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.

'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"

Claig, you said that people are frightened to talk about immigration for fear of being labelled racist. As you well know, the comment you quote was directed at that. Why on earth have you answered with a totally irrelevant reference to a book on global warning? Because as things stand it looks like you're trying to avoid an entirely valid answer to the point you made.

'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 disagree. Cameron didn't call them "fruitcakes" because their policies are unworkable. In fact many of their policies are shared by some of Cameron's fellow Tory MPs. He called them "fruitcakes" to dissuade other members of the public from voting for them in case they take votes from the Tories. It is estimated that about 30% of Tory voters have defected to UKIP and half of the Tory Party's membersip have left under Cameron.

By calling them "racists, fruitcakes and nutters" a signal was sent that they are politically incorrect and should not be voted for.

"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."

UKIP will scrap the bedroom tax and help poor people. I don't know what "congregate communities" are. The Human Rights Act is a supra-national law that has precedence over British Law as far as I know. I am in favour of politicians being accountable to the voting public for any laws that apply to UK citizens.

Are you going to answer any of my questions claig?

Sorry, cross post.

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

Martorana implied that being politically incorrect meant saying something racist. The majority of people who are against immigration are not racist. I mentioned the book on global warming to show that political correctness is about things other than racism.

Claig, Cameron is perfectly entitled to say things to dissuade people from voting UKIP. That is, in essence, his job. Just as UKIP go round trying to dissuade people from voting for the other parties.

Using the terms "fruitcakes" and "nutters" does not send out any signal that UKIP is politically incorrect; on the contrary, it is in itself a politically incorrect way of saying the party tends to attract, at the very least, people with eccentric views. When you look at the likes of Geoffrey Bloom, it is difficult to argue with that. In describing some UKIP voters and indeed candidates as racists, Cameron was simply being accurate - even Farage has repeatedly had to acknowledge that. So, should Cameron be prevented from saying that UKIP tends to attract people with illogical and sometimes racist views? Wouldn't that be suppressing free speech?

The Human Rights Act is a supra-national law that has precedence over British Law as far as I know. I am in favour of politicians being accountable to the voting public for any laws that apply to UK citizens.

No, it isn't. It's an Act passed by the Queen in Parliament.

Of course it has precedence over British Law, but UKIP have stated that they are not replacing it and are in favour of the death penalty. How does that not curtail freedoms.
Wanting to put disabled people in congregate communities is akin to putting them in the workhouse or back in your nice hospitals that they disasterously closed in the 19980s.
We do have a mechanism for voting with regard to Human Rights, it's called the European Parliament, I believe UKIP have a member or two, although they are known for their non attendance rather than anything else.

'Cameron is perfectly entitled to say things to dissuade people from voting UKIP'

Of course he is. But then he can't complain if people accuse him of trying to paint UKIP as politically incorrect.

'it is in itself a politically incorrect way of saying the party tends to attract, at the very least, people with eccentric views.'

Very good point. This is where Cameron ties himself in knots in his attempt to smear UKIP.

Martorana implied that being politically incorrect meant saying something racist. The majority of people who are against immigration are not racist. I mentioned the book on global warming to show that political correctness is about things other than racism.

She didn't. You know full well that she made that comment specifically in answer to your claim that people are frightened of giving their views on immigration for fear of being condemned as racist. As she rightly pointed out, if they don't express racist opinions they won't be described as racist.

And, yet again, PC is not about global warming. It is an issue of scientific and factual correctness, not political correctness.

When UKIP members are racist, they are being politically incorrect. What is wrong with Cameron saying so? You yourself have said that you disagree with people expressing offensive racist views.

'are in favour of the death penalty. How does that not curtail freedoms.'

I didn't know that they are in favour of the death penalty. But all sentences of criminals curtail freedoms. Would you want them to free all the "clients" in our prisons?

'it's called the European Parliament'

I agree with UKIP in wanting to get out of Europe. I want Westminster to be supreme and the country to be sovereign. I don't want to be forced into conflict with Russia just because Europe might want it.

It's interesting Nenny this is all about obfuscation and very definitely not set in reality. One wonders why it's so difficult to get a straight answer and the only logical conclusion must be an awareness of being on particularly unstable ground.

'What is wrong with Cameron saying so?'

Because Cameron didn't qualify his statement with the word "some".
But I am not against free speech. Cameron can say what he likes and he does and it backfires on him.

"Martorana implied that being politically incorrect meant saying something racist. The majority of people who are against immigration are not racist. I mentioned the book on global warming to show that political correctness is about things other than racism."

No I didn't. And you know perfectly well I didn't. What I said was that in the specific situation you outlined people need only be concerned about being thought politically incorrect if they actually said something racist. It is perfectly possible to talk about immigration without being politically incorrect. But I give up now. This is turning into one of those "I can't go to bed- somebody is wrong on the Internet" situations.

Martorana, I apologise I misunderstood you in my haste to reply as there were so many questions from different posters.

You see, you keep losing the argument when you do the 'clients' thing.

You haven't answered the Human Rights Act point.

With regard to the death penalty, then yes, all sentences curtail freedoms and in some circumstances that is entirely reasonable, however, they don't take a life, something that cannot be rectified if there were a wrong conviction, and we know they happen with alarming regularity.

'You haven't answered the Human Rights Act point.'

I am not an expert on the Human Rights Act, but as far as i understand it, it allows people to appeal to a higher European Court over and above a British court, and I am against that. I believe that British citizens should be tried by British judges.

It is not politically correct of me to say so, but I am beginning to wonder if the Death Penalty should be reinstated for some horrific crimes where DNA evidence or CCTV or other evidence could prove guilt without a doubt.

Ian Brady wants to die and i don't see why he shouldn't. I also believe in real life sentences with no release. I think it is an insult to victims' families to see horrific murderers released after 12 or 15 years to continue life as before when relatives have been murdered in horrific circumstances.

"It is not politically correct of me to say so, but I am beginning to wonder if the Death Penalty should be reinstated for some horrific crimes where DNA evidence or CCTV or other evidence could prove guilt without a doubt."

It's perfectly politically correct to say that if it's what you think. I think this illustrates that you don't know what "politically correct" actually means.

Martorana, people are frightened to say what they think in case everybody jumps down their throats and says how nasty or what a "fruitcake" they are.

I must admit I think the spree killer Dennehy should have got the death penalty and Ian Brady and many more if guilt can be proven without a doubt.

Political correctness in my view is saying something that should not be said lest it attracts huge opprobrium and is considered "incorrect". It stifles people's real opinions.

DNA evidence is not 100% safe. There have been cases that have since been proven mistaken even though dna was taken. Despite it being an almost million to one chance, it happens, mistakes are made.
Why can't people be rehabilitated.
Would you be prepared to do the killing yourself?

For safety's sake, there should always be a higher court it is time UKIP and the like realised that Britain is a tiny little island with little economic or political impact anymore and could really do with all the allies it can garner. Tories, too.

It is extraordinarily rare for a murderer to be released after 12 to 15 years and they are as entitled to rehabilitation as anyone. Two wrongs do not make a right, surely you know that.

"Political correctness in my view is saying something that should not be said lest it attracts huge opprobrium and is considered "incorrect". It stifles people's real opinions."

See? You don't know what it means. What a waste of a thread.

I agree Martorana.

Claig I feel sorry that you have been manipulated in such a fashion that you are completely unable to express yourself. I shall leave things here I think.