Talk:Political correctness/Archive1

cover story
Please do not archive this section


 * I nominate this since it's hilarious. human  14:14, 12 February 2008 (EST)


 * No - it's brilliant, but not Cover Story, I don't think.  Though I could be convinced.   DogP  21:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)


 * I don't think it particularly makes the grade.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 13:50, 2 December 2008 (EST)


 * I withdraw my nomination, the article has been destroyed by people who simply did not get the joke. 04:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Doubt about the introduction
In the introduction we say: "Little Person" instead of "Midget". I thought the politically correct terms were either "Porg" (person of restricted growth) or "vertically challenged". Have I been unwittingly insulting them all my PC correct life?--Bobbing up 04:50, 3 April 2008 (EDT)


 * According to a journalist friend of mine who interviewed a well-known Little Person actor, that is the 'correct' term, yes - he was informed so by the PR people.  DogP  11:58, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I thought that little person, or small person was the PC term for children. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 14:39, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I always took "vertically challenged" to be a joke that short people use. Not even those with dwarfism or whatever it's called these days, but people who stand anything below the average. --Kels 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Metric system
Does anyone here realize that by using pounds and inches they are using the metric system indirectly? Or maybe there aresome non-metric measures not defined against the kilogram, meter or second? Ha.

Ha yourself! Everybody here in England knows that the standard unit of length is the ELL; the distance between the reigning Monarch's wrist and his elbow. None of those Frenchy kilograms for us when we're measuring things. Furthermore, I'm thinking of starting a campaign to measure speed in terms of Ells/Sennight. That will stop those PC jonnies in their tracks!!Betsynewson 12:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Ha yourself!
 * Not so much the "metric system" but SI yes. Metrology is hard, the US alone (nowhere else uses non-metric units enough to conceivably bother) would be hard pushed to justify hiring hundreds of extra NIST scientists to ensure its pounds and feet were consistently defined and realised. In fact some of the "traditional" units don't have such definitions. The BTU simply isn't consistently defined, a boiler labelled in BTU either needs an asterisk explaining how it was calculated or else is approximate. So anyway yes, pounds, inches etc. are explicitly defined by reference to SI units, meaning that ultimately their definition is in the hands of international committees that don't give a fig about the US. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Silly CP
I'm just a random walker by, but this just TOO silly. what a lot of non-issues!


 * Calling it "SI" which I think is some French thing, instead of the Metric System
 * Using Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) unless one is actually in England
 * Calling it "UTC" (Universales Temps Coordinaire or some such French abomination) instead of GMT

These are actually politically incorrect because they are so ultimately ignorant. The presumption which they were based on (i.e. everything outside the states is England) are so retarded. Which is why it's funny I guess. And France isn't part of the civilized world, so there. 77.110.12.110 16:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Rape.
"Calling a rape victim an "unwilling sperm recipient". HAHAHAHA awesome. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 21:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Should We Clean This Up?
And by we, I mean I'll do it if someone backs me up. Not that I don't enjoy the irony, but I think it reads as snarky and offensive. I believe it could be improved by restructuring without altering much content. Jorge  23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could suggest what you mean to do here? "Restructuring" how?  23:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly by re-ordering the list. Maybe keep only 'serious' examples in the Language section and then taking the rest and reordering the More Insidious Examples of... from least offensive to most offensive. I particularly don't like the rape one being at the top of that section. I know that some people think all PC terms are ridiculous, but I'll make a good faith effort. Jorge  23:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Be careful. Most of those are "reverse-PC", like the rape one.  This is a pretty weird article, but it's kind of fun to read through once in a while.  01:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a complex, multilayered application of Poe's Law. Some examples really are ridiculous PC terms and poke fun at them as such, some examples spoof conservative dislike of PC, and it's hard to sort out which is which. Loads o' fun. Secret Squirrel 01:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I look at it and it just comes off as a mess. Not a good article at all, even for lulz. --Kels 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. PC is a fairly specific concept - using it as a catch-all phrase for any kind of long-winded euphemism is missing the point by a long way.  As a joke, it's pretty weak too.   01:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The last two in the language section are reaching waaay too far, and "person with racial prejudice" is something I've never heard used, ever. I can understand lampooning the idea, but maybe if we stuck a little closer to the actual definition, the snark will make sense.  As to the rape victim one...words fail. --Kels 01:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) There are enough real-life examples of crazy political-correctness, from both left- and right-wingers, that no made-up ones are really needed. 01:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 90% of it is deletable. Cut it down to the intro & "language" sections, then go from there.   01:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I put in the "person with racial prejudice" one; I was remembering the flap at the University of Delaware a while back and was referring to the claim that "people of color cannot be racists because they lack the institutional power to back up their racial prejudice." 01:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I remember a similar flap on the Feminist community on LiveJournal, when they redefined "racist" and "sexist" as requiring a component of power, therefore only whites could be racist and only males could be sexist. Other groups could be "bigoted", but not one of those two.  Ridiculous, of course, but that's academics and radicals for you. --Kels 01:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think having the article be byzantine and ridiculous in some ways is a good thing - this is actually one of the more complex/subtle parodies we have on the site. Keep in mind, that if a few of the examples don't piss you (in general, not Kels) off, the parody is not working.  02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the article as-is fails at parody and just comes off as "I don't like PC, fnar fnar", muddied up with a huge list of joke definitions of varying offensiveness. I like stuff like the comment on "African American" and "Person" (although the latter is low-hanging fruit that doesn't actually happen much these days), but the rape one looks gratuitous and unfunny to me. There's a lot of others that just seem dumb and/or pointless, making it one long tl;dr mess.  Not sure if that qualifies as good parody in these parts. --Kels 03:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you just don't read it the same way I do. I see it as a "mind twist", wherein to enjoy the article one has to keep shifting perspectives.  Most of the "examples", hopefully obviously, are "reverse-PC" - using euphemistic terms to talk about egregious offenses.  03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that the long list has been moved to fun space, I suggest that we bring in some real-life examples of political-correctness in action. 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that part of the article says most of modern PC is either ironic or a way for Right-wingers to make themselves look victimized. So wouldn't the real-world examples fit into that? --Kels 03:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(UNINDENT) The article only says that most usages of the term are to those ends. I was talking more about examples of political correctness according to the original and correct meaning of the term, as put forth in the first sentence of your definition below and later clarified. 03:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Article ruined. 04:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess if I was the only person who thought it funny, I'm outvoted. However, I point you to Jorge's blocking of Ungsst "for disagreeing".  The fascism of the left is just as bad as that of the right.  And that's why this inside-out article that the Squirrel spent so much time on is so excellent.  04:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of the long list — not on the basis of its content (at least some of which I find amusing), but on the basis of it being too long and rambling to make a very effective point about political-correctness. I suggest removing it from the mainspace article again with a fun-box pointing to the fun space article. 04:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested opening
Political Correctness, frequently abbreviated as PC, is a term used to describe phrases intended to replace more casual speech in order to avoid offending a demographic group. Originally used by the American radical Left in the 1960's, the term quickly took on an ironic tone, and was eventually co-opted by the American Right. Today, it is usually used by the right in order to discredit attempts to moderate racist, sexist and similar speech, and by guys who want to look macho and not stand out from his friends who are making fun of words like "chairperson".

