or do we need to take a survey on that? — Kaarlo Tuomi

I think it went through a few phases. AFAIK:

It was originally a leftist political in joke, about strict discipline in adhering to one's organisation's line. Like how Leninist organisations approach disagreement (they are not pluralist in any way). This was in the 1970's I think. It marked a contrast between old left tactical orthodoxy and new left tactical pluralism.

Then people noticed that leftists were using it somewhere between an in joke and a weapon. So it became a slur towards the left. The left are those people that have to be politically correct. This is 1980's, when the old left was dying and globalisation + finance friendly ideology was sweeping the globe. In this context, it's a way of gainsaying left criticism or viewpoint as being against freedom of speech.

After that, because the political advocacy of the New Left was less about class structure (the unions were dying and being undermined by the globalisation of supply chains), left struggles were more about identity and socialisation issues; race, gender, sexual preference and discrimination against those groups. It marked a shift from class struggle politics on the left to what pejoratively gets called the "culture war", which is "fought" mostly on the terrain of discourse/speech acts.

That environment made it particularly fecund as a criticism of left "identity politics", because any anti-discriminatory intervention (like hate speech legislation) can be framed as against "freedom of speech". You see what they're doing now? You can't even say that you're ordering a chinky!

We're still in that environment, so it's still a useful pejorative for left activity that focuses on "policing" speech - or from a left angle, changing culture to be more inclusive by changing how we relate to each other socially.

So you get the bizarre situation where grumpy class focussed leftists find they dislike political correctness because it's proxied with identity politics and that allegedly filled the vacuum of class struggle, "fiscally conservative" (neoliberal) liberals dislike it because they don't want social changes to "freedom of speech", and anyone who appreciates its history as a leftist injoke and knows that it was an anti-hate speech legislation joke/weapon in its most common usage is going to react negatively to the ideological clusterfuck that's now its meaning.

Ya, youre right for once Benkei. — DingoJones

LOL. You just couldn't resist could you?

Let's assume that's true. Do you think the name should not be changed? If so, why do you want the name to remain "Redskins"? If you think it should be changed, what is your complaint? If you don't care, why make an issue of it?

I don’t think it should be changed because I like the name and the logo. To me it evokes a brave warrior.

Lol, Im incorrigible what can I say.

To me it evokes a brave warrior. — NOS4A2

Who is a Redskin.

An aboriginal.

An aboriginal, who is referred to as a "redskin."

An aboriginal, who is referred to as a "redskin.

I wouldn’t refer to the warrior as such. A “Redskin” to me is someone who plays for the Redskins.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I see nothing wrong with the desire to be courteous toward other human beings.

Exactly. People who dislike political correctness will say it's not about that. But when you ask them what it's actually about, it's just vague progressive blah they dislike. Absolutely devoid of content, except expressing a general distaste for socially progressive ideas. It's about as good as "SJW".

Exactly. People who dislike political correctness will say it's not about that. But when you ask them what it's actually about, it's just vague progressive blah they dislike. Absolutely devoid of content, except expressing a general distaste for socially progressive ideas. It's about as good as "SJW".

People who like political correctness routinely say it is about being respectful. But it comes in the form of intolerance and censorship rather than polite behavior. The euphemism and jargon creates an atmosphere where no one can speak plainly, directly affecting the groups they believe should be protected from certain language.

I don't think your circumlocution is society's fault. What do you want to say that you cannot?

What's the bad side of being courteous towards other human beings? Nothing. What's the bad side of political correctness? Controlling language, cancelling events, virtue signalling, emphasising sex/race differences, imposing ideological stances on others, shutting down debates, it's a significant component of outrage culture.

It's less about the cases where someone being "politically correct" is being courteous, big deal, everyone should be courteous.

Same question to you as to Nos, what do you want to say that you cannot?

I don't think your circumlocution is society's fault. What do you want to say that you cannot?

It’s not so much what I want to say as it is my aversion to a prefabricated and emaciated terminology which makes differences on matters of principle almost unsayable. It leads to a conformity that does not welcome dissent.

Which prefabricated and emaciated terminology?

That's a question less to do with political correctness as an ideology and more as political correctness as a force that can exert influence over me. To which the answer is that it has none. See, I really don't want to hyperbolise the issue of political correctness, which I feel you're asking for with your question.

Political correctness is tied to identity politics in, where the sex/race differences are emphasised dramatically and some groups are privileged while others are disadvantaged. If you want to criticise issues that can be linked to disadvantaged people (everyone except white men) then be careful.

