Just curious if there are any examples of this. — Terrapin Station

Here is a good place to start:

[url=http://]http://www.boycottleftwingers.com/[/url]

Ah I just thought of one possibility. The Kathy Griffin thing, although I don't know how we could make that fit the concept of political correctness really. — Terrapin Station

What is the concept of political correctness really?

What is the concept of political correctness really? — Fooloso4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Yes, I have referenced that article in a couple of earlier posts. But this does not tell me what you mean by political correctness and why you are not sure whether the Kathy Griffin thing is something different.

So "political correctness" can be misused for a dubious agenda. Big deal. So can lots of things. What about the problems with political correctness itself, the real deal, which some people refuse to even accept? Maybe if some people didn't shield the concept from any conceivable faults, as though it is simply out of the question, unthinkable, then we might actually get somewhere. We could benefit from some out-of-the-box thinking here.

Ah I just thought of one possibility. The Kathy Griffin thing, although I don't know how we could make that fit the concept of political correctness really. — Terrapin Station

That's definitely an example of political correctness stepping in. I have no doubt in my mind about that. And I don't need a Wikipedia article to educate me on what political correctness is. Meaning is use. I have a good enough grasp of how the term is used.

Kathy Griffin, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Clarkson, Katie Hopkins, a whole bunch of comedians from the 1970's...

There's good and bad. Much of the above I would categorise as the latter, although there are two sides to every coin.

I like that J. S. Mill had an appreciation of a difference of opinion, including those more radical or offensive. He and his wife were advocates of women's rights. There was a time when that wasn't considered politically correct. There was a time when the politically correct view was that women should know their place in society. Back then, politics was for wealthy men. The tide turned on that one. Now the nay sayers are considered to be politically incorrect.

Well, because of the stuff in bold:

"The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[1][2][3][4][5] Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups ofpeople considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race. In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.[6][3][7][8][9][10][11]"

Maybe if some people didn't shield the concept from any conceivable faults, as though it is simply out of the question, unthinkable, then we might actually get somewhere. We could benefit from some out-of-the-box thinking here. — S

Perhaps like abandoning for a while the left/right juxtaposition of agendas or the current political cilmate? Now that would be out-of-the-box thinking.

Basically a better definition for politically correct would be something like "minority friendly" than politically correct. And then there ought to be really a universal definition of "politically correct" meaning "language, policies or measures" that emphasize and/or enforce the current and dominating political views or political system in any country. Hence "politically correct" would mean a lot of different things with "politically correct" speach being typical especially in totalitarian societies. Like the soviet "lithurgy" in the USSR was indeed a quite bizarre way to speak.

Perhaps like abandoning for a while the left/right juxtaposition of agendas or the current political cilmate? Now that would be out-of-the-box thinking. — ssu

That didn't go down too well in France. Macron ended up pissing off just about everyone. As a leftist, I strongly disagreed with some of his policies. And many of the rightwing populists were against him. They formed a large part of the yellow vest protests, and many of them voted for Le Pen instead of him. I would've voted for Mélenchon before he was ruled out. But then Mélenchon himself, despite being a leftist, was pretty far left and radical, so that is a kind of out-of-box thinking.

Basically a better definition for politically correct would be something like "minority friendly" than politically correct. — ssu

I don't agree with that. I think that that captures only an aspect of it, if by that you mean social minorities, like ethnic or sexual minorities. Although maybe that wasn't your meaning. Political correctness is about more than discrimination. More than, say, racist jokes. I think that the Kathy Griffin example of the photo where she appears to be holding up Donald Trump's decapitated head clearly qualifies as conflicting with political correctness. So we should work backwards from examples like that in coming up with a definition instead of looking to Wikipedia and then seeing what qualifies and what doesn't accordingly.

I think that a better associated term would actually be the opposite of your wording, namely "majority friendly", as in, pandering to the sensitivities or tastes of the majority of society, or pandering to the status quo. This isn't far off from your definition below.

And then there ought to be really a universal definition of "politically correct" meaning "language, policies or measures" that emphasize and/or enforce the current and dominating political views or political system in any country. — ssu

Yeah, that sort of roughly works, I suppose.