How's that look? Changes welcome. --Kels 01:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with defining it as a matter of simply replacing one phrase with a less offensive one. PC is the whole concept of not being racist/sexist/homophobic/judgemental, & relates to ideas of multiculturalism & tolerance.  Linguistic subtleties are only one aspect of it.   02:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Political-correctness is based on the same idea as Newspeak: that if we just stamp out all the bad words, magically we will have no more bad ideas. Which is not surprising, because it is exactly the same thing and came from exactly the same sort of people. 02:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it's been a long way since that point, and it's used for entirely different purposes now. I agree with the Mustelid, the wording makes it look like it's just being polite, when it's at least in part an attempt to start turning around the forces that have disadvantaged various groups to start with.  I'm just not sure how to word it. --Kels 02:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it is much more than just about language. Language is where it met its demise and mockery, since there were obvious things to make fun of that "anyone could get".  02:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) There are real consequences in language because of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, actually. Sterilewalkie-talkie 02:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. But language is not the only "field of concern" for PC - there's dress, employment, mobility (?) to randomly pull a few out of my ass.  02:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) An hypothesis that can be soundly debunked by listening to the hypocritical and contemptuous way in which some people sneer out the phrase, "persons with special needs." 02:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just when I was about to make a substantive contribution. Excellent intro, ListenerX. Jorge  03:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That List Was Just Too Long
I moved it to a fun page. Bring your favorite terms back if you like. Jorge  03:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bring it all back, you ruined article. 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And how about a damn link, at least? 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I undid your massive deletion. Perhaps you don't get the joke?  Sorry, I also undid LX' edit after the deletion.  04:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jorge cut and pasted most of the guts of the article to Fun:More Insidious Examples of Political Correctness, for archival purposes I add this link. Some of this conversation is now taking place at Fun talk:More Insidious Examples of Political Correctness. 04:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you guys really want to destroy the deep joke this article is/was
If I'm the only one who likes it, I'll just copy a diff to a user space page. I don't mean to impose my will, I just wish I could explain the joke in less characters than the article itself takes. I still maintain it is one of the funniest, best bits of parody on RW to date. 04:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's a joke or parody, doesn't it belong on the funspace with all the happy balloons? I'm sure you could make a better fun article without 999 bullet points. Jorge  04:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we not have a parody-template for this sort of article? The fun space is more for extreme goofiness, not parody. 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)No, that's part of our "POV" - to be funny, to be snarky, etc. However, the reason I came back to this talk page was to say that earlier, I intended to ignore this article's changes for a bit and check back in later and see what it changed into.  Obviously, I failed and got involved in the short-term changes, and will now try to stay out of the fiasco for a bit.  As I said just above, I can always make a copy for my own enjoyment of the version I liked. By the way, there's nothing wrong with 999 bullet points that removing 88 of them can't fix.  Removing all of them was truly not an "improvement", it just gutted the article.  Anyway, peace out, and I'll try to back off for at least a day, if I remember to. Post EC: At LX, yeah, that might help.  04:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed them all is because I felt removing only the ??incorrectly politically-correct...er...would be politically incorrect...I'm gonna leave this one to the mob. I still like the current version better than the old. Jorge  05:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It turned out we do not have a parody-template, so I have made one, to be used here as anyone else sees fit:


 * 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice, need to copy ballons.jpg to gif or png with transparent background though. I'll do it tomorrow if you want.  05:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Human on this one and think some of y'all missed the point. I added most of that "more insidious examples" section. The thinking here was: 1) do a complete spoof of something Aschlafly might write, including some silly examples that nobody else but Aschlafly would think are PC (like the Metric System and British and French words) combined with 2) a little Metapedia spoof thrown in, 3) written like somebody's rant on a right-wing site including use of, but misspelling of, "insiduous" (misspelling was later corrected); 3) just over the top enough that somebody will get this is parody, but 4) peppered with just enough real examples of ridiculous PC that it simultaneously spoofs the left's infatuation with PC language and how absurd some of it is, just as much as it spoofs the right's paranoia over it. As I said above it's a complex application of Poe's Law.  I agree the list is probably too long and could be pared down to 1/2 its size.  But out of context, the joke doesn't work.  The "There is a cure" section is a joke cut from the same stuff and that joke doesn't work either with the list above it gone. Secret Squirrel 11:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about some of these examples
"Other times they fail because they're just trying to change the language for the sake of it (such as with "visually impaired", "African American" or "Inuit")."

