12345...10...


Political correctness – definition of political correctness …

Conforming to a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially to a liberal point of view concerned with promoting tolerance and avoiding offense in matters of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

political correctness n.

ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:

Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster’s page for free fun content.

Link to this page: political correctness

Go here to read the rest:

Political correctness – definition of political correctness …

USC mascot squabble: Trojan horse for political correctness? – Fox News

In California, the raging U.S. cultural battle over Civil War icons has spread to the names of horses.

At the University of Southern California, a student group has declared the equine mascot of the schools Trojans football team to be a symbol of white supremacy.

Why? Because the horse bears a name similar to that of a steed that belonged to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

The USC football horse is called Traveler (one L), while Lees horse was known as Traveller (two Ls).

The student groups leader voiced her disapproval of the home team horses name earlier this week, at an on-campus rally to protest last weeks violence in Charlottesville, Va.

Defensive back Adoree Jackson’s touchdown last season is part of the long and storied football tradition at the University of Southern California. (USA Today Sports)

White supremacy hits close to home, Saphia Jackson, co-director of the USC Black Student Assembly,told fellowstudents, in pointing out the similarity in the horses names, student newspaper the Daily Trojan reported.

The Black Student Assembly didnt respond to a Fox News inquiry on whether the group wanted Traveler renamed or removed.

The renewed debate on public symbols of the Confederacy has sparked a discussion at USC on whether the horse mascots name is a coincidence, or possibly a nod to its namers sympathy to the Southern cause.

Naming the USC mascot Traveler started nearly 56 years ago, after a rideron horseback galloped acrossthe Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum field during a Trojans home game. It was supposed to be a one-time stunt, but quickly became a school tradition, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The original rider of Traveler, Richard Saukko, died in 1992 — withoutofficially confirming whether the name Traveler was intended as a homage toLees horse.

His widow, Patricia Saukko, however, denied the accusations, calling the kerfuffleabout the name a hysteria and a political issue.

The problem is this: Maybe three weeks ago it was fine, she told the L.A. Times. So now the flavor of the day is … we all have to be in hysteria….Its more of a political issue. The horse isnt political and neither am I.

Over at USC theyre nonpolitical about their horse, she added. What if their name would be Lee? Would they want to change it? It doesn’t make any difference. …Hes a wonderful horse and a great mascot.

The widow also notedthat the spelling of the name is different — andwhen her husband bought the horse in 1958, the name had already been picked.

Read more:

USC mascot squabble: Trojan horse for political correctness? – Fox News

ESPN took political correctness to a ridiculous low – New York Post

Its the biggest unforced error of the week and in this political climate, thats saying a lot.

ESPN became a laughingstock Wednesday for pulling veteran announcer Robert Lee off a University of Virginia football game because his name is too close to Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general dead for nearly 150 years.

We collectively made the decision with Robert to switch games as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding, ESPN said, simply because of the coincidence of his name.

Simply because of the coincidence of his name. This is the height of C-suite media condescension, though its unclear whos being condescended to: Is it red-state Trump voters? Does the network regard them as lumpen, half-wit knuckle-draggers who might take Lees presence as a tacit endorsement of white supremacy? Or is it the coastal, liberal elite that the network regards as babyish, too hyper-attuned to triggers and identity politics, ready to take offense at the inoffensive?

What if Robert went by Bob?

Within hours of ESPNs announcement, their Robert Lee was trending on Twitter. Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen weighed in. If this isnt the same Lee that led the Confederate Army, he tweeted, ESPN needs to reverse this idiocy.

Lee is Asian-American. According to his LinkedIn profile, he has extensive experience in both business and broadcasting. He graduated Syracuse University in 1999 with a B.S. in broadcast journalism. His most recent location is Albany. He speaks Mandarin. He describes himself as a team player . . . who meshes well with coworkers, customers and clients.

This is hardly the stuff of controversy. The networks overreaction only reminds us of its sad downward spiral: the bloodbath of over 100 employees fired in April; the flight of 10 million subscribers since 2011; the belief among liberal viewers that ESPN panders to conservatives and the belief among conservatives that ESPN is too liberal.

In trying to offend no one, theyve offended just about everyone. The networks tone-deafness extends to their statement. Its a shame that this is even a topic of conversation and we regret that who calls play-by-play for a football game has become an issue.

Indeed. If only they knew whom to blame.

More here:

ESPN took political correctness to a ridiculous low – New York Post

Congressman, Native American: When political correctness runs …

The conversation happening in our nation in light of recent events is more about political correctness than the issue at hand. Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and terrorists are bad people. The ideals of these groups are in opposition to everything our nation stands for and everything that holds true to our founding principles. Their hatred of people dissimilar to them is un-American and it should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Days ago, my colleague in the Senate, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, announced that he plans to introduce legislation that would remove all of the statues in the U.S. Capitol that honored Confederate soldiers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has also called for the elimination of such statues. I respect their rights as elected officials to put forth legislation they believe is in the best interest of their constituents, however I simply do not agree.

As a Cherokee, I can attest to the fact that Native Americans have been on the losing side of history. Our rights have been infringed upon, our treaties have been broken, our culture has been stolen, and our tribes have been decimated at the hands of our own United States government. Native Americans have faced centuries of atrocities to their people, their land, and their culture all under various presidents who took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

When we censor our history by disguising our scars, we belittle the struggles our ancestors fought so hard to overcome. America doesn’t cower behind political correctness. It defiantly and courageously moves forward, with its history as a reminder of where we have been.

Under President Andrew Jackson in 1830, our government passed the Indian Removal Act that drove thousands of Native Americans out of their homes on the treacherous journey better known as the Trail of Tears. Under President Franklin Pierce in 1854, parts of Indian Territory were stolen from tribes to create the Kansas and Nebraska Territories. Under President Abraham Lincoln, the Sand Creek massacre occurred in 1864 when the U.S. Army attacked the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes unprovoked, killing about 250 Native Americans. The Dawes Act of 1887 gave President Grover Cleveland the power to take back tribal land and redistribute the land to native people as individuals, not as tribal members. Under President Benjamin Harrison in 1890, the Wounded Knee massacre took the lives of 150 Native Americans. Under President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907, Indian and Oklahoma territories were unified to create the state of Oklahoma after Congress refused to consider a petition to make Indian Territory a separate state. President Roosevelt is even quoted as saying: I dont go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are.

Let me ask you this: Is history not an opportunity to learn from ones mistakes? When we fall short of the high standard we set for our nation and its citizens, we make mistakes. What’s most important is that our nation remembers and learns from them. As soon as we forget about our history, we are bound to repeat the same errors.

Still, we have professional athletes like Colin Kaepernick who refuse to stand during the national anthem and others who stand in solidarity with him in protest of the United States. To what end? To protest this country, a country that I love and my friends have died to defend? As an American, you have the right to protest me, or another individual, or a group, but I believe that protesting the United States for the mistakes it has made when it gave you the freedom to do so in the first place is disrespectful. Any attempt to coerce the United States into erasing our history is disingenuous. Especially, when our country has learned from the mistakes it has made and is determined not to repeat them.

Should we erase our history in the name of being politically correct? Can we not all agree that it is what shaped our country to be the great nation it is today? One that we know to be full of freedoms, liberties, and rights that other nations only dream of?

The removal of Confederate statues in the U.S. Capitol doesnt change our history. The removal of these statues merely attempts to disguise our ugly scars by hiding these statues out of plain sight. In an imperfect world, full of imperfect leaders, there are countless statues that may not live up to our American values. The statues of President Jackson and President Lincoln, both fervent oppressors of Native Americans, stand tall in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Still, these statues tell the history of the good and the bad of our nation.

America is and will always be a success story. We have African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and members of other ethnic groups elected to positions inside our governments. The American free enterprise system is the greatest tool to lift people out of poverty ever created in human history and when applied properly, does not discriminate by race, religion, or skin color. When we censor our history by disguising our scars, we belittle this process and the struggles our ancestors fought so hard to overcome. America doesn’t cower behind political correctness. It defiantly and courageously moves forward, with its history as a reminder of where we have been. Let us look boldly into our history and learn the lessons that made us the shining city on the hill and the example for all other peoples.

Republican Markwayne Mullin represents Oklahomas 2nd congressional district.

Go here to read the rest:

Congressman, Native American: When political correctness runs …

How to Be Politically Correct (with Pictures) – wikiHow

Edit Article

Three Parts:Becoming More Conscious of Political CorrectnessChoosing Respectful LanguageSpeaking with Individuals or GroupsCommunity Q&A

“Politically correct” is a bit of a misnomerit isn’t about being right, it’s about being respectful and considerate. Being politically correct means that you avoid expressions and actions that may exclude, marginalize, or offend a particular group of people. The term first became popular during the 1970s and 1980s.[1] Political correctness has an important purpose: it promotes equality by demonstrating an understanding that all people and groups are valuable to society regardless of race, culture, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

1

2

3

4

5

Check with various communities about what language is appropriate, and what is hurtful.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

Apply your knowledge. In conversations or discussions with groups or individuals, remember what you’ve learned while working on yourself. Your goal is not to knowingly hurt or offend any person or group of people with your language or actions.

2

3

4

Avoid segregating language. When speaking to or about other groups, refrain from unnecessarily using the words “we” or “they.” This suggests a separation instead of equality and inclusion.

5

6

7

8

9

Focus on valuing diversity. Your first reaction to someone who is different may be confusion or fearso take a deep breath, remember that the other person matters, and let your second reaction be one of acceptance and respect. Work on viewing individual differences as important and meaningful.

What if I want to do the opposite of 90% of this?

wikiHow Contributor

Then you do not want to be politically correct.

What if I don’t care that you have 80 genders?

wikiHow Contributor

The main thing is to remember that other points of view are valid as well. You don’t need to bend over backwards, but be respectful.

