This question is a spin off from a thread posted a few days ago. How do you feel about the current trend towards Political Correctness? It has pervaded almost every aspect of our lives. People are no longer short. They are vertically challenged. Cleaners are now Sanitary workers. Racial/ethnic groups have stricter specifications as to how they should be titled, and the list goes on and on. Has the political correctness movement been a great step towards sensitivity and humanity? Or has it compromised our ability to be honest? Has this movement gone too far? Is there a happy middle ground?

I personally embrace the move toward sensitivity except when it comes to the creative and performing arts. The driving force and power behind art is the rawness of the artist's truth and I wouldnt want that to be compromised for anything.Let the law step in if people's safety is under threat but let the artists express their truth. I also am against any moves toward political correctness which impede the impartation of justice.

Political correctness is routinely featured on this site. For example, a man will say that he is looking for BBW
when he means that he is looking for a woman with a fat Assuming that people can't handle reality,
purveyors of political correctness promote labels that are nothing more than form over substance.

I think the issue might be a little deeper than that Dodo . I think that some of the thinking behind political correctness is centred around protecting /empowering groups that have felt de-humanised by society on account of their physical realities in many cases. I think the term "curvy" and "bbw" were introduced to empower a substantive group of women in the world ,who were condemed by mainstream society. The word " fat ", used to be too general in its classification , often incorporating women who were not overweight according to their BMI, but who were heavy set in their bone-structure ,or who were heavy in one particular area ie breasts or butts. The term "fat" evokes abysmal images of people who are ugly, sloppy, careless and useless ,which does not apply to all overweight people. So the bbw and curvy title were invented for empowerment of a condemned group.

The problem with that empowering ideology as with MOST politically correct terms is that society took it to the EXTREME. People are now afraid to address the growing problem of obesity in the world because they are afraid of being dismissed as intolerant or scornful. Thats an example of how political correctness can be taken to an extreme.

The main problem in today's world is that if I find something offensive, or if I deem it insensitive to me, then I am more empowered today (than say twenty or thirty years ago) to go all public and cry about it until there is a movement or policy change. Why do I say this is a problem? when people take issue with things such as "In God We Trust" printed on dollar bills well....I think we are pushing things a bit too far. "God" could mean the God you choose to worship. Yet their are atheists who really want a change to it. I find that going too far.

I guess the evolution of some jobs was inevitable. Stewardesses are now called Flight Attendants because more guys are doing it. Secretary's are now Administrative Assistants because of the same reason. I see this as more of the fact that more men are working in fields that were predominatly dominated by women. Still, more women today are doctors, lawyers, engineers, judges....and you do not see those job titles changing for the sake of PC.

a good concept, but people use it for piddly things to further their agenda, by making simple statements racist... a good example of this is obama, it seems the only reason white people didn't like him was because they are racist...so yes, it's gone to far and way outa control

If how you behave around friends and family is one thing, and how you behave at work and in public is another. Then you've yielded the point that political correctness is necessary.
Yes sometimes it does go too far. No reason we can't correct that as well.

what,in the 1th Amendment do you all not understand?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/


No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment


By Eugene Volokh May 7, 2015 Follow @volokhc

I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)

The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.

The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers ***’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, §12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988).

Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.”

For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.

Of course, one can certainly argue that First Amendment law should be changed to allow bans on hate speech (whether bigoted speech, blasphemy, blasphemy to which foreigners may respond with attacks on Americans or blasphemy or flag burning or anything else). Perhaps some statements of the “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” variety are deliberate attempts to call for such an exception, though my sense is that they are usually (incorrect) claims that the exception already exists.

I think no such exception should be recognized, but of course, like all questions about what the law ought to be, this is a matter that can be debated. Indeed, people have a First Amendment right to call for speech restrictions, just as they have a First Amendment right to call for gun bans or bans on Islam or government-imposed race discrimination or anything else that current constitutional law forbids. Constitutional law is no more set in stone than any other law.

But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law, and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t just rely on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. Saying “this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” doesn’t, I think, suffice.

It's too vague and arbitrary to be enforced except through violence or bullied ostracizing which ultimately defeats the purpose.

So it's just a sanctimonious means to promote the same behavior as has always been around.

"You believe in jesus and treat people how jesus would or you're in trouble heathen!"
"You believe in equality and sameness and treat my group the way my group thinks everyone should or you're in trouble and don't belong you racist/bigot/bible thumper!"

No difference.


I think that is what people tell themselves to justify doing it.
No different than "well jesus loved everyone, so if we just get them to believe in christianity then that's the 'right' way, and everyone will love each other. Now accept jesus and love everyone or you're going to hell and I might send you there."