I don't see that these phrases have "failed"; they're increasingly common. I can also see fairly good reasons for them, in terms of being more specific than the words or phrases they replaced. 18:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Christians became "increasingly common" after they began stigmatizing paganism in the Roman Empire. Same thing. 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh?  18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The terms are becoming increasingly common not necessarily because they are "better" or "more accurate," but because the terms they replaced have been stigmatized and are no longer allowed to be used in trend-setting official sources. 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that failing?  18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If they did not have the State and other assorted ideologues enforcing their use, they would probably be dropped from the vocabulary in three seconds for being overwordy and half-useless. Nobody uses "African American" in everyday conversation, and "blind" is a more specific term than "visually impaired." 18:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Visually impaired", though, is used because someone can be disabled by eye problems (ie they can't work or get about much) without being fully blind. Totnesmartin 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The state doesn't enforce use of these terms.
 * "Blind" is specific to people with no sight; "visually impaired" is specific to people with impaired sight. See wp:visual impairment.  Referring to people with any visual disability as "blind" is inaccurate & confusing, & some might be offended by it.  Hence the need for terms like "partially sighted" or "visual impairment".   18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The state doesn't enforce use of these terms. Tell that to the U.S. Civil Rights Office, which requires the use of person-first language in all government communications, causing a ripple effect.
 * That was precisely my objection to the term "visually impaired" replacing, not supplementing, the term "blind." 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that "African American" instead of "black" can be very wrong because people can be black but neither African or American; Inuit is wrong because, while all Inuit are Eskimos, not all Eskimos are Inuit; "Visually impaired" is not the same thing as "blind" but it's used anyway. Hence; utter, utter fail. They're terms that get used just because they sound politically correct - using fancier words that don't have a cultural history - rather than because they're genuinely less offensive or more correct. 19:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Using "blind" and "visually impaired" synonymously is not correct, politically or otherwise, & I can't find any sources that promote using them synonymously. So citing "visual impairment" as an example of failed politicaslly correct language seems to be based on a straw man.   19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The NFB resolution that I cited goes particularly against using "blind" and "visually impaired" synonymously, so someone must be doing that. 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Defining political correctness
'Political correctness' to some extent is 'name changes the user of the term PC does not see the point of' - most of us don't care either way if the places are called Kolikat/Calcutta, Mumbai/Bombay, Suomi/Finland. And, as with euphemisms things move from PC to non-PC and back sometimes for no obvious reason.

'This is political correctness gone mad.'

'That is not politically correct. It is political correctness with a mental health problem.' 82.198.250.67 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is because technical terms (idiot, retard, spastic) become popular as insults. Language isn't logical. Anyway the article pretty much covers what you're saying. Whatever it is. 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference
My apologies, Weaseloid. This was the Guardian article I meant to link in the reference. --Gabe (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but I don't see how it supports your assertion that "Asian" is used in place of "Muslim" for reasons of political correctness.  08:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should speculate that it was very much the other way around; the people of the BNP, for example, quite openly use "Muslim" as a euphemism for any one of a number of ethnic slurs they would desperately like to use. 02:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Surely the opposite of 'political correctness' is 'apolitical incorrectness'? (Or is that something completely different?)

Arguments about political correctness will persist - the 'substitute words' become offensive in turn, or 'things once considered acceptable' are seen as 'inappropriate' 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the euphemism treadmill? Perhaps. But PC is also about approaching things in a different way, not just rewording them for the sake of avoiding offence (in theory, at least) so it may not apply. Person-first language, for instance, is an attempt to alter the attitude by thinking of a person, rather than a particular disability as the primary focus. 19:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With the opposites thing you're trying to change both the adjective (political) and the noun (correctness). But that doesn't work.  Think of a "big success".  Is the opposite a "big failure" or a "small failure"?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the "opposite" is a privative and doesn't really exist, as such. Like, is "cold" really the opposite of "hot"? Not really. So I don't think there really is an opposite. There's a backlash against it, where people intentionally go against the will of PC, but that doesn't really mean "opposite". 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. I've heard the phrases "politically correct" and "politically incorrect" so apparently opposed concepts exist.  They look like "opposites" to me.  OK, I suppose you could argue that they are both facets of something else.  There again, is "conservative" the "opposite" of "liberal" (using US terms) or they simply two ideologies?  I suppose you pays your money and you makes your choice.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always viewed "politically incorrect" as just a response/backlash to PC, and more of people trying to make an excuse for being wilfully bigoted and insulting. Perhaps that is an opposite of some sort, it certainly opposes the PC ideology and wouldn't make sense without it. 11:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Collateral Damage"
Removed a line that stated that "Collateral Damage - Killing of innocent civilians" or words very close to it. Collateral damage isn't killing civilians - It's any unintended or incidental damage. If I drop a bomb on a crowd of innocent civilians, that's not collateral damage, that's mass murder - However, If during the demolition of a building, some protective sheeting has come loose, and debris blows out, damages another building, maybe crushes a few cars, that IS collateral damage.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 122.108.164.77 / talk / contribs
 * I think that is the snark behind having it under "political correctness". Not sure if it's exactly right under PC, though. Many people seem quite happy to accept innocent killings as "collateral". ADK ...I'll shove your whip! 23:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I think that might go under conservative correctness.Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes more sense. ADK ...I'll bomb your pumpkin! 07:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Eliminates bias, rather than rewords it"
Replacing x-man with x-person is pointless and annoying. Is it really that implausible for the "-man" to refer to a human, rather than just males? When referring to the species, we say something like "Man and Man alone was able to make tools, rather than just use something they found", not "Person and Person alone was able....". In no way does this exclude females: we could choose either primary gender for the "base word": we just go with XY, not XX. The argument is mainly one of grace: saying "congressman" or "gentleman" rolls off the tongue much better than "congressperson", "gentleperson"; or even "congresshuman", "gentlehuman". We can even reduce replacing "man" with "person" to absurdity. Anyone want to always say huperson, woperson, et cetera? It's of good intention, but using "-man" is not sexist. It's kind of like person-first language: good intentions, but simply makes it sound stilted and reeks of whitewashing. Saying "person" instead of "man" is in no way biased. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's just... so much wrong in that post, I don't know where to start. 04:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you like some mental Imodium for your butthurt and logorrhea? EVDebs (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has never occurred to me before that there is "man" in "human". Anyway "rolls off the tongue easily" is just synonymous with "I'm used to it". Scarlet A.pngd hominem 23:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn straight. In any case, "man" and "human" aren't even etymologically related. EVDebs (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the history/herstory thing all over again... Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>moral 23:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, with regard to the "woperson" thing, that is what "woman" actually meant, once upon a time. 03:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I contend that instead of the pointless "wymyn" or "womyn", those interested in a less sexist version of English ought to use wereman and keep woman. 04:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The horrifying wereman! Once a month, on the full moon, he becomes... AN ORDINARY MAN! TERRIFYING!! <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR critical thinking is the key to success! 04:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

