I'm not sure, but I think I may mean something different to you by PC, Crunkus.
Crunkus wrote:The problem is "politically correct" is a bit like murder. It's wrong, goes too far, etc... by definition. Murder is killing that is disapproved of. "Politically correct stuff" is essentially attempts to do what is by now a pretty broad category of things for a pretty broad range of reasons which the person(s) using the term take issue with for one reason or another.
My interpretation of PC at least in spirit is that it has roots that are not the equivalent of murder in your analogy. It is not necessarily wrong. Let's take some specific examples; personally I would say that requirement (backed up by legislation) to not restrict job offers to people based on non-work related issues (such as sex/colour/religion) is what I would call the true spirit of political correctness. Ruling it is illegal for a baker to refuse to ice a cake with overtly homosexual images as happened here in the UK is to my mind a level that most would agree is extreme. It could be argued that the line between the two is arbitrary and highly subjective, of course. But as I say I think I differ form your statement above. I would absolutely agree that most PC crusades today have evolved into the category you describe, but my comments in my post were based on the idea that some PC stuff is not extreme and 'a good thing'.
It doesn't matter what you call it SD. What matters is no one is proposing any of these measures because they are politically correct. That's an after the fact application that you're only applying to things you disagree with.
Your example of PC measures you agree with were not conceived to be politically correct. They are, by and large, policy meant to accomplish a goal that is more than simply an end to advance political capital. Neither were the ones you disagree with. There is no true spirit of political correctness...because no one making those decisions is motivated by being correct politically.
It's just people trying to accomplish one thing or another and either having ideas with how to do that which are worthy or unworthy in one respect or another.
Classifying anyone trying to be fair about anything as politically correct is meaningless. It would literally apply to those trying to combat the so called political correctness JUST AS MUCH. How is trying to be fair by pointing out how some other policy attempting to be fair isn't fair NOT being politically correct by that definition?
It's not clear to me how your usage of the word is any different...without being meaningless such as I understand it.
Again...,I'm not sure what use invoking this term is accomplishing...other than in my experience, failing to discuss the actual details of what we're talking about. At best it is assuming base "political" motivations for something without any real evidence for doing so or without even discussing what the measure was intended to accomplish and is in someone opinion an imperfect tool at accomplishing. That's the issue...it's a wedge word...not something useful for actually intelligently discussing any given issue. If you want to talk about it as a broad category of people trying to be fair...that's fine. I'd offer that's almost meaningless when it comes down to details and doesn't have much to do with what most people mean when they say "that's politically correct nonsense". The original usage of the word was to describe the practice of doing something because it was literally politically useful to do so and not because it was meant to seriously accomplish a goal. It's right there in the words you use.
I don't think it is useful to consider extreme and legitimate "political correctness". For one it ignores completely the origins of the term. For another, it doesn't line up with how people use this word in context. If you want politically correct to mean people attempting to be fair about something, and sometimes doing a good job and sometimes failing, that's fine. But when you discuss "the politically correct agenda is being hijacked" let's break that down. First, you are assuming an agenda that's not borne out in your definition. It doesn't take an agenda to attempt to make fair policy. Do you see what I mean there? The usage of this term basically seek to lump things we vaguely disagree with together, turn it into an agenda, and never discusses the details of any of how that works.
At some point, you need to reject the mindset there and just talk about individual issues. The undiscussed and assumed leaps are the issue here, not the definitions.
There's policy that you argue works or makes sense and policy you argue doesn't. There's productive discussion on these individual topics, and there is unproductive discussion.
Attempting to leap to categorization of the policy as part of a larger, undiscussed problem is, again, putting the cart before the horse...and unwarranted if you truly simply define it as "trying to be fair."
Crunkus wrote: But it would have nothing to do with political correctness...that's a wedge word that has long since been diluted beyond useful purpose.
Yes, now I read this, I think I do agree with this assessment. I was picking up above that I think there are examples of PC that I think are sensible and popular, but I do agree that your excellent phrase at the end is right - that is has been 'diluted beyond useful purpose'
Crunkus wrote: Anti-PC IS politically correct by context of that it is CORRECT POLITICALLY.
Great way with words! I agree again, and yes political capital is easy to make raging against PC views. I really do hear strong echoes of a lot of the political posturings in the run up to our Brexit vote.
I think politically correct has a place in discussing policy and acts made specifically for political purposes rather than practical non-political ones. I think the term has been hijacked, first to assume such a thing without discussing this motivation, and then to basically just mean anything of a certain stripe people disagree with. I don't think it gets righted by thinking in terms of extreme PCness...the term was never used in a way that lines up with how people attempt to solve anything other than strictly political problems...so when you apply it to why a policy is unfair....it just muddies the water. It also never seems to accompany serious discussion of the details of the issue...which I think is somewhat noteworthy.
Crunkus wrote:We never start new threads here. If you have something in your craw about something you disagree with somewhere...give us as much information as you can and links to what you're talking about...and let's try to make heads or tails of it. Let's hash it out. Let's...debate in debate forum. Otherwise, we're all just going to continue to be easier and easier to manipulate politically. There's a reason why politicians feel less of a need to explain themselves or make coherent arguments. The public increasingly doesn't care to hear it or doesn't know the difference.
Not sure if this is an invite to open up some specific examples?
Whatever moves you. I think the words speak for themselves here. I'm not convinced there's an audience here for it anymore to be honest. I'd be happy to be wrong. It used to be what I valued most about this website.