Political Correctness - : Noun. 1. The concept that one has to shape their statements (if not their opinions) according to a certain political dogma, i.e. to be politically correct.
2002 I mean, people who talk about political correctness as being a kind of thought police have no idea of what a thought police is. But political correctness does have the same mentality. It means that intellectual argument is doomed. Objective truth simply becomes a thing to jeer at, because obviously there's no such thing as objectivity – unless of course you're politically okay, in which case you can be objective. Any child can see through that, but many adults can't. – Christopher Hitchens, The Atlantic
I was introduced to political correctness sometime in my early teens. While I don't recall the specifics, it probably went something like this: “Hey, that fat man has a neat shirt.” “You can't call him fat!” So I look the individual over. Yup. Wider than tall. Fat. “Why not?” “Because you'll hurt him!” Hmm. I will somehow hurt a man with truthful words... If that were the case, then insurance companies would list somewhere in their tables for cause of death: “Truth”
It's never made sense to me growing up. These days, it does make sense, but in a perverse kind of way. As best as I can tell, one who is 'politically correct' is trying to create the impression that they are on 'moral high-ground', while at the same time claiming that those who are not 'politically correct' are morally corrupt. Over the years, I have found that those who are most adherent to the concept of being politically correct are often morally corrupt themselves. Why is this so? Arn't they trying to not hurting others, by not offending others, with their use of words?
Words... so what is in a word?
Word – plural words. Noun. 1. A distinct unit of language (sounds in speech or written letters) with a particular meaning, composed of one or more morphemes, and also of one or more phonemes that determine its sound pattern.
A written word is, at its heart, a series of letters that can (excepting most words from chemistry class, or that 'tsu' from 'tsunami') be pronounced. That is it. A word by itself cannot harm someone. Not fat. Not midget. Nor fag. Nor any of other countless words. A word, when written, is only a combination of letters. Harmless. Ink on a page. So what is someone doing then when they say I can't refer to someone as 'fat'?
It is the idea, the meaning associated with the word, that somehow offends a person, not the letters themselves. So by prohibiting use of the word, people are trying to evict the meaning from the language. Even so, people get by. 'Obese'. 'Horizontally gifted'. 'Big-boned'. 'Lardy'. 'Rotund'. When one combination of letters is unavailable, others are found for the same meaning. Nothing is gained by excising a word from the language, other than frustration and confusion as new words are found to suit the purpose of the lost word.
“But you offend someone when you call them fat!”
I'm quite sure I'd be likely to offend someone if I called them names, and I'm by no means trying to justify such things. But there is a difference between 'calling someone names' to hurt them, and using an accurate term to describe the person for the legitimate purpose of conveying information. For example: If someone mugs me, I will need to accurately describe the individual to the police. Items such as build (fat/thin), skin color (black/white/brown), race (mexican/polish/asian) height (towering/midget) and any noteworthy items (gimpy walk, squeaky voice, etc) will be needed to describe the individual to the police so they can quickly focus on the suspect instead of the population at large. Is my purpose to offend the person? Hardly, I am merely describing the individual as accurately as possible. I use words to do that. If my use of a particular, accurate word offends someone, is that my problem (I chose to convey information) or their problem (they chose to be offended)? I should find it disturbing if my correct and accurate use of the English language offends someone, but I believe that the problem of being offended is purely a problem of the offended individual. Not of the speaker. Granted, if the intent is to offend, then the problem lies with the speaker. And if the intent to offend is unclear, things become far more grey, but there the problem is still with the intent. Not with the words used to convey the intent. Words are, after all, harmless ink on a page.
Being offended. What is it to be offended? If someone says something that offends me, is it the words themselves that offend me? If I were ignorant of the language, I would hardly know if they were trying to offend me. So clearly it is not the words themselves. It is the meanings tied to the words, and as previously stated, if one word is not available, others will be found or made to convey the desired intent.
So, going back to the original issue, what is to be gained from being politically correct, if the censorship of a particular set of words is futile (new words will be found)? The purpose is to have moral high-ground. But the method is to censor the speech of others, for a futile goal. It is obvious that the goal is futile, so I can only conclude that the stated goal is false. A lie. If the stated goal is not true goal, then what remains? The problem, the purpose, & the method. The problem is 'words hurting others', and is no more true than the goal. The purpose: To be on moral high-ground. Ah, and easy way to look good while telling others that they are bad (There is a word for this.... “do as I say not as I do”). And the method: To censor the speech of others. Why? Well, that would be another long discussion on the merits of power, outside the scope of this document.
Even though it remains outside the scope of the document to discuss the merits of power, look to those who most accuse others of being politically incorrect. Those who try to censor the speech of others. Be it 'fat' or 'nigger' or 'enemy combatant', look at what these people do. I say this because I find very often those who stand on the pedestal of political correctness are aware of the fact that the stated and actual purpose of political correctness are at opposite ends of the spectrum. And being aware of this, they themselves endorse the actual purpose. When you spot these people, you might even try sorting out what they mean from what they say, because if they are aware of how the stated and actual purposes of political correctness are at odds with one another, it is no strong feat of imagination to expect them to say things where the stated and actual meaning are likewise at odds with one another.