Political correctness has eroded the nature of free debate

[realityhack]

An interesting thought. What do you think political correctness is? Depending on your view it's anything from a Marxist plot to censor free speech to a right-wing invention to smear the left.

Been reading wikipedia then eh?

[Old Greg]

Been reading wikipedia then eh?

Yes, I have my own views on what political correctness is, but I was interested to see a wider range of views, as it's a term which is bandied about so much by different people to mean pretty much what they want it to mean.

[DodgyAgent]

Yes, I have my own views on what political correctness is, .

So let us hear them, we promise to be gentle

[Old Greg]

So let us hear them, we promise to be gentle

For what it's worth, I think political correctness attempted to describe language that should and should not be used in relation to groups such as women, gays, ethnic minorities etc...
One of the problems is that the term is often misused. If a public organisation starts translating information leaflets, it will sometimes be labelled as 'political correctness' (often gone mad)' (and therefore a bad thing). It's not political correctness. It's either a waste of money pandering to people who should learn English or making services accessible, depending on your viewpoint. Might be good, might be bad, but it's not political correctness. So I think that political correctness in my original description is useful to an extent, in that it's moved the agenda on from a time when party leaders would describe a gay MP candidate as a poof or a fairy (as I think Kinnock and Hattersley once did). It's also annoying to an extent when you hear some muppet getting worked up about a term that's gone 'out of fashion' with whoever arbitrates these rules. But it's not this great bogeyman that's going to destroy our freedom.

[Bagpuss]

For what it's worth, I think political correctness attempted to describe language that should and should not be used in relation to groups such as women, gays, ethnic minorities etc...
One of the problems is that the term is often misused. If a public organisation starts translating information leaflets, it will sometimes be labelled as 'political correctness' (often gone mad)' (and therefore a bad thing). It's not political correctness. It's either a waste of money pandering to people who should learn English or making services accessible, depending on your viewpoint. Might be good, might be bad, but it's not political correctness. So I think that political correctness in my original description is useful to an extent, in that it's moved the agenda on from a time when party leaders would describe a gay MP candidate as a poof or a fairy (as I think Kinnock and Hattersley once did). It's also annoying to an extent when you hear some muppet getting worked up about a term that's gone 'out of fashion' with whoever arbitrates these rules. But it's not this great bogeyman that's going to destroy our freedom.

Maybe it is for the individual to decide what they find insulting. Not some third party thinking/acting on their behalf. Most people can tell where someone is coming from by more than a few words.

[Old Greg]

Maybe it is for the individual to decide what they find insulting. Not some third party thinking/acting on their behalf. Most people can tell where someone is coming from by more than a few words.

It's a fair point, but if you're gay and live somewhere, where kids go out 'queer-bashing', the word 'queer' is likely to have negative connotations to you. The weakness in political correctness as I described it is that by addressing language, it does little/nothing to address the attitudes/culture behind the language and it's that which is going to get someone beaten up, not what word is used.

[Bagpuss]

It's being used as a way to stop debate, see global warming. I'm not sure who it offends to ask questions on that, but it has become a taboo. Smoking is becoming a taboo. Now you may not agree with converse opinion on these issues, but why is it taboo to think outside what is perceived as 'right on' , or at least ask questions?

If I don't agree with something I argue against it, I don't use shock tactics to stiffle debate.

[freakydancer]

F**k political corectness. I call a spade a spade.

[zathras]

For what it's worth, I think political correctness attempted to describe language that should and should not be used in relation to groups such as women, gays, ethnic minorities etc...
One of the problems is that the term is often misused. If a public organisation starts translating information leaflets, it will sometimes be labelled as 'political correctness' (often gone mad)' (and therefore a bad thing). It's not political correctness. It's either a waste of money pandering to people who should learn English or making services accessible, depending on your viewpoint. Might be good, might be bad, but it's not political correctness. So I think that political correctness in my original description is useful to an extent, in that it's moved the agenda on from a time when party leaders would describe a gay MP candidate as a poof or a fairy (as I think Kinnock and Hattersley once did). It's also annoying to an extent when you hear some muppet getting worked up about a term that's gone 'out of fashion' with whoever arbitrates these rules. But it's not this great bogeyman that's going to destroy our freedom.

I would tend to describe political correctness as;

The way actions and use of language are altered in such a way as to avoid offence to any other group.

The problem with it, is that as an idea it is impossible to achieve.

You will find often with PC that one thing considered reasonable (the eating of pork, or beef) is not to another (Muslims and Jews consider the eating of pork a sin, Hindus the same for Beef).

The other thing is that it forces problems out of view and therefore they are not solved. The recent thing about the Police and minority groups. To avoid the appearance of racism, they introduce what is essentially racism.

So yes, a slavish worshipping at the alter of PC does indeed restrict free speech and debate.

[realityhack]

Basically - you cant please everyone, so don't try to.

There will always be some group or other with a greivance - whatever stance you take on whatever issue, so decide which groups should have allowances made in culture/speech/policy according to, say, the relative population of the group vs the population as a whole, and sod the rest.