Whether it's Islam, immigration, "cultural appropriation", multiculturalism etc or equality of outcome, the gender pay gap, the experiences of the oppressed. Really, any topic that you want to talk disparagingly about which can be in someway linked to an oppressed group is going to come under scrutiny, why? Because you risk offending the disadvantaged peoples. I can't really believe that you're just totally unaware of this aspect of political correctness.

Perhaps the divide ought to be done with a) being politically correct and b) condemning others for not being politically correct.

Nobody has a problem with a), being courteous toward other human beings, as Azimuth put it.

It’s largely euphemistic language.

. I can't really believe that you're just totally unaware of this aspect of political correctness. — Judaka

I know what people say it is. There's a whole constellation of terms.

Political correctness - PC police - social justice warriors - white knights - progressives - libtards - identity politics - pinkos - cancel culture - wokeness - snowflakes...

I generally think it's a good thing that people are antsy about saying things that are likely to make the marginalised feel bad, I just wish material benefits followed suit more often. I want people to hesitate to treat people badly, and when that concerns societal injustices that can in part be addressed by culture changes, I want people not to think and behave in ways that propagate the bad stuff.

I'm pretty sure anyone who believes anything political is going to have a similar ethos; they will strongly prefer it if you believe what they believe on substantive issues because of their expected consequences from those substantive issues.

But when I point that out, anyone who whines about political correctness is actually gonna agree with me I'd imagine. People who have political opinions have an image of society they want and an image of how they think people should act. Even people who just want everyone else to shut the fuck up and be less whiny bitches - which is all it is.

"Stop whining! I want to say what I like and not care what you think!"

If you wanna talk about whether political correctness (whatever it is) suffices as a political program for obtaining what adherents to political correctness (allegedly) want, that's a different thing.

I think for the most part anyone who dislikes "PC culture" wants to be less afraid to express their dickish tendencies, and to call anyone who dislikes 'em whiny bitches. Humans are gonna be foolish and short sighted regardless of our political opinions.

"STOP BEING A WHINY BITCH"
"STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE"

This whole thing in a nutshell. And some people get so, so irate about it. Feel they're persecuted because they can't say things they didn't even want to say in the first place. Keep on whining.

Good points made in the thread already. It's a matter of subjective views on an ideal that should be objective. Seems to me there's two groups of people who believe in it. Those who want to maintain and restore values (courtesy, politeness, equality, just general non-toxicity) and those who want to subvert or change them and society from longstanding, time-tested tradition (Christian holidays, ideal gender roles, importance of the nuclear family, etc.)

And as some replies suggest, then there are those just putting on an act. No one in government or any position of anything should be using slurs, bigotry, or anything that makes the place or group they represent seem like a toxic nightmare world. Now perhaps they'll go and be as PC as can be at work, then go home and use slurs in private. Not unexpected.

As was mentioned there's a big difference between using and not using hurtful racial or ethnic or other slurs compared to saying or not saying "spokesperson" or "Merry Christmas". There is free speech however. In and of itself it cannot be illegal for a random citizen. Now the stupidity is dangerous and punishable by social measure. See the FedEx driver who fatally assaulted a man in Oregon after being called the N-word. All charges were dropped. I'm telling you guys this equality thing is working.

Identity politics has real meaning, political correctness has real meaning, as does the term progressive, the rest are just slurs and not real terms.

If you want to look at political correctness with rose-tinted glasses then the aim is to reduce racism, sexism and bigotry. It's the very process I advocate for dealing with these things, I want people to call others out on their racist and sexist views and insults because that's how it's stopped.

If you're going to describe PC as something different then you need to also accept that what is being criticised is not your version of PC but something else. Political correctness is deeply related to the far left and identity politics and that matters for peoples' perception of it. It also matters for how PC exists, how and where it's enforced.

I don't know why other people dislike PC, that's got nothing to do with me. I see that you're on the left and will characterise your political opponents in the way that makes them look the worst just as you will be characterised by your political opponents in the way that makes you look the worst. You'll say people dislike PC because they want to be assholes, they'll say you like PC because you're a snowflake. It's not less unsophisticated, juvenile bullshit just because the other side does it.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the public perception of PC and whether it's fair or not, of course, it's all politics.


No, I disagree, I think being courteous doesn't need a synonym, be courteous to be courteous. Even criticise others for being discourteous, that's fair. The problem with PC is that it's extremely political, unlike being courteous.

PC is more than just the concept of PC, it's about how it's implemented, by who, where and for what?

So is your issue with cancel culture or political correctness?