When I say "rolls off the tongue", it's not just "I'm used to it". It takes less syllables to say "congressman" than "congresshuman" or "congressperson". Kind of like how "a cup" sounds better than "250 millilitres" in a recipe. Although I do like the "wereman" thing for a male: the group of men (members of Homo sapiens) includes male weremen and female women. Works for me. So I can say "congressman", which would either be a wereman or a woman. Take that, political correctness :P The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're redefining or replacing words to try to make them inconclusive, that's still political correctness (or at least a pretty similar idea). And why should "man" or "men" be redefined as gender-neutral (which has no chance whatsoever of happening) when gender-neutral alternatives like "person" are already in very common usage?  12:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is term for "a member of Congress" that rolls perfectly well off the tongue - "congresscritter", with bonus points for alliteration and rhotacism. :) On a more serious note, you can use "member of Congress" and abbreviate it to "MC", like "MP" in other countries.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than saying 'HeidelbergKid' I find that 'ignorant little twat' rolls off the tongue so much easier. Bad Faith (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you not start referring to "congresspersons" as "bloodsucking freaks"? Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>bomination 12:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Weaseloid How am I making it "inconclusive"? It's just adding a new word and changing the definition of the old one. "Man" is redefined from just males to any member of Homo sapiens, and a new word, "wereman", is added to cover the old definition of "man" (i.e., just males). Neologisms aren't automatically politically correct. In fact, this redefinition could be politically incorrect, as I'm trying to keep the current word with its current definition "congressman, i.e. a member of Congress (regardless of gender)". In the process, the words "man" and "wereman" are changed and added, respectively to help "congressman" make sense for all those people who think because it has "man" it's sexist (which it isn't).

@ZooGuard Yeah, but we don't have dogs and cats running for Congress (at least outside of Soviet propaganda). "Congressman" refers to humans and humans alone, plus it's one less syllable. If you criticise me for the syllable argument, then there's no distinction between "person with a form of dwarfism" and "dwarf". Reductio ad absurdum.

@Bad Faith Ha ha, very funny. But "Heid-el-berg-kid" is simpler than "ig-nor-ant litt-le twat": the former is one syllable less. See above.

@Armondikov Yeah, same number of syllables ;)

The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Inconclusive" was a typo; I meant "inclusive" ("Man" is redefined from just males to any member of Homo sapiens). That's not going to work out.  16:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, I forgot about the law of linguistics that says that always and everywhere the number of syllables ≡ the lack of aesthetic quality of a world. --Lord Shang (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "em cee" is two syllables, "con-gress-man" is three. I win. :p--ZooGuard (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but "MC" can stand for several things, as a quick googling shows. It's not clear what else "congressman" could be besides a member of Congress. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MP can also stand for multiple things. This hasn't stopped journalists from using it. There is such thing as "context".--ZooGuard (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, "MC" isn't a word, it's an abbreviation (and "emcee" is already used to refer to a master of ceremonies). "Congressman" is a word. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not going outside the bounds of PC by "redefining" man as human; if anything, that's just conservative correctness repackaged. 14:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it really a redefinition? We speak of "mankind" or "Man" while knowing that this includes all humans, not just males. Once again, "Man and Man alone was able to make tools", or "one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind". Replace: "Person and Person alone was able to make tools", "One small step for a person, one giant leap for personkind". To avoid confusion, we can have another word for males specifically, like the above-proposed "wereman". I dunno, using "person" like that's kind of derpy, for want of a better word. Is it really that mind-boggling to use "man" as a one-syllable abbreviation of "human"? We already do it, as above when referring to the species as a whole. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not going to get very far with "derpy," first of all, if you want to be taken remotely seriously.
 * In principle, yes, it would be nice to just remove the male human definition of man, but we can't ignore the context and historical use of that definition. An implicitly male-dominated language matters for societal gender relations, either as a reflection of them, a tool to shape them, or both. 14:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why can't we? Take, for instance, the word "planet". In 2000, a planet was defined as "an object that has a mass between that of Pluto and the deuterium-burning threshold (about 13 times Jupiter's mass) and that forms in orbit around an object that can generate energy by nuclear reactions" (http://exoplanets.org/defn.html). However, without any regard for Pluto's "historical" planet status, the definition was changed in 2006 to the current one of being spherical, going round the Sun, and "clearing its orbit". Words can have archaic definitions and modern ones that can be completely unrelated: "art" was an archaic version of "are" and now refers to creative expression. With redefinitions like these that don't even remember etymology in the least, is it really that much to ignore etymology in this case?

