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.

The Daily Mail is the paper par excellence in rooting out political correctness.

"In a political correctness crackdown, the New York City Department of Education is knocking terms like 'dinosaur' back to the Stone Age.

The prehistoric creatures are among 50 terms banned from use on tests administered to students by the city.

Others include birthdays (because Jehovah's Witnesses don’t observe them), class-indentifying terms like wealth and poverty, Halloween (as it may imply paganism) - and even dancing.

Why dinosaurs? Because they may upset those who don’t believe in evolution.

The department said in a report obtained by the New York Post that it is taking these steps because such words 'could evoke unpleasant emotions in the students'.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120870/Political-correctness-run-amok-New-York-City-schools-ban-terms-like-dinosaur-Halloween-tests.html

They are just being nice

The Daily Mail is the paper par excellence in rooting out political correctness.

Just like their famous claim to have discovered that a council had abolished Christmas and demanded that people call it Winterval.

Only they hadn't. The Mail had to make a very very embarrassing climbdown. Not that that stops their writers making the same claim even now.

Still, according to Claig, the Mail never makes things up.

'Still, according to Claig, the Mail never makes things up.'

That was a joke. They don't always translate well on a screen.

Sorry Claig, I asked you a question and you replied, and I have just come back to the thread.

'If they showed us the reality of homeless people on TV and called them homeless and showed them sleeping in doorways on streets, then we would rise up and demand that something was done about it. But when they refer to them as "clients", we don't get a sense of the real hardship that affects people.'

A client of a homelessness charity is not the same thing as being any homeless person.

1. Most homeless people are not rough sleepers, so showing people sleeping in doorways would only show one type of homelessness, not the 'reality.'

1. Not all clients of homelessness charities are homeless. The point of these charities is to end homelessness. If somebody is housed, and has signed a tenancy contract through the charity, they very much are a client in that there is a financial agreement, and they are not homeless as they now have housing. They still require support from the charity to avoid future homelessness.

You saying that homelessness charities should refer to people using their services as 'homeless people' would be unworkable.

So if somebody was asking me about my appointments (when I worked in homelessness), I might say, " I am going to visit three of my clients, having a meeting about my colleague's client, then I have two referrals this afternoon." That accurately depicts their relationship to the service offered and is easy to understand.

Under your explanation, I would have to say instead, "I am going to see two formerly homeless people and one person who has never been homeless but nearly was had they not come to us, then have a meeting about a former care leaver who could have become homeless but didn't, then this afternoon I am going to meet two new people, one of whom is currently in a mental health unit and has nowhere to go next, and one of whom is currently a homeless person.

The second is completely long winded and difficult to follow. It says nothing about whether or not the people are being assisted by the charity, and doesn't distinguish between them and other people who aren't being helped but are still homeless people. Using 'client' and 'referral' adequately explains the nature of their connection to the charity.

I can see the point that there may be other preferable words, such as 'service user' but homeless person already has a meaning, and it doesn't mean 'person who uses the services of a homelessness charity', because not all homeless people do.

Saying I should use 'homeless person' instead of client would be like saying that pupils of schools should be referred to as 'insufficiently educated children' or that instead of referring to me as a customer, supermarket workers should refer to me as an 'inadequately provisioned person' or that patients at a dentist should be referred to as 'the uncleaned toothed.'

I would say that PC is any attempt to refer to a group of people in a way that accurately reflects the way that they wish to be referred to, rather than referring to them in the way other people in wider society want to.

PC gone mad is perhaps when people invent terms or ways of discussing groups that don't reflect the wishes of the group or wider society. Examples would be attempts to stop people using the term 'brain storming' in case it offends people with epilepsy, which epilepsy charities then said was not offensive, or attempts to make people who identify as mixed race identify as dual heritage, when they don't prefer that term.

Very good points, almondcake. That makes a lot of sense.

I was also the Daily Mail that broke the story about Red Cross charity shops not having Christmas windows because it might offend Muslims........

Oh, and the one about the Early Learning Centre not putting pigs in their farm sets for the same reason........

No