this parent-child example: you've developed a bad smoking habit which you regret and you're one day caught by your strict, conservative mother. Scenario 1: She lambasts you, telling you if you continue you will amount to nothing, calling you names, and beating you. Vs. Your mother sitting you down, empathizing with you about how understandably enjoyable it is and how difficult it's been for you, and then tells you in a euphemistic, yet stern and clear manner that this is not good for you.. These are clearly two ways of relaying a piece of honest information.

What I'm saying is PC shouldn't just be replaced by honesty delivered in whatever manner a person feels... there should be an etiquette to disagreeability. I've heard too many times, condescension, rigid belief and irrationality accompany anti-PCism that, to me, is just unnecessarily divisive and toxic. It's not everyone but it's a strong enough current for me to notice.