Why would we want any political correctness at all? Its very nature is about postering and perception, a framework for virtue signalling and social control. Why come up with new definitions when yiu can get rid of it together? There is nothing PC adds that isnt already covered elsewhere, PC is ONLY adding authoritarian social control and toxic virtue signalling.
We have politeness or courtesy already, we already have laws that protect minorities in the same way non-minorities are protected and laws for equal rights etc that PC people are worried certain words or phrasing might lead to. Its creating a hammer to smash something thats not even really there.
Basically, PC is complete bullshit and I dont see the point in salvaging it at all. It will ALWAYS grow into what is now no matter the well intentioned or humble beginnings.

"Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. I choose politeness. Violence achieves nothing worthwhile."

Rudeness and violence are not the same thing, nor are politeness and violence each other's opposites. There are many people who are polite who are complete sharks. I think that what you are looking for is action that is genuinely good. Genuine goodness is something that I can respect and that I believe I practice. It has nothing to do with being polite and everything to do with righteousness of action.

Well said.

"Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. I choose politeness. Violence achieves nothing worthwhile."

Rudeness and violence are not the same thing, nor are politeness and violence each other's opposites. There are many people who are polite who are complete sharks. I think that what you are looking for is action that is genuinely good. Genuine goodness is something that I can respect and that I believe I practice. It has nothing to do with being polite and everything to do with righteousness of action. — Ilya B Shambat

Yes, very well said.

So "political correctness" can be misused for a dubious agenda. Big deal. So can lots of things. — S

You miss the point. There is no misuse of political correctness. It is a label, a code that says bullshit here. That is precisely its use.

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars.

I have emphasized the importance of the abnormal age we live in. Demographics are changing and the bounds of acceptable behavior is changing too. Calling out the language and behavior of others is something we are going to see more of, not because PC is contagious but because the old boundaries no longer hold.

The anti-PCers are objecting to the very thing the PC are trying to accommodate, integration. They are not simply resisting the conversation they are resisting the very need to do this.

Let's be clear. When Trump attacks others for being PC it is not because he is bothered by their attempt to avoid language or behavior that can be seen as offensive or excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people.

You miss the point. There is no misuse of political correctness. — Fooloso4

Oh okay, then Donald Trump wasn't misusing the term for his own agenda, and therefore Fox News really were being too politically correct. Funny, I thought you were making the opposite point.

It is a label, a code that says bullshit here. That is precisely its use. — Fooloso4

No, he clearly isn't using it to mean bullshit. That wouldn't make any sense.

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars. — Fooloso4

I'm not doing that. Who are you suggesting is doing that? I think that this is precisely the problem, and it is what @Ilya B Shambat was just getting at in his reply to @Pattern-chaser. There is a distinction which has been acknowledged between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right. The two are certainly not mutually inclusive, such that the former necessarily implies the latter and vice versa. I am objecting to political correctness for its bad side, or for those who only think that they're doing good, but are actually causing harm, and are actually doing something which should be frowned upon, in spite of simplistic herd-morality-type thinking which offers uncritical praise.

I have emphasized the importance of the abnormal age we live in. Demographics are changing and the bounds of acceptable behavior is changing too. Calling out the language and behavior of others is something we are going to see more of, not because PC is contagious but because the old boundaries no longer hold. — Fooloso4

Yeah, but that doesn't say anything particularly interesting to me. Calling out language and behaviour should be seen as neutral without any context. Add a context, and we can sensibly judge whether it is right or wrong in that particular case.

The anti-PCers are objecting to the very thing the PC are trying to accommodate, integration. They are not simply resisting the conversation they are resisting the very need to do this. — Fooloso4

No, they are objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity, not justifiable integration. Trust me, I am better able to represent the objections than you are, because you are trying to represent them from the outside, and your biases are an obstacle for accurate and fair representation.

