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.

Could not agree

Sorry meant to say - could not agree more with Claig!

The attitude a person has towards 'Political Correctness' works as a useful barometer for unpalatable views. The moment I hear somebody moaning about PC I know they are likely to be at best apologists and at worst promulgaters of some 'ism' or another.

Useful.

Since when has Wikipedia been a valid source of info though? Not something I would encourage the use of yet so many people cite it as some kind of authority.

Not everything on wikipedia is right, but it is a tremendous resource that has educated millions of people across the world on thousands of topics and it is all free and at the fingertips of everyone from 9 to 90. It has opened up an encyclopaedia to everyone for no cost.

If it shut up racist homophobic fuckwits I am all for it curtailing ' freedom of speech' ...sadly its not working

Political correctness in the way its bandied about here is simply the seemingly crazy idea of thinking about what you say and respecting others....Tories think this is a bad thing ...shocker!

There is no way of establishing veracity on it. I'm sorry but I cannot take seriously the arguments of somebody quoting it as an authority. It lets you down Claig. By all means use it but don't quote it - you'll end up with egg on your face as many a student has learned

I would love a few examples of things that people would like to say but can't because of "political correctness" that aren't racist, sexist, homophobic or just plain rude. I've asked this loads of times in many different fora, but never been given any satisfactory examples.

The examples I have been given have all turned out to be either made up,(black coffee) misunderstandings,(Winterval) or things that are perfectly fine to say or do but people think they can't........(holding doors open)

It's certainly a trend. Even Suggs has started doing publicity work for Amnesty International.

It's Madness gone politically correct.

Yes ...... and it's basically used as a knee jerk mechanism by people when they want to be as racist, sexist or otherwise prejudiced as they like while not appearing utter wankers. No, dear I'm not saying it to be "politically correct" I'm actually just not a complete arsehole like you. Unfortunately for them many people can see right through it!

You can pretty much guarantee that anyone who spouts "you're saying that to be politically correct" on a regular basis is a moron from the Dark Ages who hasn't quite grasped modern, democratic, egalatarian life.

Claig, homeless charities refer to service users they are in contact with their clients. Factually they are their clients; it is not a euphemism. What else could they call them?

"Claig, homeless charities refer to service users they are in contact with their clients. Factually they are their clients; it is not a euphemism. What else could they call them?"

Wasters? Dregs?

[grin]@tethersend

Young people involved in crime are often vulnerable and at risk ...it an actual fact, especially if adults are using them to commit or engage other children to commit, crimes . Often through threat of violence. What else would you call them?

The world isn't black and white and failing to understand and support such people does nothing to help society

Tramps? Dossers?

I don't like the use of the creeping term 'clients' for caring professions, hospitals or schools, because 'clients' has a business connotation of customers and I am against turning caring and social services into the mindset of businesses because it depersonalises those services and treats them as just another business.

Euphemisms are gaining ascendancy and by turning everyone into 'clients', the same crap service and high costs will be applied to everyone as is done by our energy company quasi-monopolies.

But this is just one small aspect of how our thought and language are being redefined with seemingly small things such as "visually impaired" which cannot distinguish between total loss of sight and partial loss of sight etc. It leads to a blurring of distinctions and a generality which fails to address real issues and real needs.

But the ultimate goal of political correctness is to make some things unsayable, things which challenge the orthodoxy of the ruling elite so that they are able to impose policies without them being challenged

"Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”

I'd like to care about what you think. The closure of hospitals was a problem, not because of the closure of the hospitals per se, but because of the lack of support provided upon closure.
As for describing criminals as clients, it's another of your pc myths. Once convicted, a criminal is a criminal and doesn't become a client again until they are back in the outside world. (I have checked this today with my brother who is a barrister).
Your arguments about the changes in language are in valid too, governments of all persuasions have been controlling language for years, this governments insidious little narrative played out via the Mail and the Express is a demonisation of those on benefits, I do not think this government is in any way inclined toward communism.
As for being rude, I wasn't trying to be rude, I honestly think your high level of paranoia needs addressing.

"But the ultimate goal of political correctness is to make some things unsayable, things which challenge the orthodoxy of the ruling elite so that they are able to impose policies without them being challenged"

What things?

I gave the example of 'global warming'

"Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”

Applauds Claig.

'Political Correctness' can be used incorrectly, but there is a real thing that Political Correctness refers too and a real danger. If we're not allowed to hold that opinion then there you have a casualty of it.

Perhaps people who want an opinion on something should be able to just look up the correct view on a government website (or MN) and then they will know what they must think.

Not sure what's so bad about Wikipedia. Most people here cite 'something my friend's sister told me and she works in blah blah so she should know'. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it is constantly scrutinised by people who disagree with what's on it so there is less chance of a lie becoming permanent.

Coming up with a quote from a very minor person with little influence doesn't really help your argument, Claig. In fact all your arguments are solely based on logical fallacies of every description.

Political correctness is about politics, it is not about being nice and kind.

It was used by communists politically to try to make socialists toe a political line.

It is part of the redefinition of language which makes politicians and media use the term "collateral damage" for bombing campaigns that kill and maim children to meet the political objectives that drive wars.

So what term do you want instead of clients?

I don't see an issue with visually impaired either. Some words are generalising and some specific. What word do you want instead of visually impaired?

It is part of the redefinition of language which makes politicians and media use the term "collateral damage" for bombing campaigns that kill and maim children to meet the political objectives that drive wars.
No it isn't.

"I gave the example of 'global warming'

"Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”

So a environmental campaigner uses strong language. How is this relevant?