To think "politically correct" is one of the most over-used and misused terms around?

[Nennypops]

I keep seeing the term 'politically correct' being used all over the place as a catch-all terms of abuse by people who clearly have no idea what the term means but want to convey that whatever it is that they disapprove is in some way unnecessary, wet, lentil-knitting, left-wing, or even positively harmful.

For the sake of convenience, I'll adopt the definition of political correctness given in Wikipedia - "a term that refers to language, ideas, or policies that address perceived or actual discrimination against or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. The term usually implies that these social considerations are excessive or of a purely "political" nature. These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability."

I accept that it can be valid to criticise over-sensitive concerns about discrimination, but I've seen the term used in defence when someone is called out for blatant racism/sexism/homophobia etc and richly deserves it. It usually signals to me, frankly, that the person in question is even more of an a*hole than their original conduct suggested - they are trying to suggest that they are in some way justified and that complaining is ludicrously over-sensitive.

If I see the term incorrectly used in support of what otherwise might be a valid argument, it instantly annoys me and changes the way I view the person using the term. It tends to be used in relation to things which seem to me to be self-evidently beneficial - e.g. breastfeeding, the right to a fair trial, the right of children not to be left with abusive parents, etc. It is also quite often used for things that have no conceivable element of political correctness at all; I once saw it used in relation to the suggestion that it would be an idea to take an umbrella out when it's raining.

Seems to me that it's time to make the term completely redundant. If you find yourself about to use the term "politically correct" just stop, and find some other way of expressing your views.

'Are you really so sure that the Mail doesn't make things up? Have you ever had a look at their Corrections page? '

I think they may not have been robust enough on the climate change scam a few times. But their heart is in the right place.

Claig, you seem constantly to claim that people disagreeing with unpopular opinions are inevitably being politically correct. There really is a difference, you know. If you want to express an unpopular opinion, you have to be prepared for the fact that some people will disagree with you and they may express themselves pretty robustly: if that scares you, that is your problem, but it doesn't make them political correctness fanatics.

I wish you could point to a political orthodoxy that no-one has been allowed to challenge due to PC. You have been invited to several times, but have failed to do so. You keep referring to global warming, but that has nothing to do with PC and people are manifestly free to deny it. The same applies to the death penalty, the EU, foreign aid and the rest of it. I think the fact of the matter is that some people cannot defend their views and therefore choose to stigmatise those who disagreeing with them by saying they are being politically correct. That doesn't make it true.

Right, claig, so do you accept that the Mail made things up in relation to competitive sport in schools?

' I think the fact of the matter is that some people cannot defend their views and therefore choose to stigmatise those who disagreeing with them by saying they are being politically correct. That doesn't make it true.'

No that is an inversion of the truth.

I would debate any day with the professor who wanted global warming sceptics like me to be thrown in jail or the environmentalist who called for people like me, who are global warming sceptics, to be treated as traitors. I have no fear of debate. I believe I would win. It is they who wish to stifle people's voices by throwing them in jail or accusing them of treason for challenging their orthodoxy.

'Right, claig, so do you accept that the Mail made things up in relation to competitive sport in schools?'

They may have got some facts in some schools wrong, but I believe they were right to highlight some schools which has anti-competitive sports days.

Claig, you seem fairly obsessed with the view that political correctness is all about political orthodoxy and that politically correct people seek to stifle politically unorthodox thinking - even though that is incorrect."

Don't listen to me. Listen to Doris Lessing and P D James.

I wasn't asking about their views, I was asking about the views you have expressed on here. They don't seek to claim that political correctness equates to trying to prevent free speech for those with politically unorthodox opinions.

Yet people with views similar to yours on matters such as climate change, the death penalty, Europe etc are free to express them and do

Exactly and that is why they cannot beat us.

Can you not see that the whole point is that they are not TRYING to "beat us"? A very few passionate people whom you have dug out and quoted have suggested that promulgating climate change denial is wrong and should be prevented, but they don't represent mainstream opinion even within the climate change lobby, which recognises that deniers are entitled to have their say. Exactly the same thing applies in relation to the other issues I mentioned. You are claiming some sort of totally non-existent victory here in relation to a battle that hasn't happened because your perceived opponents don't exist.

'I wish you could point to a political orthodoxy that no-one has been allowed to challenge due to PC'

I have not said that ideas are not challenged. There are always brave individuals like Solzhenitsyn who challenged orthodoxies and who were locked up in mental asylums for their views.

But there are many more people who were not as brave as Solzhenitsyn and who never challenged the orthodoxy out of fear.

I want fear lifted and those who call us traitors for disagreeing with global warming or anything else to be shown up for the control freaks that they are.

I am with Doris Lessing and P D James.

"They don't seek to claim that political correctness equates to trying to prevent free speech for those with politically unorthodox opinions."

“Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others It is a heritage of communism, but they don't seem to see this.”

"I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism."

I can only hear PC in the way it was originally intended, gentle self-mocking by the left. In any other context it's just an excuse for defending bigotry.

'Can you not see that the whole point is that they are not TRYING to "beat us"?'

Then you don't understand what political correctness is. That is why you think it is overused and misused. I have tried to demonstrate it in lots of posts with lots of quotes and links.

Doris Lessing and P D James have spelt out what it is better than I could do.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. You think it is no big deal, I think different.

Lord Ashcroft said

'Britain's obsession with political correctness is driving voters to Ukip'

Voters are defecting from the Conservative Party to UKIP not because of the fight over Europe but due to political correctness, a Number 10 adviser has claimed.

If the Tories don't get it too, then they will lose lots and lots of voters.

It is real. It counts and that is why people are voting with their feet.