I hope it won’t offend you that I point out the little bit of irony in your first paragraph: you begin by portraying political correctness in its least charitable light, and end by insisting that your argument is reasoned. Reasoned how? Certainly the picture you’ve made for us isn’t analytical--- in the sense that it is imagined; not observed, but generalized from several personal experiences and the gossip of others. As you said, “Political correctness not only fails to achieve its stated goals of tolerance and respect; it prevents them from being made possible at all.” In other words, your generalization blankets advocates of political correctness as unintentional and intolerant, and labels them as liberals. Here is another instance where I would agree this argument isn’t exactly reasoned, though your lack of definitions and liberal use of certain words doesn’t by itself disqualify your argument, it merely makes it significantly less persuasive.
Here is another thing, before I get to why I disagree with you--- or perhaps this is why I disagree with you: From your perspective, the character of discourse in the US is as political correctness. For me, the character of discourse in the US is reaction to an imagined politically correct presence--- be that a movement or a generation or a class. In fact, what you perceive as harassment for word choice or controversial opinions is again only a projection of what you said onto ‘the whole canvas’ so to speak, of our culture. In other words, you think they are identifying your individual vocabulary and opinions as a social problem, when in reality they are perceiving what you said in a dialectical sense. That is, relating it to a large social movement towards ‘the right.’ Just as you fear the deterioration of society because of political correctness (based on, lets face it, a generalization), they fear the same based on the same.
So here is why I disagree with you: your argument is uncharitable (but I know you mean well), lacks definitions (i’d like to know how you define ‘political correctness’ and ‘liberal’), and most importantly, it fails to take into account the alarm and sense of doom one feels when asked to confront what he/she perceives as “the root of all evil.” In other words, it isn’t discourse that bothers the politically correct, it is the very same thing that makes you sick to the stomach when talking to them: it is the feeling that life is going to change for the worse. FINAL REPHRASING (haha): It is the perception of danger, the danger that such thoughts lead to Nazism, etc.
Conclusion: Don’t judge the politically correct too harshly. Both of you are feeling the same things and reacting to the same impulse to perceive the thought of one person as the thought of many, and through this hasty generalization perceive an apocalyptic decline of society (or at least a decline). Don’t worry, don’t sweat! There is no such decline in the behaviors of people. People are really behaving the same as ever. This upheaval Political Correctness is merely your reaction to being called things like “fascist”; the counter-frame you construct to cope with being maligned as something you ‘aren’t’ (but let's face it, there's probably a reason someone reacted strongly to your opinions). Accept that while a person perceives your simple statement of opinion as an attack, there might have been some basis for his/her initial reaction. Your reaction to post about it here is maybe an attempt to reassert yourself or something, and distilled you will find it is exactly the same impulse.

Perhaps like abandoning for a while the left/right juxtaposition of agendas or the current political cilmate? Now that would be out-of-the-box thinking. — ssu

That didn't go down too well in France. Macron ended up pissing off just about everyone. — S

HAH! I like your funny sarcasm, but really, to define the issue without the political left/right juxtaposition would be far better. If one would start from a general concept where political environment affects the discourse and molds it up how things are talked about, then we would avoid the current debate of "No, PC means that your polite" - "No it doesn't".

Still smiling about that Macron comment... Yes, let's have out-of-the-box thinking in Europe: so let's vote for a federalist investment banker. He definately will have "new ideas" as we have already seen. :grin:

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars. — Fooloso4

Have you ever thought that you could generalize this? That this could be said about a lot of issues and movements today.

"No, PC means that you're polite" - "No it doesn't". — ssu

No, horses are fluffy and purr!

Still smiling about that Macron comment... Yes, let's have out-of-the-box thinking in Europe: so let's vote for a federalist investment banker. He definitely will have "new ideas" as we have already seen. :grin: — ssu

:lol:

Well, he was trying to spin himself as sort of new centrist-style political force, at least. And he does have some elements of both. But yes, too rightwing for my liking. I am not a fan. His "new ideas", like suddenly hiking up a tax which caused widespread protests for weeks on end until he finally made concessions, have not exactly been a screaming success.

Well, he was trying to spin himself as sort of new centrist-style political force, at least. And he does have some elements of both. But yes, too rightwing for my liking. I am not a fan. His "new ideas", like suddenly hiking up a tax which caused widespread protests for weeks on end until he finally made concessions, have not exactly been a screaming success. — S

Be extremely cautious with people that market themselves as centrists or anything new. They are absolutely the worst. Everybody will finish hating them. Just remember Tony Blair and his implementation of "Third way". How cool was that for Britannia?

Far better are those who indeed are centrist, yet openly acknowledge that they are either conservative/right-wing or left-wing/progressive and specifically in what issues. Sincerity is important in a politician.

No, horses are fluffy and purr! — S

Meow!

Let's be clear. When Trump attacks others for being PC it is not because he is bothered by their attempt to avoid language or behavior that can be seen as offensive or excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people. — Fooloso4

I don't know enough about that to comment on it, because I don't really follow politics.

Be extremely cautious with people that market themselves as centrists or anything new. They are absolutely the worst. Everybody will finish hating them. Just remember Tony Blair and his implementation of "Third way". How cool was that for Britannia?