It's ultimately not about solidarity, but differentiating groups in new ways and forcing idealized beliefs and behavior.

"Oh, I'm not discriminating against you because you're white or black, I am discriminating against you because of your beliefs.
That's a different group, and my group is better than yours."

Or "My group believes this way. Everyone should believe this way because it's logical. And I'm in this group and believe this way first, so I'm better and higher in the hierarchy than the new people, so better than them."


Not really.
No one really wants one. They just want to be seen as wanting one.
Like when people say "I'm not perfect. No one is..."
They are just making sure no one sees them as less than anyone else and adopting false modesty or humility to look like they belong to the group called "good" people.

PC is just a way for "unempowered" or "alienated" groups to try and force immediate change and beliefs onto other groups that will naturally change over time simply due to natural organic forces all for their own sense of security, importance, and control.


The best anyone has managed as a "middle ground" is free market capitalism.
Love of green facilitating what you want to do that makes you feel good.
People don't naturally tend towards violence or hatred unless they feel threatened.

Ultimately pushing PC is no different than one person trying to "change" their spouse for their own emotional benefit.

here's another example of the idioracy that it is...

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/more-pc-insanity-college-students-banned-from-using-mom-or-dad-because-its-not-inclusive-enough_022016

According to who?



Just how were they allegedly condemned, and who did this alleged condemning?

PC is BS. You can be respectful without the mandated terms. People are too whiney these days and it's usually one sided.

Wow! Another example of EXTREME behavior. It's almost become laughable at this point.

I sometimes wonder if many of the problems emanating from political correctness are more a result of EXTREME thinking/reactions rather than the ideology of political correctness itself.

There have been raging debates over the advantages of technology era versus the disadvantages, the prohibition of guns vs freer access to guns, herbs vs drugs in treating diseases etc... and the common thread in my mind that weaves these unrelated debates together is the attitude of EXTREMISM .

Why are humans so inclined to throw out babies ALONG with the dirty baby bath water? Why are we so inclined to condemn an ENTIRE concept because there are disadvantages to it?

Hasn't almost every useful/beneficial concept/product been abused and used for evil? But does that make the ENTIRE concept or product bad or worthy of discard?

Is discarding the entire concept of political correctness the answer to many of our ills? Or is the answer in putting legal and civil checks and balances in place to MINIMIZE the abuse of the concept, as is needed with ALL other concepts?

just being nice to each goes a lot further than any kind of PC they come up with... the term fat... people may not like it, but that doesn't anything... is it ok to be fat? maybe, maybe not.. doctors say no, most of society says no, but the fat people say yes because they won't do anything about it...

So you made a commendable suggestion about people being nice with their words, as opposed to invoking PC terms. But what clue in the society we live in , leads you to the assumption that people can be trusted to BE NICE. Do you see the vitriol that people spew recklessly on social media towards people they often do not even know? The very precept of LAW evolves around the assumption that humanity can't be trusted to be or play NICE.

To the condemned groups for whom, these PC terms were invoked, the problem may not be intolerance as is widely assumed. The problem might be lack of BALANCE, ie the balance between EDUCATING a group with reality, while ascribing dignity to a group. Calling someone a fat slob and making them feel like slime while kicking them towards the gym is an extremist way of addressing the very real problem of obesity. What is so unthinkable about giving overweight people a title tempered with some dignity , while EDUCATING them about the death threat of obesity ,as opposed to condemning them as worthless because of their weight? Isn't there a marked difference between educating vs condemning?

I find most people who use political correctness to be spineless.

I am concerned about the people who can't find the balance between having a spine and being humane

sometimes you have to say things that people aren't going to like just to help them... I'm not talking about saying "you're a fat pig, you loser" but saying "you're getting fat" .... sometimes the shock of hearing it puts them in action, but now it's just something else for the to whine and cry about, instead of eating right and exercising...

I respect your opinion alot Moe . I know that you generally try to look at things from more than one side , but at least on the issue of obesity , can we get a little more real???

Politically correct terms were not created for obesity because overweight people were wounded from being told that "they were fat' or that "they needed to lose weight". The PC terms were created because there was commonly ,a string of unsavory words which, typically followed the word fat. eg "fat and useless", "fat and stupid", "fat and sloppy" etc. You should hear some of the ugly attacks that women are subjected to just from the weight they struggle to lose a few weeks after giving birth . Society is very partial when it comes to the flaws they will harshly condemn.

How come chain smokers never adopted the societal label of " weak, foul-smelling, and pathetic dumb-azzes", who have just as little self control as some overweight people do? Is puffing away on cancer sticks year after year more holy than shoving one too many pies down one's throat? Is there a competition between who looks better in their coffin?