Being politically correct doesn't signify that you're sophisticated or smarter, it signifies that you're a complete idiot who can't (or won't) comprehend a different view point. The best way to combat it is to call attention to acts of feigned outrage with humor.
If you don't like what you hear you're allowed to change the channel... There is no reason to complain with an "I'm outraged" speech and silence a different point of view.
Yeah, there is. Postmodernism doesn't believe that real truth exists. For them, truth is just a sociological construct. Because they don't believe it's even possible to determine actual truth, they say that speech is about power, and only that.
So for them, winning the power game is the whole point. Saying nothing and changing the channel makes them the loser. Making you shut up makes them the winner (in their view).
Truth? Well most of the time people use the word "truth", I'd call it "subjective judgement".
Power? No.
Society enforces its rules. Get over it. And PC is about rules which generally enhance peace and cooperation. Being at the receiving end of a racial slur rarely puts someone in a peaceful and cooperative mood...
The "racial slur" issue was getting resolved in the '70s and was pretty much there by the end of it (this viewpoint from the hyper-Red State, culturally Southern part of SW Missouri); for some evidence, look at the dialog in 1971's Dirty Harry where a Hispanic is about to become his next doomed partner:
"Gonzales: There is one question, Inspector Callahan: Why do they call you "Dirty Harry"?
De Georgio: Ah that's one thing about our Harry, doesn't play any favorites! Harry hates everybody: Limeys, Micks, Hebes, Fat Dagos, Niggers, Honkies, Chinks, you name it.
Gonzales: How does he feel about Mexicans?
De Georgio: Ask him.
Harry Callahan: Especially Spics."
This wouldn't be funny without the taboo that was strengthening at the time.
No, today's PC has nothing to do with anything "peaceful and cooperative", not when it consigns to perdition all of us white heteronormatives in fly-over country, probably more than half the country. It has no limiting principle, is frankly totalitarian, and the end game is going to be arbitrarily ugly.
So you are reserving your right to hate certain people without being called someone who hates ceartain people, and if these certain people objects and hates you back, it's because you country is totalitarian?
It's objectively clear a large fraction of this nation hates me and mine. They're quite clear about that, and have no shyness in expressing it, and a bit too frequently express where they want us to end up (see below, hate is unwise).
I, at least, don't hate them in return, that's unproductive, clouds the mind, etc. Which gets in the way of many things; the more dire being effective self-defense if the current trends, e.g. social, moral, and financial, continue. Which it's hard to see how they're not going to, their being baked in the cake by now.
How does somebody saying "I'm outraged" silence your point of view? It sounds like you feel oppressed or offended by people disagreeing with your beliefs, and that by doing so, others are censoring or silencing you. If your (idiotic strawman) PC person could just change the channel, why can't you? You're not being logically consistent.
"Free speech" for a lot of people means "no dissent". I am seeing this in Germany where people think their free speech is violated, because whenever they try to put the hate on foreigners, the rest of society puts the hate on them...
All my life I thought free speech means everyone can voice his opinion, even if they are criticizing me. But obviously, this doesn't apply to criticizing people who are so obviously right. My bad...
There is every reason for society to attempt to enforce social rules. In the case of PC, those social rules revolve around avoiding offensive behavior, which is quite a good idea, once you think about it for a while...
Just imagine the worst nickname anyone ever gave you, and having it replace your real name. That's about the level of rage people can feel about "nigger", "Injun", "raghead" or whatever you might imagine.
If you are transmitting over a channel where some amount of politeness is the standard, violating this standard will and should have consequences.
This article reads like it was written by a sociopath. Unless you are a sociopath, there are many reasons to treat other people with dignity and respect that aren't about gaining some sort of power.
I'm respectful of other people out of a desire to be a decent human being rather than because I have "a loathing for common people" or wish to gain some sort of social currency.
I'm having a hard time formulating reasons why people would get so psychotically upset about what used to be considered just good manners unless they're both entirely devoid of empathy themselves, and threatened by people who do experience empathy.
Part of the problem is that the article doesn't really define "political correctness".
If PC means not using racial slurs to people's faces, then I definitely agree with you.
If PC means that academic freedom and scientific research needs to be subordinated to 'social justice' goals, or that some research areas are 'off limits', then I don't agree.
The article has the bias that political correctness is inherently bad, and the assumption that it is a violation of free speech.
Both is wrong, and demonstrably so. Political correctness is mostly not about avoiding to stir up racial hatred, but rather to avoid offending people. Political correctness is not about avoiding topics, that would be called a "tabu".
Anyway, political correctness does not infringe on free speech. Generally it is not enforced by the state, and it requires a sort of consensus in some small or large fragment
of society.
The consequences of breaking political correctness are entirely within free speech also. If you use a racial slur, it's not infringing on your free spech for others to call you a racist or stupid or worse. People might also infer other attributes or opinions if you frequently use the word "nigger", for example, and they may be wrong about your support for Ku klux clan, but they are not infringing on your free speech.
If privately or publicly owned publications don't want to publish texts that offend minorities, they don't need to publish it. Again, not infringing free speech. You are free to find a publication or medium that shares your world view.
Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences.
The thrust of the article had nothing to do with PC as a violation of free speech, but rather a discussion of the social currency that can be cheaply bought by holding the right opinions (at least outwardly).
The point about how not everyone can hold the high moral ground relative to everyone else is well made though, and the Nirvana analogy is perfect.