Far better are those who indeed are centrist, yet openly acknowledge that they are either conservative/right-wing or left-wing/progressive and specifically in what issues. Sincerity is important in a politician. — ssu

Ergh, Blair. :rage:

Oh okay, then Donald Trump wasn't misusing the term for his own agenda, and therefore Fox News really were being too politically correct. Funny, I thought you were making the opposite point. — S

Trump was using the term exactly as conservatives intend to use it, to summarily dismiss anything said by the opposition. Fox was not being too politically correct. They were doing what any company to does, maintain viewers and sponsors. They pride themselves on not being PC.

There is a distinction which has been acknowledged between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right. — S

Are you suggesting that the politically correct do not want to do what is right? Do they think that what is correct is wrong?

I am objecting to political correctness for its bad side, or for those who only think that they're doing good, but are actually causing harm, and are actually doing something which should be frowned upon, — S

So, those who think they are doing good but are actually causing harm should be frowned upon. That sounds very PC.

... simplistic herd-morality-type thinking... — S

We are herd animals. You are not breaking with the herd when you repeat what every other herd animal who fancies himself an individual says. We are social beings. If we are going to live together we need to have some form of agreement as to what is and is not acceptable behavior and speech.

...which offers uncritical praise. — S

I know no one, either personally or more importantly,in what I read in what Trump calls the "fake media" that offers uncritical praise of PC. Today, as in the past, there have been those who are concerned with justice, with determining and doing what is right. When well intentioned actions have unintended or problematic consequences then this is brought to light.

Calling out language and behaviour should be seen as neutral without any context. Add a context, and we can sensibly judge whether it is right or wrong in that particular case. — S

Of course context matters! Labeling something PC is the opposite of examining context. All you need to be told is that it is PC. Game over.

Long before PC there was censorship. It is not a PC invention. For most of my life it has been conservatives who have pushed for censorship. The underlying dispute is not over censorship but who gets to be the censor and what are they censoring.

No, they are objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity — S

When Trump objects to PC he is not objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity. There is nothing he wants more that authoritarian hive-mind conformity. When conservative political pundits bash PC they are not objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity they are objecting to anyone but them being in control.

Trust me, I am better able to represent the objections than you are, because you are trying to represent them from the outside, and your biases are an obstacle for accurate and fair representation. — S

Trust you? That sounds authoritarian. Since you are "inside" you think that you are unbiased?

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars.
— Fooloso4
Have you ever thought that you could generalize this? That this could be said about a lot of issues and movements today. — ssu

There is nothing new here. This tactic was in use long before PC.

Trump was using the term exactly as conservatives intend to use it, to summarily dismiss anything said by the opposition. — Fooloso4

And that's not how it should be used, right? So he was misusing it. You clearly disapprove of the way that he was using it, yet at the same time, you keep trying to disagree with me about this misuse of which we both disapprove. We both agree that political correctness should be more than an empty label to be exploited for a dubious agenda. I am not a fan of disagreement for the sake of disagreement. Let it go.

Are you suggesting that the politically correct do not want to do what is right? Do they think that what is correct is wrong? — Fooloso4

No, I wasn't suggesting anything. I meant what I said and nothing more. Don't read things in to what I said.

So, those who think they are doing good but are actually causing harm should be frowned upon. That sounds very PC. — Fooloso4

No, it could be, but not necessarily. And I was clearly talking about a situation where it is the politically correct person, who thinks they're doing good but are causing harm, who is being frowned upon. It would be nonsense to suggest that it is politically correct to frown on political correctness.

We are herd animals. You are not breaking with the herd when you repeat what every other herd animal who fancies himself an individual says. We are social beings. If we are going to live together we need to have some form of agreement as to what is and is not acceptable behavior and speech. — Fooloso4

You are so eager to contradict me that you're not really thinking things through. I clearly didn't deny that we're animals who generally display herd-like behaviour. That was fundamental to my point. You don't have to mindlessly go along with the rest of the herd. I don't have to mindlessly go along with the rest of the herd. We are social beings by nature, but we're also individuals, and we can choose to live a relatively independent and isolated life. I'm not denying that society needs rules and norms and suchlike, that is to miss the point. It is about independence. I don't have to be a slave to society, I can be my own master.

Of course context matters! Labeling something PC is the opposite of examining context. All you need to be told is that it is PC. Game over.

Long before PC there was censorship. It is not a PC invention. For most of my life it has been conservatives who have pushed for censorship. The underlying dispute is not over censorship but who gets to be the censor and what are they censoring. — Fooloso4

Yes, context matters. The rest is just your axe grinding against conservatives who exploit "political correctness" to score a cheap point. I don't really want you to rant about that to me.

