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.

And referring specifically to global warming- bearing in mind that the vast majority of the international scientific community agree that it is man made, the "deniers" get a disproportionate amount of air time in the name of balance.

For most people, PC is mostly about politeness: choosing a neutral phrasing over a judgemental one, or one that connotes contempt or disgust. Good examples might be 'ethnic minorities' instead of 'wogs', or 'gay men' instead of 'faggots'. In that sense I think it's done a great deal to make the world a more civil place for people who diverge from the majority.

Where it gets problematic are when it becomes a generally-enforced duty to hypocrisy. Dalrymple talks about “the violence that it does to people’s souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.” In this I would include people who hold beliefs that are not politically correct, but who are prevented from voicing those beliefs. We may not agree with or approve of the belief, but to me it's troubling that it should be considered acceptable and even positive that it should be suppressed and held in silence, or only expressed furtively among people who are considered 'safe' and 'like me'.

I think a good comparison is the Victorian attitude to sexuality. Victorian society maintained a public belief that overt displays of sexuality were indecent, offensive, incompatible with civilised society. Anyone guilty of contravening this in public would be punished with general social disapproval. But in parallel the same society had a thriving sex and pornography industry, full of creative perversion, that was all the more thrilling for its customers because the wares were so forbidden. Often the most vocal condemners of sexual display were the most enthusiastic consumers of the Victorian sexual underworld.

I think 'discriminatory' language occupies a very similar position in our modern society as sex and sexuality did to the Victorians. It's considered uncivilised to make racist, sexist, homophobic etc remarks and persistently violation of this edict will cause you to be publicly ostracised from many 'polite' circles. But at the same time the pressure to be politically correct does not translate, for many people, into actually holding the beliefs they are encouraged to profess. They simply pretend to profess them. That is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. And I think it's very likely that 'un-PC' beliefs, driven out of polite society, take root and flourish in more extreme forms for being concentrated and given the thrill of the forbidden.

Where there are critics of political correctness they are often (leaving aside the origin of the concept in Communism) objecting to the way mass adoption of 'proper' or 'decent' beliefs creates a layer of hypocrisy, as people are forced to go along with public morality while in fact believing something very different. Another criticism is that those whose beliefs are silenced in this way eventually find one another and create subcultures in which the forbidden beliefs are amplified and made more extreme.

I don't disagree with the notion of choosing language thoughtfully in order to extend courtesy to a wide range of people who may be different to me. But equally I think as a social phenomenon it merits critical inspection as I think it has some unintended consequences, which may be less socially beneficial than simple politeness.

I happen to believe that man-made climate change is a scam. I believe that there is an attempt to make climate-change scepticism politically incorrect. It won't work because truth always beats lies.

"Imagine if there were a campaign to sack every senior government adviser who didn’t believe in God. There’d be outrage, and rightly so. Purging politicos from power on the basis of their private beliefs, on the grounds of what lurks in their conscience, would be seen as an intolerable assault on freedom of thought.

Well, the Green Party is proposing just such an assault on senior government advisers – not on the basis of whether they believe in God but on the basis of whether they accept the climate-change consensus. The party has published a 10-point plan on dealing with the current floods, and at the very top of the plan is the proposal that all senior advisers who do not accept the “findings of climate scientists” should be ditched, thrown out of office, expelled from public life effectively. This would apply even to advisers whose brief has nothing to do with the environment. As Green Party leader Natalie Bennett makes clear in this pretty shocking interview with the BBC, “every senior adviser who refuses to accept the scientific consensus on climate change shouldn’t be in their posts”.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100259728/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been-a-climate-change-sceptic/

I have said that I think political correctness as a means of control is over. I believe that is what the rise of UKIP indicates. I agree with Lord Ashcroft that

^'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.^

'then say a random professor or environmentalist shouldn't be allowed to express their views because it is politically correct and controlling. Sure, it's dangerous if the prime-minister says people should be jailed for denying global warming but if you are arguing for free speech then an individual with no power should be allowed to express that as his own opinion.'

I have not said that anyone should not be allowed to say anything. i would rather they said it so that the people know what they really think.

'I'm quite happy for social pressure to stop people expressing hate.'
So am I. There are laws about hate speech. I don't think that PC and hate speech are equivalent.

"The right of free speech is not a right to demand that you be given a platform for that free speech. In fact, nowadays people have more opportunity than ever to publicise their views with no filter at all."

Agree nennypops. I think the internet has been great for free speech and education and information and allowing people who had no voice to express their opinions.

Nearly 200 posts and I still don't understand what Claig thinks political correctness is.

One last time. Claig, could you give me a specific example of something that somebody not as brave and confident as you would be prevented from saying or doing by political correctness?

I'm quite happy for social pressure to stop people expressing hate.'
So am I. There are laws about hate speech. I don't think that PC and hate speech are equivalent.
That's interesting, for a number of reasons, not least because you have stated here before that you support UKIP.

I have said that people can express anything. They may then be treated as "fruitcakes" or as being crazy for their views on issues such as climate change for example. That will deter some people from expressing their beliefs because they don't find the moniker "fruitcake" very appealing.

But even that has lost its force as the party of the "fruitcakes" becomes ever more popular.

'What do you think of Godfrey Bloom?'
I think he is an idiot. However, I have read other things that he says that make a lot of sense. So I wonder about Godfrey Bloom. Is he deliberately acting like an idiot? I don't know.