What if a person is using their individuality as a means of getting out of any sort of trouble, such as calling you sexist if you get upset over her literally grabbing your dick?

wikiHow Contributor

Stay away from this person. Grabbing your private parts without permission is sexual assault, and people of any gender have the right to have their boundaries respected. Set clear boundaries (such as “I am not okay with you touching my pants”) and reiterate them if needed. If you’re getting accusations, say “I’m not okay with people of any gender touching my private parts without permission.” Having boundaries is reasonable, and if this person continues violating them, talk to an authority figure about how to deal with this.

What f I don’t appreciate being called a homophobic because it goes against the natural laws God has put into His creation?

If you voice an opinion, especially a hurtful one, don’t be surprised if other people voice their opinions, too. When you tell people that they’re going against God, you’re imposing your beliefs onto their personal lives. It’s disrespectful to tell other people that their personal lives need to conform to your religious beliefs. Muslims can’t stop non-Muslims from eating pork, Buddhists can’t shave the heads of non-Buddhists, etc.

Ask a Question

If this question (or a similar one) is answered twice in this section, please click here to let us know.

Thanks to all authors for creating a page that has been read 266,207 times.

Yes No

Visit link:

How to Be Politically Correct (with Pictures) – wikiHow

Congressman, Native American: When political correctness runs … – Fox News

The conversation happening in our nation in light of recent events is more about political correctness than the issue at hand. Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and terrorists are bad people. The ideals of these groups are in opposition to everything our nation stands for and everything that holds true to our founding principles. Their hatred of people dissimilar to them is un-American and it should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Days ago, my colleague in the Senate, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, announced that he plans to introduce legislation that would remove all of the statues in the U.S. Capitol that honored Confederate soldiers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has also called for the elimination of such statues. I respect their rights as elected officials to put forth legislation they believe is in the best interest of their constituents, however I simply do not agree.

As a Cherokee, I can attest to the fact that Native Americans have been on the losing side of history. Our rights have been infringed upon, our treaties have been broken, our culture has been stolen, and our tribes have been decimated at the hands of our own United States government. Native Americans have faced centuries of atrocities to their people, their land, and their culture all under various presidents who took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

When we censor our history by disguising our scars, we belittle the struggles our ancestors fought so hard to overcome. America doesn’t cower behind political correctness. It defiantly and courageously moves forward, with its history as a reminder of where we have been.

Under President Andrew Jackson in 1830, our government passed the Indian Removal Act that drove thousands of Native Americans out of their homes on the treacherous journey better known as the Trail of Tears. Under President Franklin Pierce in 1854, parts of Indian Territory were stolen from tribes to create the Kansas and Nebraska Territories. Under President Abraham Lincoln, the Sand Creek massacre occurred in 1864 when the U.S. Army attacked the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes unprovoked, killing about 250 Native Americans. The Dawes Act of 1887 gave President Grover Cleveland the power to take back tribal land and redistribute the land to native people as individuals, not as tribal members. Under President Benjamin Harrison in 1890, the Wounded Knee massacre took the lives of 150 Native Americans. Under President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907, Indian and Oklahoma territories were unified to create the state of Oklahoma after Congress refused to consider a petition to make Indian Territory a separate state. President Roosevelt is even quoted as saying: I dont go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are.

Let me ask you this: Is history not an opportunity to learn from ones mistakes? When we fall short of the high standard we set for our nation and its citizens, we make mistakes. What’s most important is that our nation remembers and learns from them. As soon as we forget about our history, we are bound to repeat the same errors.

Still, we have professional athletes like Colin Kaepernick who refuse to stand during the national anthem and others who stand in solidarity with him in protest of the United States. To what end? To protest this country, a country that I love and my friends have died to defend? As an American, you have the right to protest me, or another individual, or a group, but I believe that protesting the United States for the mistakes it has made when it gave you the freedom to do so in the first place is disrespectful. Any attempt to coerce the United States into erasing our history is disingenuous. Especially, when our country has learned from the mistakes it has made and is determined not to repeat them.

Should we erase our history in the name of being politically correct? Can we not all agree that it is what shaped our country to be the great nation it is today? One that we know to be full of freedoms, liberties, and rights that other nations only dream of?

The removal of Confederate statues in the U.S. Capitol doesnt change our history. The removal of these statues merely attempts to disguise our ugly scars by hiding these statues out of plain sight. In an imperfect world, full of imperfect leaders, there are countless statues that may not live up to our American values. The statues of President Jackson and President Lincoln, both fervent oppressors of Native Americans, stand tall in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Still, these statues tell the history of the good and the bad of our nation.

America is and will always be a success story. We have African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and members of other ethnic groups elected to positions inside our governments. The American free enterprise system is the greatest tool to lift people out of poverty ever created in human history and when applied properly, does not discriminate by race, religion, or skin color. When we censor our history by disguising our scars, we belittle this process and the struggles our ancestors fought so hard to overcome. America doesn’t cower behind political correctness. It defiantly and courageously moves forward, with its history as a reminder of where we have been. Let us look boldly into our history and learn the lessons that made us the shining city on the hill and the example for all other peoples.

Republican Markwayne Mullin represents Oklahomas 2nd congressional district.

Read the original:

Congressman, Native American: When political correctness runs … – Fox News

Statues Be Warned: Political Correctness Is Afoot as Australia Seeks to Remove Captain Cook and Arthur Phillip – The Whole Story

Statues of historical figures around the world are likely to be targeted by political correctness following the protests in the US about statues of Confederate generals.

With the Charlottesville protests regarding the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee and a statue in Ohio being damaged by vandals who took its head from a cemetery, Australian Sydney City Council is now seeking advice on whether the statue of Captain Cook should be removed.

The ABCs indigenous affairs editor Stan Grant wrote an analysis on the issue on Friday and argued the statue represented a damaging myth that Captain Cook discovered Australia.

Sydneys Lord Mayor Clover Moore is now seeking further discussion over the 126-year-old statue. Another statue of Captain Arthur Phillip could also be removed.

Shooters and Fishers MP Robert Borsak stated in the newspaper The Daily Telegraph Attempts to rewrite our public history for the sake of political correctness which is what these activists want to do is little better than Stalin erasing his political opponent from photographs,

We are 100% independent and therefore we have no paid-for-comment financial support from commercial entities or political groups. We strive to be as free as possible. We won’t implement paywalls or subscription programs. Your donations are incredibly helpful and help keep us alive. You can donate through PayPal, Patreon or Bitcoin as well as support us by buying TWS merchandise.

Continued here:

Statues Be Warned: Political Correctness Is Afoot as Australia Seeks to Remove Captain Cook and Arthur Phillip – The Whole Story

When political correctness runs amok erasing our history doesn’t … – Claremore Daily Progress

The conversation happening in our nation in light of recent events is more about political correctness than the issue at hand. Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and terrorists are bad people. The ideals of these groups are in opposition to everything our nation stands for and everything that holds true to our founding principles. Their hatred of people dissimilar to them is un-American and it should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Days ago, my colleague in the Senate, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, announced that he plans to introduce legislation that would remove all of the statues in the U.S. Capitol that honored Confederate soldiers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has also called for the elimination of such statues. I respect their rights as elected officials to put forth legislation they believe is in the best interest of their constituents, however I simply do not agree.

As a Cherokee, I can attest to the fact that Native Americans have been on the losing side of history. Our rights have been infringed upon, our treaties have been broken, our culture has been stolen, and our tribes have been decimated at the hands of our own United States government. Native Americans have faced centuries of atrocities to their people, their land, and their culture all under various presidents who took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Under President Andrew Jackson in 1830, our government passed the Indian Removal Act that drove thousands of Native Americans out of their homes on the treacherous journey better known as the Trail of Tears. Under President Franklin Pierce in 1854, parts of Indian Territory were stolen from tribes to create the Kansas and Nebraska Territories. Under President Abraham Lincoln, the Sand Creek massacre occurred in 1864 when the U.S. Army attacked the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes unprovoked, killing about 250 Native Americans. The Dawes Act of 1887 gave President Grover Cleveland the power to take back tribal land and redistribute the land to native people as individuals, not as tribal members. Under President Benjamin Harrison in 1890, the Wounded Knee massacre took the lives of 150 Native Americans. Under President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907, Indian and Oklahoma territories were unified to create the state of Oklahoma after Congress refused to consider a petition to make Indian Territory a separate state. President Roosevelt is even quoted as saying: I dont go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are.

Let me ask you this: Is history not an opportunity to learn from ones mistakes? When we fall short of the high standard we set for our nation and its citizens, we make mistakes. What’s most important is that our nation remembers and learns from them. As soon as we forget about our history, we are bound to repeat the same errors.

Still, we have professional athletes like Colin Kaepernick who refuse to stand during the national anthem and others who stand in solidarity with him in protest of the United States. To what end? To protest this country, a country that I love and my friends have died to defend? As an American, you have the right to protest me, or another individual, or a group, but I believe that protesting the United States for the mistakes it has made when it gave you the freedom to do so in the first place is disrespectful. Any attempt to coerce the United States into erasing our history is disingenuous. Especially, when our country has learned from the mistakes it has made and is determined not to repeat them.

Should we erase our history in the name of being politically correct? Can we not all agree that it is what shaped our country to be the great nation it is today? One that we know to be full of freedoms, liberties, and rights that other nations only dream of?

The removal of Confederate statues in the U.S. Capitol doesnt change our history. The removal of these statues merely attempts to disguise our ugly scars by hiding these statues out of plain sight. In an imperfect world, full of imperfect leaders, there are countless statues that may not live up to our American values. The statues of President Jackson and President Lincoln, both fervent oppressors of Native Americans, stand tall in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Still, these statues tell the history of the good and the bad of our nation.