tl;dr summary - Words can be given new definitions due to changing current events without any regard to the word's etymology, so it would be special pleading to make an uproar about etymology in this case but not others. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No; the case of Pluto's demotion was done by an astronomical union of people with scientific backgrounds, but the proposed redefinition of "man" has no scientific benefit.
 * Furthermore, no; etymology and history are extremely different, and you really ought to find a way to understand that. The sexist past of the universal "man" is much different from the etymological development of "man", which has little to do with sexism. 15:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just using Pluto as an ANALOGY that words can be redefined without looking at the word's usage in the past. No analogy is perfect, that's why they're ANALOGIES. Now, what I'm saying is that it isn't sexist to refer to the species Homo sapiens as a group as "Man". I am adding a new word, "wereman", to the language, to mean "a human male", and getting rid of the "human male" definition of "man". Therefore, using "man" is not referencing only to males. Neologisms FTW. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This should be self-evident, but you don't get to define words however you want. Just because you say a word means something, if the population at large doesn't "get" that definition, then your "new" definition is pretty much meaningless. This is the same reason it's so difficult to re-appropriate ethnic/religious/whatever slurs. What you mean and what the other person hears are unlikely to be the same. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk 🇱🇮 16:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why, when you're having a conversation, you tell the other person beforehand what the word means if you're expecting it to come up in the discussion. That was easy. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC"Hey just incase certain words come up in our discussion, i want you to understand that x, y, j, a and g actually mean different things then what the dictionary and society in general say they mean, and my definition should be used because it's better".-- il' Dictator   Mikal  16:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) You don't know what you're talking about. ""  No, that's two completely different words with entirely separate etymologies & meanings, which happen to be spelled and pronounced the same way.  This does not make them "the same word" and neither is a redefinition of the other.  ""  Yeah, it is.  Perhaps not intentionally, but the sexism is implicit (that the species is represented by men).
 * "" Not easily. Your Pluto analogy relates to a redefinition within scientific literature, research, etc.  It doesn't stop the average guy on the street thinking of Pluto as a planet or mean having to understand the technicalities of the scientific definition.  The language of everyday communication and the meanings of words change gradually, and not by diktat.  The idea of political correctness is to try to eliminate prejudicial language and replace it with more inclusive language, usually by example.  Things like replacing chairman with chairperson, Congressman with Congress Representative, garbage man with refuse collector, are at least achievable: these words are used in official correspondence, job descriptions, the media, and they seep into everyday use, even if the old alternatives linger on.  Your suggestion that from this point forward the word "man", which has been used to mean "adult male human being" for thousands of years and is used in this context by all English speakers on a daily basis, must suddenly mean both men and women, and a new word be introduced for men specifically, is entirely impossible.  There's literally nobody in the world who can force everyone to stop using a word one way and use it another way, least of all some kid on the internet.
 * "" Seriously?  "Man" is a pretty common word; I wouldn't expect to start a conversation by (re)defining it.  16:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * HK, I would like you to put yourself in the shoes of a denigrated, dismissed, disempowered class of people - in this case "women." Do you know how you feel when you see "would congressmen please come into the Session".  You're not a man, do you need to go?  "Firemen are our friends."  I'm not a man, but i fight fires, does that make me not your friend?  It's not that it's trying to be harder for you all to talk "firefighter v. firemen" it's that it allows me as a female firefighter to feel like I'm included in this job.  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot Tut tut, looks like rain  18:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In those situations, "yes", because "congressman" simply means "one who serves in Congress to make laws", saying nothing about gender. Now, some people (I may be guilty of similar charges, I accept any charges of hypocrisy in advance and will work on it more in the future) pounce on trigger letter sequences (in this case, "man") and take it as sexist. Hence why I'm redefining "man" as a shorthand for "human", and creating a new word, "wereman", just for males. Rather than change all the words "fireman", "businessman", "policeman", "congressman", etc., I'm just changing one "man" and adding one "wereman". It's just simpler that way in order to make the charge of sexism more obviously untenable. The Heidelberg Kid (talk)
 * [[Image:Facepalm.png]] The fact that you think it's "simpler" to get everybody to accept a new definition of "man" and a new word for men rather than to use some gender-neutral phrases that are already fairly common is not even wrong.  Don't you think people might find that just a little bit "pointless and annoying"?  20:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you really using "pointless and annoying" as an argument? This would basically shut this whole "-man is sexist!" discussion down instantly. 178.8.193.92 (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Fresh Slate
Okay, rather than that, here's a different idea: originally, "mann" with 2 n's was the gender-neutral. So, change the words like "congressman" --> "congressmann". Still the same pronunciation, same meaning, the word "man" retains its common definition, all that's done is a dead word is revived. And personally, I just find "political correctness" in all its forms annoying: it just stuffs phrases with syllables in as stilted a way possible. I'd rather be called an aspie than a person with Asperger's: the former saves words. So, how about this: throwing out wereman, I'm going to let "man" retain its common definition, and the one-syllable gender-neutral term for a human is "mann" with two n's. One who puts out fires would be a firemann, one who makes laws in the U.S. Federal government is a congressmann, et cetera. The word "mann" pre-existed, so it's not a neologism but reviving an old word. Saying "congressmann" rolls of the tongue better than "congressperson", and seems less of an obvious PC euphemism.
 * Firstly, I don't believe this stuff about "mann" being an existing gender-neutral word. Where are you getting this info from?  Secondly, if you're going to leave words sounding the same, what do you achieve?  It's just the same as above: redefining the word "man" rather than using alternative words; the only difference here is tacking an extra n at the end.  05:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mann was gender-neutral in Old English. 07:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh for god's sake, the word was not gender neutral, it was gender masculine. (linguistic gender, by the way).  All words in old english still carried gender, just like most german words, all french words do today.  The fact that Mann **could be used** to represented all of man kind is no different than "man" today.  "When man began to harvest wheat, history changed" or yadda yadda.  It was NEVER some nice and friendly gender neutral term that simply means human.  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot Tut tut, looks like rain  17:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * HK, you can't just throw out 1500 years of semantic change just because you think the etymology should be primary. We've all seen words shift definition within our own lifetimes, but for the most part we have to communicate within the existing framework because people aren't going to understand your own private meanings. (That's why strict prescriptivism doesn't work, incidentally; language has a tendency to ignore the desires of standardizers and do pretty much whatever it wants.) EVDebs (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have to "throw" anything out. He's making up what "mann" meant, by implying it meant some word for women and men.  It does hold the connotation of "mankind", but again, given both the culture of the day (which largly discounted women in any formal discussions of what it is to be human), and the language itself, mann has the exact same role as "man" today.  Usually it references males, but it has the dual role of referencing humans in general contexts.  There was no science in saxon society, so they didn't mean "human" as human beings, but just the kind of generic discussions like "Man's freedom depends on paying his taxes" or "when man wants to write a new law, he must first ask the king for permission".  The use of "mann" was largly in legal(ish) decrees, in discussions of the bible and how it should be interpreted, etc.  I need a long drink of alcohol, cause this thread makes me want to strangle someone(s).  heheheh :-)  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot Tut tut, looks like rain  17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that the time when Old English was used was when society was highly sexist. Old words can be re-purposed for changing times: that's one way languages evolve. When the word "mann" was originally used, it referred to "humans", but women were considered "sub-human". Once we recognised that women aren't sub-human, the word "mann" was no longer used. I am simply proposing to revive the word "mann" as a one-syllable equivalent of "human", to be used in contexts like "congressmann" to include women (as opposed to "congressman") without the clunky and PC-bleached "congressperson". Words can change to fit new contexts. Also, anybody can invent or define a word if they want, provided they tell the other guy what it means. Richard Dawkins coined "theorum", feminists use "womyn", there are tons of cases for various reasons where neologisms were made and the person using them just made sure to mention the word's meaning. Oh, and with regard to "mann" being linguistically masculine, the modern French "humain" is a "male" word but means "human", which includes women and men. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I request permission to take the underage combatant out and shoot him.--Monarchofascist (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * HK, you are just wrong. Mann did not mean "Human".  it mean "man" exactly like the word we use today.  It referred most often to males of the human species, but it could refer to a general sense of "adult humans".  the term farmann (farmer), the term glanmann (happy man), the term fetmann (footman) and on and on.  It was never the equivalent to "human" which is a scientific term that describes all people.  It was and always has been a term that is about males.  In some rare cases "evrmonn" (every man, anglo saxxon, not old English) it did mean "all people" but that was nto normal, cause you didn't often talk about "all people".  as you said, women weren't people.  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot Tut tut, looks like rain  19:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Women weren't considered "sub-human"; you're imposing modern ideas backwards in a totally inaccurate way. If you don't like politically correct language, don't use it; nobody will force you to.  The alternatives you are suggesting are completely impractical and will please nobody.  This whole conversation is a waste of everybody's time.  19:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Other uses
Should be mentioned - including Police Constable and Privy Councillor. Thus one could have a non-PC PC PC. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki isn't a dictionary. 17:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Marriage equality"
How is this term not politically correct? It's a rephrasing of a hot-button issue in a more ambiguous and indirect (and "inclusive") way with the specific purpose of directing the listener to the "correct" point of view. Completely setting aside the issue itself, I don't really see how you can argue that this particular terminology isn't PC. 74.8.88.191 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PC is pretty much exclusively about reducing offence. There isn't really a push, as such, to rebrand "gay marriage" as "marriage equality". Sure, it's an emotively manipulative term (textbook loaded language), but that's not the same as political correctness. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>pathetic silverbrain.png 23:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, "marriage equality" and "gay marriage", while often used interchangeably, do not mean exactly the same thing - for instance, marriage equality means that not only can gay people marry each other, but bisexuals can marry people of the same sex too, and those jurisdictions where transgender people's new sex is not legally recognized will recognize their marriages regardless (this has been a problem in places like Texas, where different courts sometimes invalidate marriages between, say, trans women and cis women because they're "gay marriages", but sometimes let them stay valid because they're "heterosexual marriages"). 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it actually is different, though, insofar as we take "gay" to mean "homosexual" and not "homosexual male" specifically. The question, as far as the law is concerned, is that of people being able to marry other people of the same sex/gender. So it is "gay marriage". I guess I've tended to consider political correctness and loaded language as having some overlap (at least in cases where loaded language is used to enforce what is determined to be literally the "politically correct" point of view), rather than PC being limited strictly to questions of offense. 74.8.91.43 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is some overlap, I think, as you are trying to avoid certain connotations to words by shifting them about a bit, which is the essence of loaded language. But my experience of PC is all about avoiding offence (sometimes necessarily, sometimes gratuitously and over-sensitively). Not least because most people using the words "political correctness" use it in the context of "oh, it's PC gone mad!!" as an excuse to use intentionally offensive terms without consequence. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>d hominem silverbrain.png 12:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's PC. The key is the use of the word 'equality', which completely changes the meaning to one of egalitarianism (and identity politics) rather than one of liberty. Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Egalitarianism and liberty are hardly mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that liberty requires egalitarianism or it's an empty term. Point is, whatever you call it, where it's been enacted, same-sex marriage is a right everyone has, not just people who fit some arbitrary definition of gay. EVDebs (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Homicide Bombers"
Isn't this the opposite of political correctness? The idea of political correctness is softer term that erases negative connotations to a particular group. "Homicide Bomber" was an attempt to come up with a way to make suicide bombers look worse. The Mad World (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)'
 * Nobody's responded so I've removed Homicide bombers. If you disagree feel free to revert and explain to me how it qualifies as "political correctness".