'That's interesting, for a number of reasons, not least because you have stated here before that you support UKIP.'

Yes, I voted UKIP for the first time in the local elections and will vote for them in the European elections in May, where they are forecast to come first, as the majority of voters will also vote for them.

I have never said anything that is hate speech and nor have the vast majority of UKIP voters either. It may be politically incorrect to vote UKIP according to some politicians who describe them as "fruitcakes". But that won't stop people voting for them. On the contrary, as Lord Ashcroft says, it is likely to drive even more people to vote for them.

They need to be housed because they are homeless and society must sort it out. They are not "clients" choosing between apples and oranges. The responsibility of "choice" must not be placed on them, but responsibility and duty should be placed on our public services to solve their problems

That patronising, head patting view of people in need is one of the reasons it changed to 'client' or 'service user' ...

people in need are not all helpless and unable to exercise choice or voice opinions - the person is not the sum of their 'one' problem - they are not just homeless - or drug dependant - or in debt or whatever - they have that issue they need help with but they also have lots of other stuff going on - good and bad - that needs to be included when you work with them

they are also capable of taking on responsibility for their own choices etc

gordy, we will have to disagree with that. I don't think we should call homeless people "clients". I, in fact, think it is patronising to call them "clients" rather than being homeless.

I also disagree with Burren about "patient" being a negative term because of its connotation of passivity. If someone is in a coma, they are a patient, not a "client". We pay our taxes actively in order that we can be looked after by our public services when we need it.

There is nothing passive about being a patient. We actively expect our public services to look after us when we are ill.

Similarly there is nothing passive about calling the Fire Brigade when we are in a house that is on fire or calling the police when we are being robbed. They are public servants and we are not their "clients". We depend on them for help and that is as it should be.

So you slate everybody who you percieve as wishing to curtail your freedoms and yet you are happy to curtail the freedoms of others. Why is that?

I do not wish to curtail anybody's freedom. Where have I said that? I don't slate anyone who disagrees with me, I just disagree with them, but am happy for them to hold their views.

'I'm quite happy for social pressure to stop people expressing hate.'
So am I. There are laws about hate speech. I don't think that PC and hate speech are equivalent.

Surely that's the point of this thread though? That the term PC is misused - and very often applied to people who are arguing against expressions of hate/unpleasantly expressed prejudice?

" Claig, could you give me a specific example of something that somebody not as brave and confident as you would be prevented from saying or doing by political correctness?"

Claig can I ask why you won't answer this question?

I have answered that some people go with the flow, they don't want to rock the boat and be howled down as a "fruitcake" because they didn't believe Gordon Brown when he said "we have only 50 days left to save the planet".

We also know that many people do not feel free to express what they think about immigration in case they are accused of being racist.

There are probably even some MNers who are regular readers of the Daily Mail but who keep it quiet in case they are howled down as the lowest of the low.

Because he or she won't be able to think of a single example.

Pc gone mad .is just a meaningless term to describe a bundle of unrelated prejudices, misplaced nostalgia and half formed persecution complexes.

"We also know that many people do not feel free to express what they think about immigration in case they are accused of being racist."

But if they don't say anything racist they won't be. In my experience the people who are worried about being thought racist are wise to be cautious.........

They probably don't call themselves "readers" of the Daily Mail, they probably refer to themselves as "clients" so as not to be howled down.

It may be politically incorrect to vote UKIP according to some politicians who describe them as "fruitcakes".

Another example of precisely what I'm saying. The only people who think it is viewed as politically incorrect to vote UKIP are people who intend to vote UKIP. And they use that term pejoratively to try to suggest that people who disagree with them are trying to suppress free speech and their right to vote as they wish, and are in some way over-sensitive yoghurt-knitting sandal-wearing lefties. The reality is that the people who criticise the genuine political incorrectness espoused by people like Geoffrey Bloom are precisely the people who would defend to the death the right of free speech and a free vote.

Politicians describe UKIP unfavourably not out of political correctness but out of a perception that their policies are unworkable and they are a bit of a magnet to the likes of Bloom. Trying to suggest that UKIP is only criticised out of political correctness is in itself a denial of reality.

I do not wish to curtail anybody's freedom. Where have I said that? I don't slate anyone who disagrees with me, I just disagree with them, but am happy for them to hold their views.
But you support UKIP, that means curtailing freedoms - abandoning the Human Rights Act isn't a bad place to start. Or we could discuss the fact that you declared that the homeless should be helped earlier - by sending them abroad? What about congregate communities for those with disabilities, thereby curtailing their freedoms? UKIP is all about curtailing freedoms.

'But if they don't say anything racist they won't be'

There is nothing racist in the book called "the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism"

just views that challenge the political orthodoxy.

www.goodreads.com/book/show/248744.The_Politically_Incorrect_Guide_to_Global_Warming

Abolish non essential and politically correct positions & red tape.
This from their manifesto. What on earth does it mean?

I have answered that some people go with the flow, they don't want to rock the boat and be howled down as a "fruitcake" because they didn't believe Gordon Brown when he said "we have only 50 days left to save the planet".

That's not people scared of expressing their opinion through fear of being labelled politically incorrect, that's people scared of expressing their opinion because they know they cannot justify it in reasonable debate with those who disagree with them.

Climate change really has nothing whatsoever to do with PC, and your repeated attempt to deflect the thread into an entirely separate issue to tend to confirm that you know you are on shaky ground.