You'll say people dislike PC because they want to be assholes, they'll say you like PC because you're a snowflake. It's not less unsophisticated, juvenile bullshit just because the other side does it. — Judaka

That's pretty much all this is though. Political correctness as a term is not like... premium grade lean steak discourse, is it? The World Spirit didn't pay any attention to college girls with pink hair talking about the pay gap in its ascension towards the absolute. It's a whole nebula of fluff and fat around shit everyone agrees is good. People who use political correctness as a pejorative do it in a manner that makes it indistinguishable from calling anyone liberal (in the American usage) or socially progressive a whiny bitch - give or take a pinch of close mindedness, a dash of "you hate freedom of speech" and add "all I want is a reasonable discussion" to taste.

You wanna actually have a reasonable discussion? Let's talk about how the use of political correctness as a pejorative is an in group/out group signifier, and thus a rallying feature of anti-social progressive identity politics and a lowkey way of virtue signalling. We, those who hate political correctness, are much better than those whiny irrational bitches who like it. That's how it works. Use political correctness as a nebulous pejorative and you're already playing that game you allegedly hate.

No, I disagree, I think being courteous doesn't need a synonym, be courteous to be courteous. Even criticise others for being discourteous, that's fair. The problem with PC is that it's extremely political, unlike being courteous.

PC is more than just the concept of PC, it's about how it's implemented, by who, where and for what? — Judaka

You can obviously disagree with Azimuth's opinion about it, but isn't it genuinely the problem that people are offended, make a huge row and accusations when some is assumed to be political incorrect? All the dog whistles etc.

I can dislike PC without liking the practices of other people who dislike it, I see what you're saying but PC has real meaning, that meaning to me hasn't been eroded by what you're talking about. There's clearly a lot of baggage around the term but I didn't join up with anyone by disliking PC and identity politics, I can think for myself.

PC is just a term for an ideology, closely linked to identity politics, generally held by the same people and I really dislike both but I didn't come to represent someone other than myself.


When we are talking PC, there's a specific kind of offence that is measured by a specific philosophy. It's not egalitarian, it's about identity politics and protecting the disadvantaged groups in society. It's about placing a priority on sparing people from getting offended or triggered rather than stopping actual racism and sexism. It's about acknowledging racial histories and the history of female disenfranchisement and seeing modern people in the light of those stories. And of course, assuming every second person is a racist and sexist even if they say they're not.

I don't think my interpretation of racism and sexism has a place, I think anyone besides the far left is not going to feel represented by it. That's the problem with it.

To be fair, the term “political correctness” is awful, perhaps ironic in the sense that it is itself a euphemism for routine bigotry. In that case I think criticism of the term is warranted.

Well before the use of the term, this vernacular of deference was rightly criticized by George Orwell, who described it as “intellectual cowardice”, a phrase which I think exemplifies this phenomenon better than “political correctness”.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/

And of course, assuming every second person is a racist and sexist even if they say they're not. — Judaka

And this is the real issue here.

Before delving into the specific issue of political correctness, to make one important point I would like to broaden the definition of "political correctness" to meaning any kind of talk that is perceived either politically correct or incorrect.

In a totalitarian dictatorship it's totally understandable that public speech is "politically correct" meaning it doesn't question at all the rulers, as otherwise the person declaring criticism about the authorities would quickly vanish from the public domain. And "politically correct" speech is then fervent propaganda of the dictatorship. This is because totalitarian dictatorships are in open war against revolutionary/counter-revolutionary elements in the society, perceived or actual, hence the dramatic response is perfectly understandable. Every dictatorship is a dictatorship because there is this overwhelming perceived threat that has to be countered, at least in the mind of the dictator.

And with even democracies there are people who thanks to their role have a very limited Overton window. A high military ranking officer cannot simply use his "freedom of speach" and assume that he or she can comment certain issues like security policy or relations between countries "as an individual". There are people from other countries who's job it is to respond if the Overton window on some issue is breached in this way. They are called diplomats, ambassadors and spokesmen/-women. Nobody will believe that a general was just speaking his mind, especially if he isn't immediately fired or reprimanded.

If we have the above in mind, we can look just why something like political correctness has become so venomous and caused people to be fired, why the discourse has become so vitriolic and why people seem to hear dog whistles everywhere.

At first there needs to be a small group of people that think this is one of the most important issues in our time and are extremely dedicated to their cause. Something equivalent of just "being rude" wouldn't make it a thing like this. Then as a background there usually are bad racial/ethnic or minority relations and underlying problems that urge people to do virtue signalling. And then we have a globalized media and social media where certain issues are simply copied around the world at lightning speed. The ease that we can show our objection to anything is also notable all thanks to the social media providers.