True origin
The term was a true and authentic creation of those seeking the appearance of still fighting for social change after the protest movement of the 1960s burned out. "Politically correct" was the term used to describe words and actions that were approved under the slogan, "The personal is political." The approach amounted to trying to personally levitate social change, a la the Hundredth Monkey Project of the anti-nuclear movement. It was really silly to start with, and mainly resulted in a wave of "Left Puritanism" or "New Victorianism" that massively alienated people from the left and became joke fodder. The right saw the opportunity to capitalize on it, as with so many other of the left's mistakes.75.111.20.66 (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Islamophobia does not exist, since Islam is a Religion and an Ideology. The term "Islamophobia" is just as nonexistant as "Naziphobia", "Libertariphobia", "Commuphobia", "Christophobia" or whatever else. It's an effort to deflect the necessary criticism of the Islam as racist. The Islam boasts itself with existing in a wide multitude of ethnics and nations. Of course there are enough people that hate brown skinned folks (of which many are muslims) and direct their anger toward "Muslims" when in reality they meant to say "mud skins", but guess what, there is already a term for those folks: racists. Islamophobia is not a thing. 178.8.193.92 (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just b/c Islamophobia isn't racism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 21:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The opening, again
This definition of political correctness was written by someone who follows it. The ideology is so stupid that those who follow it won't admit it exists! lol

They are saying that everyone who isn't a bigot is in fact PC, which is a good illustration of how political correctness works. Thank you.