America is and will always be a success story. We have African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and members of other ethnic groups elected to positions inside our governments. The American free enterprise system is the greatest tool to lift people out of poverty ever created in human history and when applied properly, does not discriminate by race, religion, or skin color. When we censor our history by disguising our scars, we belittle this process and the struggles our ancestors fought so hard to overcome. America doesn’t cower behind political correctness. It defiantly and courageously moves forward, with its history as a reminder of where we have been. Let us look boldly into our history and learn the lessons that made us the shining city on the hill and the example for all other peoples.

View post:

When political correctness runs amok erasing our history doesn’t … – Claremore Daily Progress

Political correctness – Wikipedia

The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC or P.C.) is used to describe the avoidance of language or actions that are seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race.[1] In mainstream political discourse and media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

The term had only scattered usage before the 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more common usage in the United States after it was the subject of a series of articles in The New York Times.[9][10][11][12][13][14] The phrase was widely used in the debate about Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind,[4][6][15][16] and gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals (1990),[4][6][17][18] and conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s 1991 book Illiberal Education, in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimization, multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school and university curricula.[4][5][17][19]

Commentators on the left have said that conservatives pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism.[17][20] They also argue that conservatives have their own forms of political correctness, which are generally ignored by conservative commenters.[21][22][23][24]

The term “politically correct” was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term “politically correct” appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political lawsuit.[25] The term also had use in other English-speaking countries in the 1800s.[26]William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is by Toni Cade Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.[27][clarification needed] The term probably entered use in the United Kingdom around 1975.[8][clarification needed]

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase “politically correct” was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided “correct” positions on many political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term “politically correct”.[28] In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that “a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too.” Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire. Debra L. Shultz said that “throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives… used their term ‘politically correct’ ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts.”[4][28][29]PC is used in the comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, which was followed by the term ideologically sound, in the comic strips of Bart Dickon.[28][30] In her essay “Toward a feminist Revolution” (1992) Ellen Willis said: “In the early eighties, when feminists used the term ‘political correctness’, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’.”[31]

Stuart Hall suggests one way in which the original use of the term may have developed into the modern one:

According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: “Not very ‘politically correct’, Comrade!”[32]

Critics, including Camille Paglia[33] and James Atlas,[34] have pointed to Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[15] as the likely beginning of the modern debate about what was soon named “political correctness” in American higher education.[4][6][16][35] Professor of English literary and cultural studies at CMU Jeffrey J. Williams wrote that the “assault on…political correctness that simmered through the Reagan years, gained bestsellerdom with Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind.” [36] According to Z.F. Gamson, “Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind…attacked the faculty for ‘political correctness’.”[37] Prof. of Social Work at CSU Tony Platt goes further and says the “campaign against ‘political correctness'” was launched by the book in 1987.[38]

A word search of six “regionally representative Canadian metropolitan newspapers”, found only 153 articles in which the terms “politically correct” or “political correctness” appeared between 1 January 1987 and 27 October 1990.[12]

An October 1990 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein is credited with popularizing the term.[11][13][14][39][40] At this time, the term was mainly being used within academia: “Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities”.[9]Nexis citations in “arcnews/curnews” reveal only seventy total citations in articles to “political correctness” for 1990; but one year later, Nexis records 1532 citations, with a steady increase to more than 7000 citations by 1994.[39][41] In May 1991, The New York Times had a follow-up article, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena:

What has come to be called “political correctness,” a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.

The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[5][42] Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as “politically correct”.[17] In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term in his speech: “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.”[43]

After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US.[5] It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term “thought police” in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which “captured the press’s imagination.”[5] Similar critical terminology was used by D’Souza for a range of policies in academia around victimization, supporting multiculturalism through affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority hate speech, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as “canon busting”).[5][44][not in citation given] These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D’Souza’s.[4][17]

Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term “politically correct” in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended “to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.”[3]

During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think-tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies especially in the context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews’s view that PC is best described as “Left Eclecticism”, a term defined by Kimball as “any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism.”[18][36]Jan Narveson wrote that “that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrolling the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting…”[2]

In the American Speech journal article “Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming” (1996), Edna Andrews said that the usage of culturally inclusive and gender-neutral language is based upon the concept that “language represents thought, and may even control thought”.[45] Andrews’ proposition is conceptually derived from the SapirWhorf Hypothesis, which proposes that the grammatical categories of a language shape the ideas, thoughts, and actions of the speaker. Moreover, Andrews said that politically moderate conceptions of the languagethought relationship suffice to support the “reasonable deduction … [of] cultural change via linguistic change” reported in the Sex Roles journal article “Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Attitudes Toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language” (2000), by Janet B. Parks and Mary Ann Robinson.[citation needed]

Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality against people whom conservatives do not consider part of the social mainstream.[4][20][46] Commenting in 2001, one such British journalist,[47][48]Polly Toynbee, said “the phrase is an empty, right-wing smear, designed only to elevate its user”, and, in 2010, “the phrase ‘political correctness’ was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer”.[49] Another British journalist, Will Hutton,[50] wrote in 2001:

Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism…. What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents they could discredit the whole political project.

“Words Really are Important, Mr Blunkett” Will Hutton, 2001

Glenn Loury described the situation in 1994 as such:

To address the subject of “political correctness,” when power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one’s arguments by would-be “friends” and “enemies.” Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is “for them” or “against them.”

In the US, the term has been widely used in the intellectual media, but in Britain, usage has been confined mainly to the popular press.[52] Many such authors and popular-media figures, particularly on the right, have used the term to criticize what they see as bias in the media.[2][17] William McGowan argues that journalists get stories wrong or ignore stories worthy of coverage, because of what McGowan perceives to be their liberal ideologies and their fear of offending minority groups.[53] Robert Novak, in his essay “Political Correctness Has No Place in the Newsroom”, used the term to blame newspapers for adopting language use policies that he thinks tend to excessively avoid the appearance of bias. He argued that political correctness in language not only destroys meaning but also demeans the people who are meant to be protected.[54] Authors David Sloan and Emily Hoff claim that in the US, journalists shrug off concerns about political correctness in the newsroom, equating the political correctness criticisms with the old “liberal media bias” label.[55]

Jessica Pinta and Joy Yakubu caution against political incorrectness in media and other uses, writing in the Journal of Educational and Social Research: “…linguistic constructs influence our way of thinking negatively, peaceful coexistence is threatened and social stability is jeopardized.” What may result, they add as example “the effect of political incorrect use of language” in some historical occurrences:

Conflicts were recorded in Northern Nigeria as a result of insensitive use of language. In Kaduna for instance violence broke out on the 16th November 2002 following an article credited to one Daniel Isioma which was published in This Day Newspaper, where the writer carelessly made a remark about the Prophet Mohammed and the beauty queens of the Miss World Beauty Pageant that was to be hosted in the Country that year (Terwase n.d). In this crisis, He reported that over 250 people were killed and churches destroyed. In the same vein, crisis erupted on 18th February 2006 in Borno because of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in Iyllands-posten Newspaper (Terwase n.d). Here over 50 people were killed and 30 churches burnt.

Much of the modern debate on the term was sparked by conservative critiques of liberal bias in academia and education,[4] and conservatives have used it as a major line of attack since.[5] University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate connect speech codes in US universities to philosopher Herbert Marcuse. They claim that speech codes create a “climate of repression”, arguing that they are based on “Marcusean logic”. The speech codes, “mandate a redefined notion of “freedom”, based on the belief that the imposition of a moral agenda on a community is justified”, a view which, “requires less emphasis on individual rights and more on assuring “historically oppressed” persons the means of achieving equal rights.” They claim:

Our colleges and universities do not offer the protection of fair rules, equal justice, and consistent standards to the generation that finds itself on our campuses. They encourage students to bring charges of harassment against those whose opinions or expressions “offend” them. At almost every college and university, students deemed members of “historically oppressed groups” above all, women, blacks, gays, and Hispanics are informed during orientation that their campuses are teeming with illegal or intolerable violations of their “right” not to be offended. Judging from these warnings, there is a racial or sexual bigot, to borrow the mocking phrase of McCarthy’s critics, “under every bed.”[57]

Kors and Silverglate later established the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which campaigns against infringement of rights of due process, in particular “speech codes”.[58][unreliable source?] Similarly, a common conservative criticism of higher education in the United States is that the political views of the faculty are much more liberal than the general population, and that this situation contributes to an atmosphere of political correctness.[59][how?]

Jessica Pinta and Joy Yakubu write that political correctness is useful in education, in the Journal of Educational and Social Research:

Political correctness is a useful area of consideration when using English language particularly in second language situations. This is because both social and cultural contexts of language are taken into consideration. Zabotkina (1989) says political correctness is not only an essential, but an interesting area of study in English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. This is because it presents language as used in carrying out different speech acts which provoke reactions as it can persuade, incite, complain, condemn, and disapprove. Language is used for communication and creating social linkages, as such must be used communicatively. Using language communicatively involves the ability to use language at the grammatical level, sociolinguistic level, discourse and strategic levels (Canale & Swain 1980). Understanding language use at these levels center around the fact that differences exist among people, who must communicate with one another, and the differences could be religious, cultural, social, racial, gender or even ideological. Therefore, using language to suit the appropriate culture and context is of great significance.

Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have said that PC liberal orthodoxy of academia is the reason why their perspectives of those matters have been rejected by the scientific community.[60] For example, in Lamarck’s Signature: How Retrogenes are Changing Darwin’s Natural Selection Paradigm (1999), Prof. Edward J. Steele said:

We now stand on the threshold of what could be an exciting new era of genetic research…. However, the ‘politically correct’ thought agendas of the neoDarwinists of the 1990s are ideologically opposed to the idea of ‘Lamarckian Feedback’, just as the Church was opposed to the idea of evolution based on natural selection in the 1850s![61]

Zoologists Robert Pitman and Susan Chivers complained about popular and media negativity towards their discovery of two different types of killer whales, a “docile” type and a “wilder” type that ravages sperm whales by hunting in packs: “The forces of political correctness and media marketing seem bent on projecting an image of a more benign form (the Free Willy or Shamu model), and some people urge exclusive use of the name ‘orca’ for the species, instead of what is perceived as the more sinister label of “killer whale.”[62]

Stephen Morris, an economist and a game theorist, built a game model on the concept of political correctness, where “a speaker (advisor) communicates with the objective of conveying information, but the listener (decision maker) is initially unsure if the speaker is biased. There were three main insights from that model. First, in any informative equilibrium, certain statements will lower the reputation of the speaker, independent of whether they turn out to be true. Second, if reputational concerns are sufficiently important, no information is conveyed in equilibrium. Third, while instrumental reputational concerns might arise for many reasons, a sufficient reason is that speakers wish to be listened to.” The Economist commented: “Mr Morris’s model suggests that the incentive to be politically correct fades as society’s population of racists, to take his example, falls.”[63]

“Political correctness” is a label typically used for liberal terms and actions, but not for equivalent attempts to mold language and behavior on the right.[64] However, the term “right-wing political correctness” is sometimes applied by commentators,[65] especially when drawing parallels: in 1995, one author used the term “conservative correctness” arguing, in relation to higher education, that “critics of political correctness show a curious blindness when it comes to examples of conservative correctness. Most often, the case is entirely ignored or censorship of the Left is justified as a positive virtue. […] A balanced perspective was lost, and everyone missed the fact that people on all sides were sometimes censored.”[21]

In 2003, the Dixie Chicks, a U.S. country music group, criticized the then U.S. President George W. Bush for launching the war against Iraq.[66] Some conservative US commentators (including Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly) said they were treasonous.[22] Three years later, claiming that at the time “a virulent strain of right wing political correctness [had] all but shut down debate about the war in Iraq,” journalist Don Williams wrote that “[the ongoing] campaign against the Chicks represents political correctness run amok” and observed, “the ugliest form of political correctness occurs whenever there’s a war on.”[22]

In 2003, French fries and French toast were renamed “Freedom fries” and “Freedom toast” in three U.S. House of Representatives cafeterias in response to France’s opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq; this was described as “polluting the already confused concept of political correctness.”[67] In 2004, then Australian Labor leader Mark Latham described conservative calls for “civility” in politics as “the new political correctness.”[68]

In 2012, Paul Krugman wrote: “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which unlike the liberal version has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order.”[23]

In a 2015 Harris poll it was found that “Republicans are almost twice as likely 42 percent vs. 23percent as Democrats to say that there are any books that should be banned completely….Republicans were also more likely to say that some video games, movies and television programs should be banned.”[69]

After Mike Pence was booed at a November 2016 performance of Hamilton, president-elect Trump called it harassment and asked for “safe place”.[70]Chrissy Teigen commented that it was “the very thing him and his supporters make fun of as liberal political correctness.”[71]

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute defined the right’s own version of political correctness as patriotic correctness.[72]Vox editor Dara Lind summarized the definition as “a brand of right-wing hypersensitivity that gets just as offended by insults to American pride and patriotism (like protests against the president-elect or The Star-Spangled Banner) as any college activist gets over insults to diversity.”[73] Jim Geraghty of National Review replied to Nowrasteh, stating that “There is no right-wing equivalent to political correctness.”[74][why?]

In 2015 and 2016, leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, Republican candidate Donald Trump used political correctness as a common target in his rhetoric.[73][75][76] According to Trump, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were willing to let ordinary Americans suffer because their first priority was political correctness.[77]

In a column for the Huffington Post, Eric Mink characterized Trump’s concept of “political correctness”:

Political correctness is a controversial social force in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and it raises legitimate issues well worth discussing and debating. But thats not what Trump is doing. Hes not a rebel speaking unpopular truths to power. Hes not standing up for honest discussions of deeply contentious issues. Hes not out there defying rules handed down by elites to control what we say. All Trumps defying is common decency.[76]

In the light of the sexual assault allegations and the criticism the alleged victims faced from Trump supporters, Vox notes that after railing so much against political correctness they simply practice a different kind of repression and shaming: “If the prepolitical correctness era was really so open, why is it only now that these women are speaking out?”[78] Following the 2016 election, LA Times columnist Jessica Roy wrote that “political correctness” is one of the terms used by the American alt-right.[79]

Some conservative commentators in the West argue that “political correctness” and multiculturalism are part of a conspiracy with the ultimate goal of undermining Judeo-Christian values. This theory, which holds that political correctness originates from the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as part of a conspiracy that its proponents call “Cultural Marxism”, is generally known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory by academics.[80] The theory originated with Michael Minnicino’s 1992 essay “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness'”, published in a Lyndon LaRouche movement journal.[81] In 2001, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote in The Death of the West that “political correctness is cultural Marxism”, and that “its trademark is intolerance”.[82]

In the United States, left forces of “political correctness” have been blamed for censorship, with Time citing campaigns against violence on network television as contributing to a “mainstream culture [which] has become cautious, sanitized, scared of its own shadow” because of “the watchful eye of the p.c. police”, even though in John Wilson’s view protests and advertiser boycotts targeting TV shows are generally organized by right-wing religious groups campaigning against violence, sex, and depictions of homosexuality on television.[83]

In the United Kingdom, some newspapers reported that a nursery school had altered the nursery rhyme “Baa Baa Black Sheep” to read “Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep” and had banned the original.[84] But it was later reported that in fact the Parents and Children Together (PACT) nursery had the children “turn the song into an action rhyme…. They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc.”[85] This story was widely circulated and later extended to suggest that other language bans applied to the terms “black coffee” and “blackboard”.[86]Private Eye magazine reported that similar stories had been published in the British press since The Sun first ran them in 1986.[87]

Political correctness is often satirized, for example in The PC Manifesto (1992) by Saul Jerushalmy and Rens Zbignieuw X,[88] and Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (1994) by James Finn Garner, which presents fairy tales re-written from an exaggerated politically correct perspective. In 1994, the comedy film PCU took a look at political correctness on a college campus.

Other examples include the television program Politically Incorrect, George Carlins “Euphemisms” routine, and The Politically Correct Scrapbook.[89] The popularity of the South Park cartoon program led to the creation of the term “South Park Republican” by Andrew Sullivan, and later the book South Park Conservatives by Brian C. Anderson.[90] In its Season 19 (2015), South Park poked fun at the principle of political correctness, embodied in the show’s new character, PC Principal.[91]

The Colbert Report’s host Stephen Colbert often talked, satirically, about the “PC Police”.[92]

Graham Good, an academic at the University of British Columbia, wrote that the term was widely used in debates on university education in Canada. Writing about a 1995 report on the Political Science department at his university, he concluded: “Political correctness” has become a popular phrase because it catches a certain kind of self-righteous and judgmental tone in some and a pervasive anxiety in others who, fearing that they may do something wrong, adjust their facial expressions, and pause in their speech to make sure they are not doing or saying anything inappropriate. The climate this has created on campuses is at least as bad in Canada as in the United States.[93]

In Hong Kong, as the 1997 handover drew nearer, greater control over the press was exercised by both owners and the Chinese state. This had a direct impact on news coverage of relatively sensitive political issues. The Chinese authorities exerted pressure on individual newspapers to take pro-Beijing stances on controversial issues.[94]Tung Chee-hwa’s policy advisers and senior bureaucrats increasingly linked their actions and remarks to “political correctness.” Zhaojia Liu and Siu-kai Lau, writing in The first Tung Chee-hwa administration: the first five years of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, said that “Hong Kong has traditionally been characterized as having freedom of speech and freedom of press, but that an unintended consequence of emphasizing political ‘correctness’ is to limit the space for such freedom of expression.”[95]

In New Zealand, controversies over PC surfaced during the 1990s regarding the social studies school curriculum.[96][97]

According to ThinkProgress, the “ongoing conversation about P.C. often relies on anecdotal evidence rather than data”.[98] In 2014, researchers at Cornell University reported that political correctness increased creativity in mixed-sex work teams,[99] saying “the effort to be P.C. can be justified not merely on moral grounds but also by the practical and potentially profitable consequences.”[98][clarification needed]

The term “politically correct”, with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. But, across the country the term “P.C.”, as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.

The rest is here:

Political correctness – Wikipedia

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

Political correctness (or PC for short) means using words or behavior which will not offend any group of people. Most people think it is important for everyone to be treated equally, fairly and with dignity. Some words that are unkind to some people have been used for a long time. Some of these words have now been replaced by other words that are not offensive. These new words are described as politically correct. The term is often used in a mocking sense when attempts at avoiding offense are seen to go too far.

This term has been used since the early 1970s. It started being used in the modern negative sense in the late 80s in America.

Politically correct words or terms are used to show differences between people or groups in a non-offensive way. This difference may be because of race, gender, beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, or because they have a mental or physical disability, or any difference from what is considered the norm.

Throughout the 20th century women fought to have the same rights as men. In PC language this is seen in changes to job titles such as “lineman”, “postman”, and “chairman” which now commonly go by the gender-neutral titles “lineworker”, “letter carrier” and “chairperson” or “chair” as well as with terms having broader application, such as “humankind” replacing “mankind”.

People who are attracted to the same gender are usually referred to as ‘homosexual’. Likewise, people who are attracted to people of both genders are usually referred to as “bisexual”. However, both of these terms are seen as being perfectly fine by the more politically liberal oriented people.

People who are mentally disabled are now rarely described as “mentally retarded” (sometimes called “M.R.”) but may be said to have “special needs”. M.R. has been changed to I.D.; Intellectual Disabilities.

