Chainsmoker I am a bit puzzled by your post. I was not aware that I had said any topic of conversation was out of bounds. Did I?
I think it is your own post which suggests that you believe that only those with your views should be able to hold the floor and that these topics, with your slant of course, should be given preference in the media.
That was not the point of suggesting this thread at all. However you may just have given an excellent example of the need to be politically (left) correct about all issues so as to avoid genuine debate. Thankyou.
By the way, you need not be concerned - the media is doing an outstanding job of supporting your views.

Emmaa asks "how is a minority group less important than a majority, group, just because they are less in numbers doesn't mean they are less of a people". Not less of a people but definetly less in numbers. It's called democracy, where the majority calls the shots (at least in theory). How else could we live together without each and every minority group screaming out to enact their various agendae at the expense of the vast majority?

Going by Emmaa's logic "The majority group has had the best seat in the house for so long", but that's life. Otherwise, no matter the election results, our last two PMs would have been Beasley and Latham if the minority vote was favoured.

I took the title of this piece to be a proposed topic for debate, rather than a statement of (perceived) fact. The assumption seemed reasonable given your concerns were free speech, freedom of information and public debate.

The litigation/media/debate/academia question was unclear until your later comment about leftwing media dominance. Some big media names: Bolt, Blair, Ackerman, Albrechtson, the Parrott, Sheridan, Trioli, Thornton, Flint. As you would know, having sourced one of your examples from the ever-reliable Australian, these are some of the biggest in the business. Hardly lefties.

I note you didn't respond to my comment that both versions of PC are extreme and unhelpful.

I don't understand how a woman knocking you back on a dinner date interferes with free speech, free information or public debate.

"I was not aware that I had said any topic of conversation was out of bounds"

Not suggesting you did, just that you've limited your focus to issues about minorities.

"However you may just have given an excellent example of the need to be politically (left) correct about all issues so as to avoid genuine debate"

See my previous point. I raised some issues worthy of public debate which, admittedly, I knew wouldn't interest you. Rather than debate them you accuse me of avoiding debate.

Free speech, freedom of information and informed public debate are important institutions of democracy, not the playthings of either left or right. I mistakenly thought this was the bigger picture of your post, which is why I made my first comment.

isn't it ironic that those who inhabit the dominant social classes always declare it PC that they are not able to freely villify those in minority classes...ie, the term "political correctness" is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender

in other words white people should be able to freely declare their hate of people of colour on racial grounds

Women should not be offended by any terms that demean their sexuality or intelligence

and anyone who the dominant thinks should be 'put in the place'...

IS expressing free speech...

Yeah sure...

Emmaa wrote: "people often moan about political correctness but maybe what they really mean is they feel uncomfortable being forced to face other valid perspectives than the status quo or whatever they believe in. It is threatening for them if they can't just trivialise it or dismiss it as on the fringe."

This comment should be isolated in a lab as a symptom of viral PC. Maybe then we could produce a vaccine.

It is my fervent prayer that this woman is a checkout chick in Coles. Please God she is not a social worker (or any like professional) with the power to interfere in vulnerable people's lives.

one thing not yet really discussed is the information part of the statement. Does PC stop information? PC is not just about not offendeing eachother or getting off on the right foot, after al if we cannot say hi to someone and strike up a conversation without first asking or wondering if we will offensive, then you must have offensive views and thought to begin with. I say that because everyday we meet people and get along just fine, PC has brought about a change in information being available because we are no longer held back in our freedom of speech or information, ie: the Aboriginal (original inhabitants) people which i think they colloctively call themselves Koori and Torres Strait Islander, and the early contact history that Windshuttle can say is untrue but sorry mate, where did they go?just vanished into thin air? the Museum and ABC have suffered the consequences of PC because they spoke the truth. toi be politically correct is to acknowledge the truth of history and whether you agree with it or not, it is the principal that the truth matters and not whether you can call someone a name. In Howards era it can be used as a cover for his agenda that it is all so because of those darn 'noisy minorities'he likes to refer to. that we have lost our freedoms to criticise or question life itself and it's beliefs and people because of misplaced fear.

Yet in reality it is the politicians who determine exactly what PC can do for them and to us. by saying bias against government and such then they are currently using it as a means to seperate us further, to care about the PC fad more than we need to, to divide us in thoughts and ideals but not allow the tolerance of opinions when it harms them. You can't have it both ways.