Is everyone politically correct or a conservative? This is what the author is suggesting. No! I am neither.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-31069779

Political correctness, isn't based on reason, it's based on the idea that everyone who disagrees with the PC opinion is a bigot; thereby ending the debate, or at least that the intent. If I am wrong I'd love to debate the author of his definition sometime, unless it's meant as satire. Lets see how well the use reason. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Wikiman / talk / contribs 00:22, 10 February 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Curious, the "PC or conservative bigot" (false) dilemma is not at all the impression I was left with after reading the blog post. In fact, the blog clearly writes that the PC battle is largely one within the liberal group (mainly) in the U.S. In any case the blog post is more of a summary of responses to a blog post critical of PC, rather than the blog author himself setting out to attack/defend PC as such. It's more of a sort of mapping of the PC debate, or at least of some positions within it. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dissent
So then the stance of Rationalwiki is that either a person is Politically Correct or a bigot? BS Many liberal and progressive people are not Politically Correct, such as Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. Politically Correctness is such a stupid ideology that people who follow it, say it doesn't exist. A good example of is in your sister group FB RationalWiki, where people make jokes about Christianity all the time but its considered bigoted and Islamophobic to make jokes about Islam. 
 * Given what they've had to say about Muslims, and their narrow-minded views of religion and religious folks in general, I wouldn't pound on my keyboard too hard to defend either of those guys from charges of bigotry. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What's kind of ironic there (not that I'm a particularly big fan of Dawkins, or Maher...for different reasons than their religious criticism) is that you are painting both Maher and Dawkins with a broad brush, which is what some folks say they do with religion. Both of them have friends and associates who are of a religious persuasion. They tend to focus on the extremists. Burkean (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Evolution of political correctness
First there is 'a descriptive term' which is used in some contexts as a specific term (as with certain IQ-related terms), or is used as a polite term ('U and non-U')

Then it wanders out among the general public and is used as a term of abuse, or is seen as being common or vulgar.

A new term is substituted.

Some people of various persuasions denounce new term as 'political correctness gone mad.' Some terms are denounced or seen as absurd and disappear. Others enter the mainstream 'X prefers being called an X rather than a Y... if it suits them, will just have to get used to it.'

The process repeats. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could be added in. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Musical comment
Dilligaf = Do I look like I give a fuck? Pashley (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dislike of article
Oh noes, the "PHILOSORAPTOR" is mad. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it is a pretty shit article. 20:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Has it Gone Downhill?
It has only been in the last few decades has the left of political correctness began to mirror the right, which of course by the 00s they had become just as hateful as any white supremacist group, both in and out of the USA. Men are expected to hate women but women aren't capable hating men, is just another double standard. A similar double standard is that regardless of who's in charge of whatever region, whites are expected to hate minorities but minorities aren't capable of hating whites or other minority groups.--106.68.144.55 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ask anyone about the topic, either their lemmings who find everything offensive with a drop of a hat, or say that its reputation has died a long time ago, their is no middle ground, you must choose a side.--106.69.214.237 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Tabatha
What Southey doesn't seem to realize, is that her assertion that politically correct equals not being an asshole, is basically just her saying "anyone who says things about racial issues which I disagree with is an asshole".

"Who's the faggot nigger now?"-Doug Stanhope. Burkean (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What Burkean doesn't realize is that it's rude-as-fuck and achieves nothing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean like rude as in trying to block someone and get involved in something that's none of your business? Free speech doesn't have to justify itself by virtue of what it "achieves" (whatever that might be construed to mean) or whether it conforms to your or anyone else's definition of what's polite. If PC just stopped at saying you shouldn't insult people or yell racial epithets at them or bully them, I would have no problem. What is considered politically incorrect encompasses a great deal more. Many economic views are considered "insulting" and "counterproductive" by your lot. There is the attempt to eliminate words that are not permissible. Different views of history or historical events are derided as offensive and mean spirited. Such things should have nothing to do with education. Many important authors and writers have been eliminated from coursework because their words and ideas offend some people. This is the opposite of enlightenment. All of the endless snark and pithy attempts to claim lew rockwell is a fascist, for example, is just as insulting and stupid and also achieves nothing, but snark is okay. So, your not really concerned with rudeness or offending people. Your concerned with people expressing things that you find unacceptable, and trying to censor those views, sometimes even with the force of law. Just listen to this extreme right wing lunatic talking about political correctness.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-FVctaW3j0


 * Then there's this


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6luo4U0joO0


 * And this:


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUozX8gu1pQ


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjPYjvOnPx4


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0W9sSqeJnA


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgQ3thoS50U


 * And as the article pointed out, many conservatives push for all kinds of censorship of speech they believe to be offensive or "counterproductive" (ratings for rock records in the 80s). The reason that so much of comedy was basically banned from the airwaves for years was because of conservatives. It's one of the reasons for the rise of cable. But hey, that crass humor was rude as fuck and counterproductive, right? Burkean (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

... Because it's not "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion"?
On the point of "And of course, the ultimate bi-partisan PC double-doozy: 'Pro-choice' and 'pro-life' instead of 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion.'", I must interject because as someone who is pro-choice, it's more about the choice than the abortion. For example, I don't support forced abortion like what happens if someone has an abusive partner that wants them to get an abortion, regardless of what the pregnant person wants, or the Scientology Sea Org practice of forced abortions. I would have a hard time thinking of too many pro-choice people who would be in favour of those examples, even though those examples would be "pro-abortion". It also contradicts the position of abortion providers such as Susan Wicklund, who write about how they've dealt with patients that didn't want an abortion (see Wicklund's book, "This Common Secret") --Véronique (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ...yeah, the terms that accurately encapsulate the ethical standards each group is using are objectively better than terms defined by generalizing their reactions to individual cases. choice/life should absolutely not be on this list.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Rucka Rucka Ali
I want people to share their thoughts of the works of Rucka Rucka Ali, one of his videos which is citation 11 in the article. Watch it, as well as all the other videos that appear in the creeper bar in YouTube, and say what you think of them. Beware, this Obama-bashing rewriting of Blurred Lines features right-wing crankitude and PRATTs, incredibly insulting stereotypes, and a ridiculous "Obama" voice that sounds more like a very poor imitation of Jimmy Stewart.Mmoore29 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Page is a mess
This page is trying very hard to be funny and is not succeeding. RationalWiki's mission statement aims for analysis and criticism, and certain pages definitely have comedic elements, but this is neither humorous nor informative. The huge tirade at the bottom of this especially seems like something straight out of Uncyclopedia. 76.31.113.69 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The 'cure' should be something to put in the 'Fun' section of this article. It has no place here. It's fighting extreme political correctness with extreme political incorrectness, both equally bad. IViking (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Is 'civilized speech'
'political correctness gone mad'?