I would debate any day with the professor who wanted global warming sceptics like me to be thrown in jail or the environmentalist who called for people like me, who are global warming sceptics, to be treated as traitors. I have no fear of debate. I believe I would win. It is they who wish to stifle people's voices by throwing them in jail or accusing them of treason for challenging their orthodoxy.

How does that make them proponents of political correctness?

They may have got some facts in some schools wrong, but I believe they were right to highlight some schools which has anti-competitive sports days

In light of the facts I gave, how do you know that any of the schools they referred to have anti-competitive sports days? And do you accept that they were wrong to claim that the continued operation of competitive sports was down to them?

I want fear lifted and those who call us traitors for disagreeing with global warming or anything else to be shown up for the control freaks that they are.

Fine. Can you accept that, although they may be control freaks, they are not operating political correctness?

'How does that make them proponents of political correctness?'

Because they want to lock people up and treat them as traitors for holding different views to their global warming orthodoxy. For an Orwellian thoughtcrime, they want to lock people up and deprive them of their liberty. They want to brand people who hold different views as dissenters and heretics and traitors and call them poliically incorrect. They want to stifle freedom and deprive us of liberty for mere thought.

They are proponents of the political orthodoxy known as political correctness and they want to remove the liberty of politically incorrect dissenters.

"In light of the facts I gave, how do you know that any of the schools they referred to have anti-competitive sports days? And do you accept that they were wrong to claim that the continued operation of competitive sports was down to them?"

In that case, yes.

"I want fear lifted and those who call us traitors for disagreeing with global warming or anything else to be shown up for the control freaks that they are."

"Fine. Can you accept that, although they may be control freaks, they are not operating political correctness?"

No, because they are pushing the line of the orthodoxy of teh "50 days to save the planet", of the great ad the good and the media. They are low down the pecking order of power but they effectively serve power and the orthodoxy in opposition to those who disagree with the orthodoxy. They effectively serve political correctess and brand dissenters as politically incorrect heretics.

Then you don't understand what political correctness is. That is why you think it is overused and misused. I have tried to demonstrate it in lots of posts with lots of quotes and links.

Sorry, no. As many, many people have pointed out to you, it is you who do not understand it; and you have not chosen to answer them. Producing out of context quotes from other writers doesn't help your case. When P D James described political correctness as a form of linguistic fascism, she is nowhere saying that a few hotheads claiming that debate on climate change should not be allowed amounts to political correctness.

I think the problem is that you are operating the classic logical fallacy of the undistributed middle - all Xs are Y. All Zs are Y. Therefore all Zs are Xs. Or, in its more concrete form: all UKIP members are idiots. Cameron is an idiot. Therefore Cameron is a UKIP member. You are saying that, for instance, Lessing says that PC people are a self-appointed group of vigilantes trying to impose a party line. You point to some people trying to impose a party line on climate change. You say that that must mean they are being PC. It doesn't.

Right, Claig, so in your view anyone who seeks to stifle opinion that differs from theirs should be described as politically correct. The Catholic Church through the centuries was being politically correct when it burnt heretics at the stake. People like Stalin, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussain and Colonel Ghaddafi were all being tremendously politically correct when they murdered their opponents. Hitler was probably the most politically correct of us all.

You really are defining the term in a way which totally differs from the way everyone else does. I'm irresistibly reminded of Humpty Dumpty in Alice: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.""

'Sorry, no. As many, many people have pointed out to you, it is you who do not understand it; and you have not chosen to answer them. '

We clearly have different understandings of it. I have tried my best to explain it with many posts. I can't do more than that. If you can't see what I am saying then I can't express it any better.

"When P D James described political correctness as a form of linguistic fascism, she is nowhere saying that a few hotheads claiming that debate on climate change should not be allowed amounts to political correctness."

P D james does not give an example of what she mean by linguistic fascism. I have given an example of it which is the professor and environmentalist who wanted to jail and treat as traitors those who did not believe in global warming. That to me is linguistic fascism and proscribing of thought and accusing of thoughtcrimes. I understand why they do it - because they are losing and know they will lose, because truth will always beat lies. Political correctness is the doctrine that assigns what is correct politically and what is incorrect politically. Locking people up for thoughtcrimes is punishing people for holding opinions that are politically incorrect.

i have said we will beat them. I have said they won't win.

"Lessing says that PC people are a self-appointed group of vigilantes trying to impose a party line. You point to some people trying to impose a party line on climate change. You say that that must mean they are being PC. It doesn't."

Yes and I think that is what Lessing meant to. What do you think she meant by political correctness?

'Right, Claig, so in your view anyone who seeks to stifle opinion that differs from theirs should be described as politically correct.'

No, not at all. Something is politically correct only if it follows the orthodoxy.

A creationist who seeks to stifle a Darwinist's opinion is not being politically correct, since creationism is not politically correct because it is not the orthodoxy.

I believe that global warming is a scam That doesn't make me politically correct, because that is opposite to the orthodoxy.

And although I disagree with you, it doesn't make you politically correct because you have no power to enforce the orthodoxy. We just disagree. But the orthodoxy is promulagated through the media and journals and newspapers etc. If the powerful wish to lock up people for thoughtcrime then since they represent the orthodoxy then they are being politically correct.

'Can a Daily Mail reader who votes UKIP be PC?'

Yes, but thankfully there are not like that.

'Is that PC thinking or liberal, Guardian thinking?'

That is all fine. it is liberal and guardian thinking.

Political correctness is different because it enforces correctness and opposes incorrectness.

'But you said that non - competitive sports was all very PC.'

Yes because it is the orthodoxy which has subverted the prior values of competitiveness and had become a model of being nice, just as not calling people homeless or alcoholics was being nice etc