People who are blind or deaf may be referred to as “vision impaired” and “hearing impaired”. People who cannot speak are never “dumb” but “mute” or “without speech”.

The overall terms ‘handicapped’ and ‘disabled’ are no longer considered appropriate (there is no distinction between physical or mental, acquired or inborn.) The people first/PC term is ‘challenged’. This term better reflects the fact they are different, rather than less.

Some of the new politically correct words are often criticized for being rather ridiculous. Some examples of these are the terms ending in challenged. For example, someone who is very short might be described as “vertically challenged”. People also say that things that are obviously bad are called by something else which hides the fact that they are bad. For example, young people who are in trouble with the law, instead of being called “juvenile delinquents” became “children at risk”. Some PC terms may be ambiguous i.e. have two possible meanings. “hearing impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial hearing (hard of hearing) and “vision impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial vision.

Continue reading here:

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

OPINION: The rally against political correctness is not an excuse for ad hominems – N.C. State University Technician Online

On my first day of Principles of Sociology, the instructor asked each student to discuss the social issue about which they were most impassioned. Among answers concerning the racial strife in America and giving support to marginalized communities, one stood out. One peer was worried about what they perceived to be an overly politically correct, or PC, campus climate at NC State.

This would have been understandable, except the student was not concerned about an inability to express their opinion, but rather the way in which they felt they should be able to express them. In shorter terms, they did not wish to end political correctness, but do away with basic manners and civility.

The term politically correct has taken on various meanings, often suited to fit the narrative of the user. Some use it literally, as in right versus wrong political action. Others use it to justify or silence ideas they deem socially or culturally unfavorable. The negative effects of the latter on college campuses has been widely discussed over the last several years, with many fearing that it creates an echo chamber of liberal ideas, with little tolerance toward opposition.

Some universities have even gone as far as to issue warnings against this type of overly PC campus culture, like the University of Chicago, which issued an open letter to the Class of 2020 emphasizing their commitment to an open discourse on campus, while denouncing the idea of safe spaces and trigger warnings.

In the last few years, the term politically correct, which in its newest meaning should refer to avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive, has been demonized. Those who are tired of it have used their distaste for it to justify the breakdown of civility not only on college campuses but throughout the country. For example, in response to a peaceful die-in that occurred on campus last year, students made several derogatory comments pertaining to the movement and its participants. They may not have agreed with the beliefs of those who were protesting, but none offered any constructive criticism, instead relying on stereotypes and ad hominem arguments to bully their opposition.

The terms change of meaning can largely be attributed to President Donald Trump, who in many of his tirades against the PC culture, has justified his vicious bullying of women, minorities and several other groups by labeling it as a counter to political correctness. There is a difference between having the ability to voice your unpopular opinions and using speech to personally attack or degrade someone. Insulting individuals does nothing to further constructive conversations and can even deflect from the situation at hand. While you can choose not to be PC and go against campus norms, it is important to do so in a way that is civil, by at least respecting those you do not agree with.

We must always employ tact.

Aristotle noted that humans are unique in their ability to rationalize and use intellectual virtue, which allows us to contemplate and reason logically. Without this, humans would be unable to control basic impulses. Impulses that may compel you to say or do whatever comes to your mind, even if the action is considered impolite or uncivil.

Todays modern rally against political correctness is nothing more than a rally against intellectual virtue. Rather than create a logical argument to justify ones beliefs, we are seeing people give into brash impulses that only add fuel to a growing fire. To have an open and productive discourse on our campus, it is important to note that your disdain for political correctness does not justify personally attacking or degrading an individual.

For those who think it does, I would suggest you look to improve your argument.

Original post:

OPINION: The rally against political correctness is not an excuse for ad hominems – N.C. State University Technician Online

USC mascot squabble: Trojan horse for political correctness? – Fox News

In California, the raging U.S. cultural battle over Civil War icons has spread to the names of horses.

At the University of Southern California, a student group has declared the equine mascot of the schools Trojans football team to be a symbol of white supremacy.

Why? Because the horse bears a name similar to that of a steed that belonged to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

The USC football horse is called Traveler (one L), while Lees horse was known as Traveller (two Ls).

The student groups leader voiced her disapproval of the home team horses name earlier this week, at an on-campus rally to protest last weeks violence in Charlottesville, Va.

Defensive back Adoree Jackson’s touchdown last season is part of the long and storied football tradition at the University of Southern California. (USA Today Sports)

White supremacy hits close to home, Saphia Jackson, co-director of the USC Black Student Assembly,told fellowstudents, in pointing out the similarity in the horses names, student newspaper the Daily Trojan reported.

The Black Student Assembly didnt respond to a Fox News inquiry on whether the group wanted Traveler renamed or removed.

The renewed debate on public symbols of the Confederacy has sparked a discussion at USC on whether the horse mascots name is a coincidence, or possibly a nod to its namers sympathy to the Southern cause.

Naming the USC mascot Traveler started nearly 56 years ago, after a rideron horseback galloped acrossthe Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum field during a Trojans home game. It was supposed to be a one-time stunt, but quickly became a school tradition, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The original rider of Traveler, Richard Saukko, died in 1992 — withoutofficially confirming whether the name Traveler was intended as a homage toLees horse.

His widow, Patricia Saukko, however, denied the accusations, calling the kerfuffleabout the name a hysteria and a political issue.

The problem is this: Maybe three weeks ago it was fine, she told the L.A. Times. So now the flavor of the day is … we all have to be in hysteria….Its more of a political issue. The horse isnt political and neither am I.

Over at USC theyre nonpolitical about their horse, she added. What if their name would be Lee? Would they want to change it? It doesn’t make any difference. …Hes a wonderful horse and a great mascot.

The widow also notedthat the spelling of the name is different — andwhen her husband bought the horse in 1958, the name had already been picked.

Excerpt from:

USC mascot squabble: Trojan horse for political correctness? – Fox News

This Might Be the Most Ridiculous Example of Political Correctness in History (Thanks, ESPN) – National Review

Honestly, this is the dumbest time to be alive. Earlier this afternoon Outkick the Coverages Clay Travis tweeted that ESPN had removed an Asian announcer from an upcoming University of Virginia football game because get this his name is Robert Lee:

Surely not, youre thinking. No one is this politically correct, right? Even though Clays a sharp guy, his sources cant be right, can they? Well, maybe so. Clay next reported that ESPN responded with a statement. Our own Charlie Cooke reproduced it below:

Then it broke out everywhere, with multiple sports reporters claiming ESPN sent them the same thing. For example:

There you have it, sports fans. Its entirely possible that the nations premieresports channel not Oberlin College, not Evergreen State, not Yale has reached peak political correctness. A real person had his assignment changed because he shares the same name as a former Confederate general. Parents, if your last namesare Grant, Meade, or Sherman, might I suggest Ulysses, George, or Bill as boys names? Theyll have an inside track at ESPN.

I would say that you have to laugh or youll cry, but thats not right. ESPN is beclowning itself. Laughter is the only good response.

Excerpt from:

This Might Be the Most Ridiculous Example of Political Correctness in History (Thanks, ESPN) – National Review

Congressman, Native American: When political correctness runs … – Fox News

The conversation happening in our nation in light of recent events is more about political correctness than the issue at hand. Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and terrorists are bad people. The ideals of these groups are in opposition to everything our nation stands for and everything that holds true to our founding principles. Their hatred of people dissimilar to them is un-American and it should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Days ago, my colleague in the Senate, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, announced that he plans to introduce legislation that would remove all of the statues in the U.S. Capitol that honored Confederate soldiers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has also called for the elimination of such statues. I respect their rights as elected officials to put forth legislation they believe is in the best interest of their constituents, however I simply do not agree.

As a Cherokee, I can attest to the fact that Native Americans have been on the losing side of history. Our rights have been infringed upon, our treaties have been broken, our culture has been stolen, and our tribes have been decimated at the hands of our own United States government. Native Americans have faced centuries of atrocities to their people, their land, and their culture all under various presidents who took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

When we censor our history by disguising our scars, we belittle the struggles our ancestors fought so hard to overcome. America doesn’t cower behind political correctness. It defiantly and courageously moves forward, with its history as a reminder of where we have been.

Under President Andrew Jackson in 1830, our government passed the Indian Removal Act that drove thousands of Native Americans out of their homes on the treacherous journey better known as the Trail of Tears. Under President Franklin Pierce in 1854, parts of Indian Territory were stolen from tribes to create the Kansas and Nebraska Territories. Under President Abraham Lincoln, the Sand Creek massacre occurred in 1864 when the U.S. Army attacked the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes unprovoked, killing about 250 Native Americans. The Dawes Act of 1887 gave President Grover Cleveland the power to take back tribal land and redistribute the land to native people as individuals, not as tribal members. Under President Benjamin Harrison in 1890, the Wounded Knee massacre took the lives of 150 Native Americans. Under President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907, Indian and Oklahoma territories were unified to create the state of Oklahoma after Congress refused to consider a petition to make Indian Territory a separate state. President Roosevelt is even quoted as saying: I dont go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are.

Let me ask you this: Is history not an opportunity to learn from ones mistakes? When we fall short of the high standard we set for our nation and its citizens, we make mistakes. What’s most important is that our nation remembers and learns from them. As soon as we forget about our history, we are bound to repeat the same errors.

Still, we have professional athletes like Colin Kaepernick who refuse to stand during the national anthem and others who stand in solidarity with him in protest of the United States. To what end? To protest this country, a country that I love and my friends have died to defend? As an American, you have the right to protest me, or another individual, or a group, but I believe that protesting the United States for the mistakes it has made when it gave you the freedom to do so in the first place is disrespectful. Any attempt to coerce the United States into erasing our history is disingenuous. Especially, when our country has learned from the mistakes it has made and is determined not to repeat them.

Should we erase our history in the name of being politically correct? Can we not all agree that it is what shaped our country to be the great nation it is today? One that we know to be full of freedoms, liberties, and rights that other nations only dream of?

The removal of Confederate statues in the U.S. Capitol doesnt change our history. The removal of these statues merely attempts to disguise our ugly scars by hiding these statues out of plain sight. In an imperfect world, full of imperfect leaders, there are countless statues that may not live up to our American values. The statues of President Jackson and President Lincoln, both fervent oppressors of Native Americans, stand tall in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Still, these statues tell the history of the good and the bad of our nation.

America is and will always be a success story. We have African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and members of other ethnic groups elected to positions inside our governments. The American free enterprise system is the greatest tool to lift people out of poverty ever created in human history and when applied properly, does not discriminate by race, religion, or skin color. When we censor our history by disguising our scars, we belittle this process and the struggles our ancestors fought so hard to overcome. America doesn’t cower behind political correctness. It defiantly and courageously moves forward, with its history as a reminder of where we have been. Let us look boldly into our history and learn the lessons that made us the shining city on the hill and the example for all other peoples.

Republican Markwayne Mullin represents Oklahomas 2nd congressional district.

The rest is here:

Congressman, Native American: When political correctness runs … – Fox News

When political correctness runs amok erasing our history doesn’t … – Claremore Daily Progress

The conversation happening in our nation in light of recent events is more about political correctness than the issue at hand. Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and terrorists are bad people. The ideals of these groups are in opposition to everything our nation stands for and everything that holds true to our founding principles. Their hatred of people dissimilar to them is un-American and it should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Days ago, my colleague in the Senate, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, announced that he plans to introduce legislation that would remove all of the statues in the U.S. Capitol that honored Confederate soldiers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has also called for the elimination of such statues. I respect their rights as elected officials to put forth legislation they believe is in the best interest of their constituents, however I simply do not agree.

As a Cherokee, I can attest to the fact that Native Americans have been on the losing side of history. Our rights have been infringed upon, our treaties have been broken, our culture has been stolen, and our tribes have been decimated at the hands of our own United States government. Native Americans have faced centuries of atrocities to their people, their land, and their culture all under various presidents who took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Under President Andrew Jackson in 1830, our government passed the Indian Removal Act that drove thousands of Native Americans out of their homes on the treacherous journey better known as the Trail of Tears. Under President Franklin Pierce in 1854, parts of Indian Territory were stolen from tribes to create the Kansas and Nebraska Territories. Under President Abraham Lincoln, the Sand Creek massacre occurred in 1864 when the U.S. Army attacked the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes unprovoked, killing about 250 Native Americans. The Dawes Act of 1887 gave President Grover Cleveland the power to take back tribal land and redistribute the land to native people as individuals, not as tribal members. Under President Benjamin Harrison in 1890, the Wounded Knee massacre took the lives of 150 Native Americans. Under President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907, Indian and Oklahoma territories were unified to create the state of Oklahoma after Congress refused to consider a petition to make Indian Territory a separate state. President Roosevelt is even quoted as saying: I dont go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are.

Let me ask you this: Is history not an opportunity to learn from ones mistakes? When we fall short of the high standard we set for our nation and its citizens, we make mistakes. What’s most important is that our nation remembers and learns from them. As soon as we forget about our history, we are bound to repeat the same errors.

Still, we have professional athletes like Colin Kaepernick who refuse to stand during the national anthem and others who stand in solidarity with him in protest of the United States. To what end? To protest this country, a country that I love and my friends have died to defend? As an American, you have the right to protest me, or another individual, or a group, but I believe that protesting the United States for the mistakes it has made when it gave you the freedom to do so in the first place is disrespectful. Any attempt to coerce the United States into erasing our history is disingenuous. Especially, when our country has learned from the mistakes it has made and is determined not to repeat them.

Should we erase our history in the name of being politically correct? Can we not all agree that it is what shaped our country to be the great nation it is today? One that we know to be full of freedoms, liberties, and rights that other nations only dream of?

The removal of Confederate statues in the U.S. Capitol doesnt change our history. The removal of these statues merely attempts to disguise our ugly scars by hiding these statues out of plain sight. In an imperfect world, full of imperfect leaders, there are countless statues that may not live up to our American values. The statues of President Jackson and President Lincoln, both fervent oppressors of Native Americans, stand tall in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Still, these statues tell the history of the good and the bad of our nation.

America is and will always be a success story. We have African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and members of other ethnic groups elected to positions inside our governments. The American free enterprise system is the greatest tool to lift people out of poverty ever created in human history and when applied properly, does not discriminate by race, religion, or skin color. When we censor our history by disguising our scars, we belittle this process and the struggles our ancestors fought so hard to overcome. America doesn’t cower behind political correctness. It defiantly and courageously moves forward, with its history as a reminder of where we have been. Let us look boldly into our history and learn the lessons that made us the shining city on the hill and the example for all other peoples.

Original post:

When political correctness runs amok erasing our history doesn’t … – Claremore Daily Progress

Political correctness – Wikipedia

The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC or P.C.) is used to describe the avoidance of language or actions that are seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race.[1] In mainstream political discourse and media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

The term had only scattered usage before the 1990s, usually as an ironic self-description, but entered more common usage in the United States after it was the subject of a series of articles in The New York Times.[9][10][11][12][13][14] The phrase was widely used in the debate about Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind,[4][6][15][16] and gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals (1990),[4][6][17][18] and conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s 1991 book Illiberal Education, in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimization, multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school and university curricula.[4][5][17][19]

Commentators on the left have said that conservatives pushed the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism.[17][20] They also argue that conservatives have their own forms of political correctness, which are generally ignored by conservative commenters.[21][22][23][24]

The term “politically correct” was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term “politically correct” appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political lawsuit.[25] The term also had use in other English-speaking countries in the 1800s.[26]William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is by Toni Cade Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.[27][clarification needed] The term probably entered use in the United Kingdom around 1975.[8][clarification needed]

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase “politically correct” was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided “correct” positions on many political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term “politically correct”.[28] In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that “a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too.” Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire. Debra L. Shultz said that “throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives… used their term ‘politically correct’ ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts.”[4][28][29]PC is used in the comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, which was followed by the term ideologically sound, in the comic strips of Bart Dickon.[28][30] In her essay “Toward a feminist Revolution” (1992) Ellen Willis said: “In the early eighties, when feminists used the term ‘political correctness’, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’.”[31]

Stuart Hall suggests one way in which the original use of the term may have developed into the modern one:

According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: “Not very ‘politically correct’, Comrade!”[32]

Critics, including Camille Paglia[33] and James Atlas,[34] have pointed to Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[15] as the likely beginning of the modern debate about what was soon named “political correctness” in American higher education.[4][6][16][35] Professor of English literary and cultural studies at CMU Jeffrey J. Williams wrote that the “assault on…political correctness that simmered through the Reagan years, gained bestsellerdom with Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind.” [36] According to Z.F. Gamson, “Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind…attacked the faculty for ‘political correctness’.”[37] Prof. of Social Work at CSU Tony Platt goes further and says the “campaign against ‘political correctness'” was launched by the book in 1987.[38]

A word search of six “regionally representative Canadian metropolitan newspapers”, found only 153 articles in which the terms “politically correct” or “political correctness” appeared between 1 January 1987 and 27 October 1990.[12]

An October 1990 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein is credited with popularizing the term.[11][13][14][39][40] At this time, the term was mainly being used within academia: “Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities”.[9]Nexis citations in “arcnews/curnews” reveal only seventy total citations in articles to “political correctness” for 1990; but one year later, Nexis records 1532 citations, with a steady increase to more than 7000 citations by 1994.[39][41] In May 1991, The New York Times had a follow-up article, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena:

What has come to be called “political correctness,” a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.

The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[5][42] Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as “politically correct”.[17] In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term in his speech: “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.”[43]

After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US.[5] It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term “thought police” in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which “captured the press’s imagination.”[5] Similar critical terminology was used by D’Souza for a range of policies in academia around victimization, supporting multiculturalism through affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority hate speech, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as “canon busting”).[5][44][not in citation given] These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D’Souza’s.[4][17]

Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term “politically correct” in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended “to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.”[3]

During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think-tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies especially in the context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews’s view that PC is best described as “Left Eclecticism”, a term defined by Kimball as “any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism.”[18][36]Jan Narveson wrote that “that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrolling the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting…”[2]

In the American Speech journal article “Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming” (1996), Edna Andrews said that the usage of culturally inclusive and gender-neutral language is based upon the concept that “language represents thought, and may even control thought”.[45] Andrews’ proposition is conceptually derived from the SapirWhorf Hypothesis, which proposes that the grammatical categories of a language shape the ideas, thoughts, and actions of the speaker. Moreover, Andrews said that politically moderate conceptions of the languagethought relationship suffice to support the “reasonable deduction … [of] cultural change via linguistic change” reported in the Sex Roles journal article “Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Attitudes Toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language” (2000), by Janet B. Parks and Mary Ann Robinson.[citation needed]

Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality against people whom conservatives do not consider part of the social mainstream.[4][20][46] Commenting in 2001, one such British journalist,[47][48]Polly Toynbee, said “the phrase is an empty, right-wing smear, designed only to elevate its user”, and, in 2010, “the phrase ‘political correctness’ was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer”.[49] Another British journalist, Will Hutton,[50] wrote in 2001:

Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism…. What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents they could discredit the whole political project.

“Words Really are Important, Mr Blunkett” Will Hutton, 2001

Glenn Loury described the situation in 1994 as such:

To address the subject of “political correctness,” when power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one’s arguments by would-be “friends” and “enemies.” Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is “for them” or “against them.”

