We live in interesting times. In my view there is a dramatic increase not in racism and religious intolerance but in its rationalization; its justification.

What exactly is this thing "Political Correctness" ? Where did it come from? It certainly came to prominence as a concept in the late 20th early 21st century. Why?

Was it because of the the glaring absurdity of changing a child's story; for instance Black Beauty because in THIS instance the word 'Black' could be deemed as racist, or changing the name of a British pudding 'Spotted Dick' because the word 'Dick' was deemed to be offensive?

THAT to me is what spawned the terminology: 'Political Correctness'. A need for appeasement that verges on comedic farce!

OR:

has this terminology been seen as a perfect tool to justify cruelty, denial, bigotry, religious and racist intolerance?

THAT to me is how it is being used.

I am reminded of the saying: "Justice for me is being allowed to do and say what I want;- injustice is your preventing me from doing it".

I very obviously believe that the concept of 'political correctness' has been hijacked to justify an 'open slather' approach to the things I have listed.

What do YOU think?

Dear Ginx,

I think "political correctness" came into being in the 1980s.
And I agree with you - some of it is a bit excessive - in our attempts not to "offend."

However, having said that, do we really want to go back to the "good old days" of "plain speaking," and bring back terms like:
nig...ers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics, and sheilas?

Dear Ginx,

Well, I've just had "political correctness" thrust upon me while I was typing my previous post to you.

I typed in all the "offending" words, like "nig...er, coon, dagos, wops, poofs, spastics, and sheilas," and low and behold up came the message, "Remove the profanity."

So I took out the extra letter 'g' in the first word - "nig...er" and guess what - none of the other words were considered 'offensive.'. ('Coons' in the US means the same thing as 'nig...er.')

Amazing!

Ginx. Excellent question. I entirely agree. As I understand it, the provenance of "political correctness" lies in 80s academia - specifically Ivy League - as an offshoot of relativism and postmodernism. Some benefits arose - we came to understand that the West didn't create the world by describing it. White, Western people learned to ask what it might feel like to a 12-year-old girl in Dafur. It strengthened some of the wins of the civil rights movement of the previous decade - we learned that Indigenous people aren't over-represented in prison because they're morally deficient but because they lack privileges the rest of us take for granted.

On the other hand, it also led, as you point out, to bullsh!t. The archetypal example, I think, is the white US professor who was fired for saying "niggardly". Or another, hounded out of his job for suggesting male and female brains work differently.

That idiocy is dying out, I hope. And a lot of postmodern relativism is no longer academically fashionable, for good reason - there is, after all, a canon of literature, truths in science, problems with cultural practices. We should always defend truth.

But while times are changing, the moniker "PC" has remained, morphed into a tool for justifying victim thinking among privilege people. On OLO, there is a constant lament along the lines of, "Women/gays/Abbos/refos/poofs get special treatment, and I'm the victim, but you can't say that because of PC culture." Which always makes me want to respond, "But you just said it then." A poster on another thread has claimed that PC forces (whoever they may be) who are preventing her from suggesting the Holocaust was less severe than claimed. It's a blustery, whiny attack which avoids having to prove the point. It's a common modus operandi on OLO. I asked a "male victim" (they type who laments, "If it was really about equal rights they'd call it "equalism", not "feminism") why he was so satisfied with victimhood. He said, "Because it works so well for women." I was simultaneously sad and cross.

Looking forward to responses.

I am totally opposed to obscenity in general & totally opposed to derogatory aimed at at someone's situation for which the individual had absolutely no input, i.e. is blameless.
Jovial profanity is obviously used for amusement & not to offend. What is offensive when someone feigns being offended simply to exercise their hidden prejudice.
It is interesting to see that all reports of derogatory terms on these threads focus on words to describe non-whites especially in Australia. I understand a little of one particular indigenous language & I can assure that it is not restricted by political correctness when people of non-indigenous descent are referred to.
Political correctness will be referred to as incomprehensibly silly in 50 years from now.

QUICK... send me to intesive care!

I am in total agreement with all thus far :)

GINX (about blardy time you actually raised an important issue)
FOXY "amen"
VANILA.. "yes yes yes"
INDIVIDUAL "toooo right mate"

PC is,like many other well intended trends.. hijacked by people who, when the froth is removed just want to have POWWWWERRRR over others.

The "Don't smack children" lobby is one BIG example.
The don't use any racial epithet mob are as bad.

If my joke includes an Irishbloke.. or Jew.. or anAussie or a Bishop.. sorry.. like it or leave..simple as that.

2 words the PC lobby love to use as weapons.. "Tolerance" and "Racism"

They are not about real tolerance or truely non racist actions/words.. they are about POWER. (No Foxy.. I'm not aiming that at u)

There are clearly well intended people who sincerely believe they are on the right track about this kind of thing, but they fall into the category of those who would venture to understand the Kosovo situation in terms of 'human rights' rather than the real source of the problem which begins around 1369.

Or.. the Middle East.. again.. trying to understand something in terms of 'human rights' when the conflict.. its dimensions and roots go back to the birth of Ishmael and Isaac.

Nothing is quite so deluded as those wandering about the Holy Land with wide naive "peace" eyes.. dribbling about 'human rights' as IF.. as IFF... the parties to the conflict see such things in any other way than a 'convenient tool for temporary gains'..

They learn the language of PC/HR and then seek to 'speak it' for the ears of Western peaceniks, HR groups, Leftoids, the UN and sponsors..but inside..they know what's going on.