When Trump objects to PC he is not objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity. — Fooloso4

For Christ's sake. I am not Trump, and I am not defending him. I meant the people in this discussion, not an idiot like Trump.

Trust you? That sounds authoritarian. Since you are "inside" you think that you are unbiased? — Fooloso4

I think what I said: that I am better able to represent the objections (being made in this discussion) than you are. Don't make that about Trump this time.

And that's not how it should be used, right? So he was misusing it. — S

If the term is used according to its intended meaning and affect then it is not being misused.

You clearly disapprove of the way that he was using it, yet at the same time, you keep trying to disagree with me about this misuse of which we both disapprove. — S

The term has no meaning independent of its use. This is how the term is being used tactically by some conservatives. I do not approve of the tactic but have no compunction to assure that the term be saved to be used in a specific way.

No, I wasn't suggesting anything. I meant what I said and nothing more. Don't read things in to what I said. — S

What you said is that there is a distinction between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right. The problem is that the distinction leaves the relationship between PC and doing what is right ambiguous.

It would be nonsense to suggest that it is politically correct to frown on political correctness. — S

The point is that you are doing the very same thing that would be called PC by someone who does not like that you are frowning on what they are doing. They too think they are doing good rather than harm and they do not like your interference, which they see as the real source of harm.

You are so eager to contradict me that you're not really thinking things through. — S

Once again, it is not about you. You are so eager to protect your image that you're not really thinking things through. I am not talking about you. I am talking about political philosophy.

It is about independence. I don't have to be a slave to society, I can be my own master. — S

There is a tension here between the individual and society that is as old as political philosophy itself. It has not been reconciled. In terms of freedom of thought, you are as derivative and unoriginal as the rest of us, and more so than some. Your independence is an illusion (and even this is not strictly about you either).

For Christ's sake. I am not Trump, and I am not defending him. I meant the people in this discussion, not an idiot like Trump. — S

Once again, it is not about you or the people in this discussion. It is about the political power struggle and the tactics being used.

I think what I said: that I am better able to represent the objections (being made in this discussion) than you are. Don't make that about Trump this time. — S

No, this one is about you and your imagined unbiased view and superior knowledge that leads you to think that you should be trusted rather than questioned or criticized.

This has become all too personal. I am not interested in going down that road.


.

If the term is used according to its intended meaning and affect then it is not being misused. — Fooloso4

That's silly, because then it wouldn't make sense to say, for example, that I'm misusing the word "horse" to refer to cats. But it does make sense to say that. It's silly to assume that an idiosyncratic meaning has priority, rather than the ordinary meaning.

The term has no meaning independent of its use. This is how the term is being used tactically by some conservatives. I do not approve of the tactic but have no compunction to assure that the term be saved to be used in a specific way. — Fooloso4

They aren't merely using the term, they're abusing the term. And your own comments about it strongly suggested this. That's why you disapprove. The acceptable usage is what you implicitly condone, over and above the way that people like Trump are using it. But you won't admit that.

What you said is that there is a distinction between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right. The problem is that the distinction leaves the relationship between PC and doing what is right ambiguous. — Fooloso4

No, I made the relationship clear: it is not a mutually inclusive relationship. The one is independent of the other. How hard is that to understand?

The point is that you are doing the very same thing that would be called PC by someone who does not like that you are frowning on what they are doing. They too think they are doing good rather than harm and they do not like your interference, which they see as the real source of harm. — Fooloso4

No, there's nothing in itself politically correct about frowning at someone for that reason. You can't remove the meaningful context and pretend it's no different. If I'm frowning at someone for being politically incorrect, then that frowning at them indicates my alignment with political correctness, and not otherwise. As has been pointed out, political correctness relates to the status quo. If I'm frowning at some politically correct, status-quo-pushing kind of behaviour, I am not therefore myself being politically correct. That's just a tu quoque.

Once again, it is not about you. You are so eager to protect your image that you're not really thinking things through. I am not talking about you. I am talking about political philosophy. — Fooloso4

I'm not making it about me, you are, unconsciously. You are being a contrarian to whatever I say instead of talking sense. You've already set yourself up as Defender of The Faith, so I doubt we'll get anywhere in trying to critique political correctness.

There is a tension here between the individual and society that is as old as political philosophy itself. It has not been reconciled. In terms of freedom of thought, you are as derivative and unoriginal as the rest of us, and more so than some. Your independence is an illusion (and even this is not strictly about you either). — Fooloso4

Calling me derivative and unoriginal is an ad hominem, and your assertion that my independence is an illusion is a bare assertion which can rightly be dismissed.