In the US, the term has been widely used in the intellectual media, but in Britain, usage has been confined mainly to the popular press.[52] Many such authors and popular-media figures, particularly on the right, have used the term to criticize what they see as bias in the media.[2][17] William McGowan argues that journalists get stories wrong or ignore stories worthy of coverage, because of what McGowan perceives to be their liberal ideologies and their fear of offending minority groups.[53] Robert Novak, in his essay “Political Correctness Has No Place in the Newsroom”, used the term to blame newspapers for adopting language use policies that he thinks tend to excessively avoid the appearance of bias. He argued that political correctness in language not only destroys meaning but also demeans the people who are meant to be protected.[54] Authors David Sloan and Emily Hoff claim that in the US, journalists shrug off concerns about political correctness in the newsroom, equating the political correctness criticisms with the old “liberal media bias” label.[55]

Jessica Pinta and Joy Yakubu caution against political incorrectness in media and other uses, writing in the Journal of Educational and Social Research: “…linguistic constructs influence our way of thinking negatively, peaceful coexistence is threatened and social stability is jeopardized.” What may result, they add as example “the effect of political incorrect use of language” in some historical occurrences:

Conflicts were recorded in Northern Nigeria as a result of insensitive use of language. In Kaduna for instance violence broke out on the 16th November 2002 following an article credited to one Daniel Isioma which was published in This Day Newspaper, where the writer carelessly made a remark about the Prophet Mohammed and the beauty queens of the Miss World Beauty Pageant that was to be hosted in the Country that year (Terwase n.d). In this crisis, He reported that over 250 people were killed and churches destroyed. In the same vein, crisis erupted on 18th February 2006 in Borno because of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in Iyllands-posten Newspaper (Terwase n.d). Here over 50 people were killed and 30 churches burnt.

Much of the modern debate on the term was sparked by conservative critiques of liberal bias in academia and education,[4] and conservatives have used it as a major line of attack since.[5] University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate connect speech codes in US universities to philosopher Herbert Marcuse. They claim that speech codes create a “climate of repression”, arguing that they are based on “Marcusean logic”. The speech codes, “mandate a redefined notion of “freedom”, based on the belief that the imposition of a moral agenda on a community is justified”, a view which, “requires less emphasis on individual rights and more on assuring “historically oppressed” persons the means of achieving equal rights.” They claim:

Our colleges and universities do not offer the protection of fair rules, equal justice, and consistent standards to the generation that finds itself on our campuses. They encourage students to bring charges of harassment against those whose opinions or expressions “offend” them. At almost every college and university, students deemed members of “historically oppressed groups” above all, women, blacks, gays, and Hispanics are informed during orientation that their campuses are teeming with illegal or intolerable violations of their “right” not to be offended. Judging from these warnings, there is a racial or sexual bigot, to borrow the mocking phrase of McCarthy’s critics, “under every bed.”[57]

Kors and Silverglate later established the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which campaigns against infringement of rights of due process, in particular “speech codes”.[58][unreliable source?] Similarly, a common conservative criticism of higher education in the United States is that the political views of the faculty are much more liberal than the general population, and that this situation contributes to an atmosphere of political correctness.[59][how?]

Jessica Pinta and Joy Yakubu write that political correctness is useful in education, in the Journal of Educational and Social Research:

Political correctness is a useful area of consideration when using English language particularly in second language situations. This is because both social and cultural contexts of language are taken into consideration. Zabotkina (1989) says political correctness is not only an essential, but an interesting area of study in English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. This is because it presents language as used in carrying out different speech acts which provoke reactions as it can persuade, incite, complain, condemn, and disapprove. Language is used for communication and creating social linkages, as such must be used communicatively. Using language communicatively involves the ability to use language at the grammatical level, sociolinguistic level, discourse and strategic levels (Canale & Swain 1980). Understanding language use at these levels center around the fact that differences exist among people, who must communicate with one another, and the differences could be religious, cultural, social, racial, gender or even ideological. Therefore, using language to suit the appropriate culture and context is of great significance.

Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have said that PC liberal orthodoxy of academia is the reason why their perspectives of those matters have been rejected by the scientific community.[60] For example, in Lamarck’s Signature: How Retrogenes are Changing Darwin’s Natural Selection Paradigm (1999), Prof. Edward J. Steele said:

We now stand on the threshold of what could be an exciting new era of genetic research…. However, the ‘politically correct’ thought agendas of the neoDarwinists of the 1990s are ideologically opposed to the idea of ‘Lamarckian Feedback’, just as the Church was opposed to the idea of evolution based on natural selection in the 1850s![61]

Zoologists Robert Pitman and Susan Chivers complained about popular and media negativity towards their discovery of two different types of killer whales, a “docile” type and a “wilder” type that ravages sperm whales by hunting in packs: “The forces of political correctness and media marketing seem bent on projecting an image of a more benign form (the Free Willy or Shamu model), and some people urge exclusive use of the name ‘orca’ for the species, instead of what is perceived as the more sinister label of “killer whale.”[62]

Stephen Morris, an economist and a game theorist, built a game model on the concept of political correctness, where “a speaker (advisor) communicates with the objective of conveying information, but the listener (decision maker) is initially unsure if the speaker is biased. There were three main insights from that model. First, in any informative equilibrium, certain statements will lower the reputation of the speaker, independent of whether they turn out to be true. Second, if reputational concerns are sufficiently important, no information is conveyed in equilibrium. Third, while instrumental reputational concerns might arise for many reasons, a sufficient reason is that speakers wish to be listened to.” The Economist commented: “Mr Morris’s model suggests that the incentive to be politically correct fades as society’s population of racists, to take his example, falls.”[63]

“Political correctness” is a label typically used for liberal terms and actions, but not for equivalent attempts to mold language and behavior on the right.[64] However, the term “right-wing political correctness” is sometimes applied by commentators,[65] especially when drawing parallels: in 1995, one author used the term “conservative correctness” arguing, in relation to higher education, that “critics of political correctness show a curious blindness when it comes to examples of conservative correctness. Most often, the case is entirely ignored or censorship of the Left is justified as a positive virtue. […] A balanced perspective was lost, and everyone missed the fact that people on all sides were sometimes censored.”[21]

In 2003, the Dixie Chicks, a U.S. country music group, criticized the then U.S. President George W. Bush for launching the war against Iraq.[66] Some conservative US commentators (including Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly) said they were treasonous.[22] Three years later, claiming that at the time “a virulent strain of right wing political correctness [had] all but shut down debate about the war in Iraq,” journalist Don Williams wrote that “[the ongoing] campaign against the Chicks represents political correctness run amok” and observed, “the ugliest form of political correctness occurs whenever there’s a war on.”[22]

In 2003, French fries and French toast were renamed “Freedom fries” and “Freedom toast” in three U.S. House of Representatives cafeterias in response to France’s opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq; this was described as “polluting the already confused concept of political correctness.”[67] In 2004, then Australian Labor leader Mark Latham described conservative calls for “civility” in politics as “the new political correctness.”[68]

In 2012, Paul Krugman wrote: “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which unlike the liberal version has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order.”[23]

In a 2015 Harris poll it was found that “Republicans are almost twice as likely 42 percent vs. 23percent as Democrats to say that there are any books that should be banned completely….Republicans were also more likely to say that some video games, movies and television programs should be banned.”[69]

After Mike Pence was booed at a November 2016 performance of Hamilton, president-elect Trump called it harassment and asked for “safe place”.[70]Chrissy Teigen commented that it was “the very thing him and his supporters make fun of as liberal political correctness.”[71]

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute defined the right’s own version of political correctness as patriotic correctness.[72]Vox editor Dara Lind summarized the definition as “a brand of right-wing hypersensitivity that gets just as offended by insults to American pride and patriotism (like protests against the president-elect or The Star-Spangled Banner) as any college activist gets over insults to diversity.”[73] Jim Geraghty of National Review replied to Nowrasteh, stating that “There is no right-wing equivalent to political correctness.”[74][why?]

In 2015 and 2016, leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, Republican candidate Donald Trump used political correctness as a common target in his rhetoric.[73][75][76] According to Trump, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were willing to let ordinary Americans suffer because their first priority was political correctness.[77]

In a column for the Huffington Post, Eric Mink characterized Trump’s concept of “political correctness”:

Political correctness is a controversial social force in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and it raises legitimate issues well worth discussing and debating. But thats not what Trump is doing. Hes not a rebel speaking unpopular truths to power. Hes not standing up for honest discussions of deeply contentious issues. Hes not out there defying rules handed down by elites to control what we say. All Trumps defying is common decency.[76]

In the light of the sexual assault allegations and the criticism the alleged victims faced from Trump supporters, Vox notes that after railing so much against political correctness they simply practice a different kind of repression and shaming: “If the prepolitical correctness era was really so open, why is it only now that these women are speaking out?”[78] Following the 2016 election, LA Times columnist Jessica Roy wrote that “political correctness” is one of the terms used by the American alt-right.[79]

Some conservative commentators in the West argue that “political correctness” and multiculturalism are part of a conspiracy with the ultimate goal of undermining Judeo-Christian values. This theory, which holds that political correctness originates from the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as part of a conspiracy that its proponents call “Cultural Marxism”, is generally known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory by academics.[80] The theory originated with Michael Minnicino’s 1992 essay “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness'”, published in a Lyndon LaRouche movement journal.[81] In 2001, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote in The Death of the West that “political correctness is cultural Marxism”, and that “its trademark is intolerance”.[82]

In the United States, left forces of “political correctness” have been blamed for censorship, with Time citing campaigns against violence on network television as contributing to a “mainstream culture [which] has become cautious, sanitized, scared of its own shadow” because of “the watchful eye of the p.c. police”, even though in John Wilson’s view protests and advertiser boycotts targeting TV shows are generally organized by right-wing religious groups campaigning against violence, sex, and depictions of homosexuality on television.[83]

In the United Kingdom, some newspapers reported that a nursery school had altered the nursery rhyme “Baa Baa Black Sheep” to read “Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep” and had banned the original.[84] But it was later reported that in fact the Parents and Children Together (PACT) nursery had the children “turn the song into an action rhyme…. They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc.”[85] This story was widely circulated and later extended to suggest that other language bans applied to the terms “black coffee” and “blackboard”.[86]Private Eye magazine reported that similar stories had been published in the British press since The Sun first ran them in 1986.[87]

Political correctness is often satirized, for example in The PC Manifesto (1992) by Saul Jerushalmy and Rens Zbignieuw X,[88] and Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (1994) by James Finn Garner, which presents fairy tales re-written from an exaggerated politically correct perspective. In 1994, the comedy film PCU took a look at political correctness on a college campus.

