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.

Ok let's go back to climate chamge since Claig has brought it up again. Being a 'climate change sceptic' (now there's a euphasism for you) is not politically incorrect. It's just incorrect.
Most people who believe humans are in part responsible for climate change (and given the 6/7 billion of us here how can we not) don't want denialists to feel they have an equal & valid POV because they don't. Bit like creationism and evolution being equally valid theories when they're not. Nothing to do with 'Political Correctness' at all.
So yes I agree with OP.

So, Claig, what do you think those working with the homeless should call the people they work with?

I'm astonished at this quote from an earlier post of yours:

Here we have the climate of political correctness spread to politicians

"When it's right to call an idiot an idiot

The new Finance Bill is to remove references to lunatic, idiot or insane persons" after Chris Leslie MP said that the terms are clearly insulting and demeaning to people who would be regarded as incapacitated. Conservative David Gauke agreed that the terms belong in the Victorian age.

Are you seriously saying that, in this day and age, it is appropriate to use that sort of terminology in a piece of public legislation? Why, when there are much more acceptable and indeed accurate alternatives available?

As for your quotes on the issue of climate change, they are not examples of political correctness. The people who say that global warming sceptics should not promulgate their views are clearly not saying it because those views are potentially offensive to vulnerable minorities, but because they consider that they are factually wrong and actively dangerous. I happen to think they are wrong to say that, because obviously anyone should be free to discuss views of this nature, but this has nothing at all to do with political correctness.

Are you Harriet Harman, OP?

Being politically incorrect is saying things that are not deemed sayable that are not allowed to be said

"An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.

...

His main complaint is his belief that certain nefarious, unidentified individuals have organized a “campaign funding misinformation.” Such a campaign, he argues, “ought to be considered criminally negligent.”

dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/

We're not there yet and we won't be going there because parties such as UKIP show that people will not accept it. But just as there were communist elites who were able to throw dissidents into mental asylums for challenging their political orthodoxy and for holding views that were incorrect politically, there are elites who today would like to have the power to do similar things.

"Being politically incorrect is saying things that are not deemed sayable that are not allowed to be said"

Like what?

'Are you seriously saying that, in this day and age, it is appropriate to use that sort of terminology in a piece of public legislation? '

I don't know the cotext of that report and how the words were used and in what context. but i find nothing wrong with using the phrase "insane person" to describe someone who is mad and I think that MN posters who say that people should not use the word "idiot" are misguided since idiot is a word that has many meanings and has developed those meanings over time. Dostoevsky has a book whose title is 'The Idiot'

there are elites who today would like to have the power to do similar things.

1. Nennypops is right, this has nothing to do with pc, global warming is unpalatable to some, but not offensive.
2. Again, a college professor is not part of an elite that wishes to change discussions on global warming, George W Bush may well be, but not this guy. As for Dubya, he too holds little influence now.
3. The above quote is really rather paranoid.

Are you Harriet Harman, OP?

Nope. Why do you ask?

Claig- what do you want to say that political correctness prevents you from saying? Specifically?

The Idiot was published in 1869.
Have you read it?

Define 'mad' or insane?
There is language available that is kinder to use, but I see you are demonstrating your right to be rude.

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

It is relevant because the thought behind it, the use of the word "traitor" for the hundreds of millions of people who disagree with that person is an attempt to stop those people disagreeing, to brand them as crazy, fruitcakes and insane. It is done for the benefit of the political elite that wants to impose their views on the ordinary people. But people will not go for it, parties of "fruitcakes" will arise and millions will vote for them.

Totally agree with claig.

Yep, the teaparty is a party of fruitcakes!

You are not answering the questions put to you claig.
We were discussing political correctness, your deviation into other language and trying to put down global warming dissenters is not relevant to the discussion.

Being politically incorrect is saying things that are not deemed sayable that are not allowed to be said

No, it isn't. If, for instance, someone well-known has an injunction preventing a particular story about them being repeated, saying anything about that story would not be allowed. However, if you did say something about it you would not be being politically incorrect.

If I got up on a soapbox and incited everyone to set up a lynch mob to attack someone I disliked, I would be saying something that is "not allowed to be said" because it would be an incitement to criminal assault. That is not political correctness.

If I get a few friends together and plot to rob a bank, I would be saying something that "not allowed to be said" because that is a conspiracy to commit a crime. Not political correctness.