Once again, it is not about you or the people in this discussion. It is about the political power struggle and the tactics being used. — Fooloso4

No, you don't get to decide what it's about. You don't have that authority. My point was about the objections being made against political correctness in this very discussion by myself and others. The relevance of that to the topic is crystal clear. You don't have to address that, but if you don't, then you're not engaging with others about their own criticism of the topic, you're merely picking on an easy target like Trump who isn't even here to defend himself. And we already have a discussion on Trump, anyway.

No, this one is about you and your imagined unbiased view and superior knowledge that leads you to think that you should be trusted rather than questioned or criticized.

This has become all too personal. I am not interested in going down that road. — Fooloso4

Well, why don't we ask @DingoJones and @Ilya B Shambat and others who has best represented their objections out of the two of us? We can't ask Trump, or rather, we ain't gonna get a real reply from him. You are basically choosing to target straw men rather than properly engaging with people. Rather like someone turning up to a religious discussion and ignoring all of the views of the religious people in the discussion in order to attack Biblical Literalists, except that in this case, instead of Biblical Literalists, it's "conservatives" or "Trump". Lame.

You are making the most sense, but I suspect it doesnt matter.

That's silly, because then it wouldn't make sense to say, for example, that I'm misusing the word "horse" to refer to cats. — S

Dig: many of the cats who blew the horn got hooked on horse.

But it does make sense to say that. It's silly to assume that an idiosyncratic meaning has priority, rather than the ordinary meaning. — S

I am sorry to say, but your still miss the point. Read the wiki article about how the term came to be used. There is no ordinary meaning. Those on the Right who use it dismissively mean something very different than those who are not engaged in the battle between conservatives and progressives. In the language of the sixties radicals, the term has been co-opted.

They aren't merely using the term, they're abusing the term. And your own comments about it strongly suggested this. That's why you disapprove. The acceptable usage is what you implicitly condone, over and above the way that people like Trump are using it. But you won't admit that. — S

You can call it an abuse, but as I see it, its just how the game is played. It is rhetorically skillful. What I disapprove of is the direction conservatives are pushing the U.S. in. My intention is to point to how they are using PC to that end.

No, I made the relationship clear: it is not a mutually inclusive relationship. The one is independent of the other. How hard is that to understand? — S

To say that they are independent of each other does not describe what the relationship between them is. Certainly you would not deny that there is a relationship between what is correct and what is right.

As has been pointed out, political correctness relates to the status quo. — S

In some cases it does, in other cases it is about changing the status quo, sanctioning certain terms that are deemed offensive.

Defender of The Faith — S

Nonsense. There have been and will continue to be excesses made in the name of PC. That I think is quite evident. What I am pointing to is what is going on elsewhere on the PC front.

Calling me derivative and unoriginal is an ad hominem — S

I said that in this you are no different than the rest of us.

... your assertion that my independence is an illusion is a bare assertion which can rightly be dismissed. — S

Go ahead, but in doing so you dismiss a significant portion of the history of ideas.

No, you don't get to decide what it's about. You don't have that authority. — S

Different participants have contributed in different ways. If you do not like the issues I discuss then go on your merry way.

.. you're merely picking on an easy target like Trump who isn't even here to defend himself. — S

It is not about Trump. It is about our social order and fabric. The tactics used by conservatives in this battle were in place well before Trump. I am talking about the history of political correctness. It is essential to understanding what is going on. (edited to remove statement from quotes).

This has become all too personal. I am not interested in going down that road.
— Fooloso4

Well, why don't we ask DingoJones and @Ilya B Shambat and others who has best represented their objections out of the two of us? — S

See above. It is not about me either. This is not a vote. If they agree with you fine. If they question something I have said they they are of course free to raise that with me.

it's "conservatives" or "Trump". Lame. — S

Trump and conservatives are part of the equation. If that is something you wish to deny, then fine. If there are other aspects of PC you would rather discuss, then fine. I am not jumping into those conversations and telling you to discuss this instead. If this aspect of the problem is not something you want to address then simply drop it.

But Trump is lying to his audience. There's nothing more to it than that. I'm not happy about it, but what he's doing is not complicated or mysterious. :chin:

And I can see no connection between what Trump is doing and 'political correctness', except that he mentions it. He mentions lots of other things too, and he lies about them too. I think the lying is the problem?