Other examples include the television program Politically Incorrect, George Carlins “Euphemisms” routine, and The Politically Correct Scrapbook.[89] The popularity of the South Park cartoon program led to the creation of the term “South Park Republican” by Andrew Sullivan, and later the book South Park Conservatives by Brian C. Anderson.[90] In its Season 19 (2015), South Park poked fun at the principle of political correctness, embodied in the show’s new character, PC Principal.[91]

The Colbert Report’s host Stephen Colbert often talked, satirically, about the “PC Police”.[92]

Graham Good, an academic at the University of British Columbia, wrote that the term was widely used in debates on university education in Canada. Writing about a 1995 report on the Political Science department at his university, he concluded: “Political correctness” has become a popular phrase because it catches a certain kind of self-righteous and judgmental tone in some and a pervasive anxiety in others who, fearing that they may do something wrong, adjust their facial expressions, and pause in their speech to make sure they are not doing or saying anything inappropriate. The climate this has created on campuses is at least as bad in Canada as in the United States.[93]

In Hong Kong, as the 1997 handover drew nearer, greater control over the press was exercised by both owners and the Chinese state. This had a direct impact on news coverage of relatively sensitive political issues. The Chinese authorities exerted pressure on individual newspapers to take pro-Beijing stances on controversial issues.[94]Tung Chee-hwa’s policy advisers and senior bureaucrats increasingly linked their actions and remarks to “political correctness.” Zhaojia Liu and Siu-kai Lau, writing in The first Tung Chee-hwa administration: the first five years of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, said that “Hong Kong has traditionally been characterized as having freedom of speech and freedom of press, but that an unintended consequence of emphasizing political ‘correctness’ is to limit the space for such freedom of expression.”[95]

In New Zealand, controversies over PC surfaced during the 1990s regarding the social studies school curriculum.[96][97]

According to ThinkProgress, the “ongoing conversation about P.C. often relies on anecdotal evidence rather than data”.[98] In 2014, researchers at Cornell University reported that political correctness increased creativity in mixed-sex work teams,[99] saying “the effort to be P.C. can be justified not merely on moral grounds but also by the practical and potentially profitable consequences.”[98][clarification needed]

The term “politically correct”, with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. But, across the country the term “P.C.”, as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.

See original here:

Political correctness – Wikipedia

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness …

The thought police are watching you. Back in the 1990s, lots of jokes were made about political correctness, and almost everybody thought they were really funny. Unfortunately, very few people are laughing now because political correctness has become a way of life in America. If you say the wrong thing you could lose your job or you could rapidly end up in court. Every single day, the mainstream media bombards us with subtle messages that make it clear what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, and most Americans quietly fall in line with this unwritten speech code. But just because it is not written down somewhere does not mean that it isnt real. In fact, this speech code becomes more restrictive and more suffocating with each passing year. The goal of the thought Nazis is to control what people say to one another, because eventually that will shape what most people think and what most people believe. If you dont think this is true, just try the following experiment some time. Go to a public place where a lot of people are gathered and yell out something horribly politically incorrect such as I love Jesus and watch people visibly cringe. The name of Jesus has become a curse word in our politically correct society, and we have been trained to have a negative reaction to it in public places. After that, yell out something politically correct such as I support gay marriage and watch what happens. You will probably get a bunch of smiles and quite a few people may even approach you to express their appreciation for what you just said. Of course this is going to vary depending on what area of the country you live in, but hopefully you get the idea. Billions of dollars of media programming has changed the definitions of what people consider to be acceptable and what people consider to be not acceptable. Political correctness shapes the way that we all communicate with each other every single day, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead. Sadly, most people simply have no idea what is happening to them.

The following are 20 outrageous examples that show how political correctness is taking over America

#1 According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid any criticism of pedophilia and to avoid criticizing anything related to Islam. The following is from a recent Judicial Watch article

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of taboo conversation topics that soldiers should avoid, including making derogatory comments about the Taliban, advocating womens rights, any criticism of pedophilia, directing any criticism towards Afghans, mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct or anything related to Islam.

#2 The Obama administration has banned all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorism from hundreds of old documents.

#3 Authorities are cracking down on public expressions of the Christian faith all over the nation, and yet atheists in New York City are allowed to put up an extremely offensive billboard in Time Square this holiday season that shows a picture of Jesus on the cross underneath a picture of Santa with the following tagline: Keep the Merry! Dump the Myth!

#4 According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a disproportionate impact on minorities.

#5 Down in California, Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill that will allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to legally get California drivers licenses.

#6 Should an illegal immigrant be able to get a law license and practice law in the United States? That is exactly what the State Bar of California argued earlier this year

An illegal immigrant applying for a law license in California should be allowed to receive it, the State Bar of California argues in a filing to the state Supreme Court.

Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday.

#7 More than 75 percent of the babies born in Detroit are born to unmarried women, yet it is considered to be politically correct to suggest that there is anything wrong with that.

#8 The University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) initiated an aggressive advertising campaign earlier this year that included online videos, billboards, and lectures that sought to raise awareness about white privilege.

#9 At one high school down in California, five students were sent home from school for wearing shirts that displayed the American flag on the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

#10 Chris Matthews of MSNBC recently suggested that it is racist for conservatives to use the word Chicago.

#11 A judge down in North Carolina has ruled that it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to offer license plates that say Choose Life on them.

#12 The number of gay characters on television is at an all-time record high. Meanwhile, there are barely any strongly Christian characters to be found anywhere on television or in the movies, and if they do happen to show up they are almost always portrayed in a very negative light.

#13 House Speaker John Boehner recently stripped key committee positions from four rebellious conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is believed that this purge happened in order to send a message that members of the party better fall in line and support Boehner in his negotiations with Barack Obama.

#14 There is already a huge push to have a woman elected president in 2016. It doesnt appear that it even matters which woman is elected. There just seems to be a feeling that it is time for a woman to be elected even if she doesnt happen to be the best candidate.

#15 Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using the name of Jesus on government property.

#16 Chaplains in the U.S. military are being forced to perform gay marriages, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs. The few chaplains that have refused to follow orders know that it means the end of their careers.

#17 All over the country, the term manhole is being replaced with the terms utility hole or maintenance hole.

#18 In San Francisco, authorities have installed small plastic privacy screens on library computers so that perverts can continue to exercise their right to watch pornography at the library without children being exposed to it.

#19 You will never guess what is going on at one college up in Washington state

A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a womens locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.

#20 All over America, liberal commentators are now suggesting that football has become too violent and too dangerous and that it needs to be substantially toned down. In fact, one liberal columnist for the Boston Globe is even proposing that football should be banned for anyone under the age of 14.

Here is the original post:

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness …

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

Political correctness (or PC for short) means using words or behavior which will not offend any group of people. Most people think it is important for everyone to be treated equally, fairly and with dignity. Some words that are unkind to some people have been used for a long time. Some of these words have now been replaced by other words that are not offensive. These new words are described as politically correct. The term is often used in a mocking sense when attempts at avoiding offense are seen to go too far.

This term has been used since the early 1970s. It started being used in the modern negative sense in the late 80s in America.

Politically correct words or terms are used to show differences between people or groups in a non-offensive way. This difference may be because of race, gender, beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, or because they have a mental or physical disability, or any difference from what is considered the norm.

Throughout the 20th century women fought to have the same rights as men. In PC language this is seen in changes to job titles such as “lineman”, “postman”, and “chairman” which now commonly go by the gender-neutral titles “lineworker”, “letter carrier” and “chairperson” or “chair” as well as with terms having broader application, such as “humankind” replacing “mankind”.

People who are attracted to the same gender are usually referred to as ‘homosexual’. Likewise, people who are attracted to people of both genders are usually referred to as “bisexual”. However, both of these terms are seen as being perfectly fine by the more politically liberal oriented people.

People who are mentally disabled are now rarely described as “mentally retarded” (sometimes called “M.R.”) but may be said to have “special needs”. M.R. has been changed to I.D.; Intellectual Disabilities.

People who are blind or deaf may be referred to as “vision impaired” and “hearing impaired”. People who cannot speak are never “dumb” but “mute” or “without speech”.

The overall terms ‘handicapped’ and ‘disabled’ are no longer considered appropriate (there is no distinction between physical or mental, acquired or inborn.) The people first/PC term is ‘challenged’. This term better reflects the fact they are different, rather than less.

Some of the new politically correct words are often criticized for being rather ridiculous. Some examples of these are the terms ending in challenged. For example, someone who is very short might be described as “vertically challenged”. People also say that things that are obviously bad are called by something else which hides the fact that they are bad. For example, young people who are in trouble with the law, instead of being called “juvenile delinquents” became “children at risk”. Some PC terms may be ambiguous i.e. have two possible meanings. “hearing impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial hearing (hard of hearing) and “vision impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial vision.

Original post:

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …


12345...10...