And to get into the areas many of the proponents of the "PC Brigade" mantra really mean, I would also not be allowed to say something likely to stir up racial hatred. But that is because our elected Parliament has decided it is against the law, not because it is politically incorrect.

'Claig- what do you want to say that political correctness prevents you from saying? Specifically?'

It doesn't stop me laughing at the global warmers and it never will. But it does browbeat some people into not speaking their minds and remaining silent on all sorts of political issues and I believe that that is dangerous for society because the 'silent majority' who are being spun by spinners and politicians will eventually revolt.

I believe in freedom so that nobody should be considered a "traitor" for disagreeing with any politician who says "we have only 50 days left to save the planet".

Claig, what do you want to say, specifically that political correctness prevents you from saying?

So are you saying that the environmental campaigner concerned was being politically correct when he somewhat bizarrely used the word "traitor" to describe people who disagree with him? You do realise that he is nothing to do with the government, don't you?

You do also realise that you are quite at liberty to call him a "traitor" back?

But it does browbeat some people into not speaking their minds and remaining silent on all sorts of political issues and I believe that that is dangerous for society because the 'silent majority' who are being spun by spinners and politicians will eventually revolt.
Rubbish.
Oh, and I strongly suspect that you have used this thread to promote your own interest in the global warming debate. I'm not sure why, because actually it has nothing to do with it.
However, you still haven't answered quite a few of the more relevant questions put to you.

Yes Claig, please enlighten us... give us an example where you have been actively prevented from saying something 'un-pc'?

tethersend.

This thread has taken off in some fairly peculiar directions, which seem (unsurprisingly) to demonstrate the OP's point that 'PC' is a widely misunderstood term. I too would be very interested to know what exactly it is that political correctness prevents its detractors from saying - do they have burningly important points to make about minority groups which can somehow only be expressed by use of unpleasant, discriminatory terms like moron, cripple, spaz, Paki, queer etc etc?

'So are you saying that the environmental campaigner concerned was being politically correct when he somewhat bizarrely used the word "traitor" to describe people who disagree with him?'

Political correctness is a trick, a tool used by the powerful to disenfranchise and silence opposition by the less powerful. He wasn't being plitically correct but he was trying to cast people who disagree with him as 'politically incorrect' and he wanted them to be treated "as traitors" for disagreeing with his views.

'You do realise that he is nothing to do with the government, don't you?'

The government are only temporary, Gordon Brown has gone, he said something like he is an "ex-politician" now. He does not define what is and is not politically correct.

Political correctness is something that grows like a poisonous ivy and something that catches more and more thought in its grasp over time. that environmentalist and his view that people who are global warming sceptics are traitors and should be treated as such is just a symptom of the creeping ivy.

Come off it, Claig, you know full well that debate about climate change flourishes all over the place. That has nothing whatsoever to do with UKIP, it was happening before UKIP was anything more than a twinkle in Farage's eye: it is because we have a basic principle of free speech. I repeat, those who say that denying climate change is wrong are not saying so out of political correctness, because this is in no way aimed at socially disadvantaged groups. As I said originally, people who seek to extend the use of the term way beyond its correct meaning are just trying to do so because they perceive that it has a pejorative implication that they want to throw at views they disagree with.

I love that all the oppressed souls who can't say what they want won't actually SAY what it is they wish to say but can't
Or something ^^ since that is gobbledyduke as baldrick would say

Political correctness dose not exist in the way the right would have us believe ...it just doesn't

Oh and 'visual impairment' is a medical term which covers a spectrum of visual disability...nowt to do with being pc

I don't know the cotext of that report and how the words were used and in what context. but i find nothing wrong with using the phrase "insane person" to describe someone who is mad and I think that MN posters who say that people should not use the word "idiot" are misguided since idiot is a word that has many meanings and has developed those meanings over time. Dostoevsky has a book whose title is 'The Idiot'

We're talking about a Bill, not a report. That means something that it is proposed will become an Act of Parliament. The term was used in relation to people who are unable to handle their tax and financial affairs due to disability.

So why is it better to use the term "lunatic, idiot or insane persons" rather than "persons lacking capacity" which is a well-recognised and defined term used in other legislation?

I'm interested that even you, claig, hesitated to justify the use of the term "lunatic".

Political correctness is a trick, a tool used by the powerful to disenfranchise and silence opposition by the less powerful. He wasn't being plitically correct but he was trying to cast people who disagree with him as 'politically incorrect' and he wanted them to be treated "as traitors" for disagreeing with his views.
This is a complete nonsense. Now, answer the questions or bugger off!