'Term X is now the fashionably correct replacement for term Y', and similar courtesies.

What presently absent replacement terms can be developed?

etc. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Person with female-ism (woman)
 * Person with male-ism (man)
 * Person with tail and purr (cat)

Essential article
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump
 * It's certainly more coherent than our article which,..... well,.... isn't.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Divinely offensive God trumps
I was already having fun, and then I saw the strongest card. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And don't miss part two. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump seems a sensitive snowflake
For all the "PC resistance" the Trump crowd seems to consider themselves doing, isn't the Donald himself actually pretty thin-skinned to begin with? The following caught my eye:

Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Donald's need for a safe space.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And h3h3 asked the unavoidable follow-up question; "Why is Donald Trump getting so triggered?" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, he IS a sensitive snowflake. Us rational anti-PC people call out both sides. Iamapartofman (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Must you talk about conservatives in virtually every article?
How about actually recognizing its validity? Stop being so obnoxiously partisan, there are people who act incredibly autistic over trivial matters. Someone is facing jail time as a result of PCness, and yet all I see is ‘b-b-but conservatives’. Iamapartofman (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You're referring to "you" as if it were a person. You do realize, I hope, that RationalWiki is a collection of the combined contributions of its contributors. Calling out the site as a person and saying "stop being so obviously partisan" is not helpful at all. It is entirely possible that the "you" you refer to is one or two editors and may or may not reflect the viewpoints or opinions of every other editor here. Granted, this site is biased a bit towards the left which is probably the case for any site full of skeptics and rationalists. Your comments above over-generalize the contributors here and is not helpful or appreciated. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The entirety of your response is a red-herring. I don’t care if it’s only one editor who thinks that way. It’s RationalWiki’s article and therefore representative of what RationalWikians believe. Adress the point. Iamapartofman (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll address your point.
 * "Must you talk about conservatives in virtually every article?"
 * Not every article talks about conservatives.
 * "How about actually recognizing it’s validity?" The validity of conservatism?"
 * I think the Political spectrum article does a good job addresses that.
 * "Stop being so obnoxiously partisan, there are people who act incredibly autistic over trivial matters."
 * So we're partisan? Big deal. This is not Wikipedia. There is no "neutral point of view" here. I'm not going to attempt to discuss your comment about autistic people as I find it demeaning and not worthy of consideration.
 * "Someone is facing jail time as a result of PCness, and yet all I see is ‘b-b-but conservatives’."
 * I don't know what you're talking about. Where in the article is this issue mentioned?
 * —Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

1. Do you know what virtually means? If you look at the articles on SJW, this, virtue signaling, etc, the attention will always be diverted into conservatives and never about how the concept itself can be valid.

2. Partisanism on this level is obnoxious. And nigga, that wasn’t literally referring to autistic people. I said autistic as in stupid. Nothing wrong with that.

3. No, the validity of these concepts. This article is just full of how conservatives are hypocrites and not acknowledging the other side of the topic. [that sensitivity over mere words is taken way too far, and is a problem]

4. It was an example of the many problems that come with PCness. Iamapartofman (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * your anti pc rant would probably go down better if you werent such a godawful prick AMassiveGay (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your use of "autistic" in a demeaning context is completely inappropriate. There is something wrong with that. This isn't a matter of political correctness, this is a matter of showing general respect and decency we have outlined in our policy, especially toward a disadvantaged group of people. If you're going to argue how conservatism is valid and not demeaning trash, maybe it'll be a good idea to knock off the belittling language yourself???


 * So what happens if I do it again? Iamapartofman (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As any child with an ounce of brainpower could tell you, if you decide to push your luck and refuse to be civil, you'll likely find yourself punished. 18:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you indicate which definition of 'conservative' you are referring to? Is 'the other side of the argument' that hypocrites are conservative? And are you referring to 'political correctness' or 'political correctness gone mad'? (And, being pedantic, it should be 'its validity'.) Also consider and avoid snarl word/behaviour (and people may consider your arguments). Anna Livia (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Iamapartofman: I don't want to view bans as punishment, but a means to curb disruption. Which you're doing: disruption. 20:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the content of the punishment. Iamapartofman (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tempbans. Keep it up, longer tempbans or a vandal brake depending on what you do. 20:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I am not a right-winger nor was this post intended to validate conservatism. The crux is that political correctness can be a serious problem and as an idea is perfectly valid. It is rather dissapointing how the majority of the article is about conservatives and not about appraising anti-PCness. I would have preferred to see the other side of the debate represented. Iamapartofman (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all conservatism is right wing - one could be a Communist of a conservative persuasion. And to some extent 'political correctness' covers a variety of different topics (while some aspects vanish into 'if they wish to be called X instead of Y so what'/'common courtesy and similar' etc. Anna Livia (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

'Racist'... instead of Islamophobic?
This raises an interesting point: how is Islamophobia compared to - say - anti-Semitism? You could argue that the vast majority of anti-Semites are against Jewish people, as opposed to Judaism itself, but for Islam it would be probably different, as notable Islamophobes frequently appear to be opposed to Islam as a religion. (I've heard people refer to Islam as a 'death cult'). In this case, the issue of anti-Semites is 'it's the jews they control everything etc. etc.' but with Islamophobia and the rise of radical terrorism, people's issue seems to be 'it's their religion, making them blow themselves up'. And of course, this could be based on racism, but not to the levels of general anti-immigrant craziness. Synthetix (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sarcasm?
Is the last section (“cure”) supposed to be sarcastic?, because if it is it needs to be said. (173.80.160.51 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC))
 * It is sarcasm (as if the change in tone didn't make that blindingly obvious). 17:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just making sure, since some things in the article seemed like it might not be. (173.80.160.51 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC))