Talk:Political correctness

---

Please Post All Comments at the End of this Page!

Please Note: This article is not about language evolution in general, nor mere euphemism.

Former Featured Article Nominee

(FormerFA)
A version of this article was once nominated (June 2004) to be a featured article.
See:

• Original nomination page: June 28 2004 version of this article.
• Why is was removed: Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Political_correctness
• Archived discussion: Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results

Charlton stuff

I've looked into this a bit more (I restored it at one time) and agree it shouldn't be in the article. Charlton was editor at the time and was fired shortly afterwards. See our article Medical Hypotheses. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Right and left wing

I removed these section headings for a couple of reasons. First, there are big problems with classification (eg Kristeva as rightwing, Paglia as leftwing), but also because they are asymmetric. The critics (mostly, but not exclusively on the right( take it for granted that a movement for PC exists and is a big problem. Respondents (mostly, but not exclusively on the left) generally say that the whole thing is a spurious beat-up. There's (almost) no-one out therefore defending PC, except in the argumentative form of "If supporting (good thing X) makes me a (pejorative Y), then call me a (pejorative Y)".JQ (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in describing the issues from "left" and "right" perspectives. If labeling individuals according to an ideology is problematic, then delete them. The left/right sections should remain in the article. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No strong opinion on the topic at hand, but to repeat one structural note, PC is is essentially a pejorative, promulgated term which asserts that, in the discussed cases, the discussed otherwise-acceptable behaviors are bad because they taken to an excessive degree. If we want to improve the article further, I think that we need to recognize this, and many of it's biggest mis-steps have come from not recognizing this. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Lionel. I therefore propose restoring the earlier classification. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 07:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to see how people propose doing this before I'd agree, and I certainly support what North8000 says. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"In New Left rhetoric" is cherry-picking

The entire "In New Left rhetoric" block is revisionism of the worst offense. It completely dismisses Marxist and Maoist usage as identified in "Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture". (See link below) Upon being embraced by Communist sympathizers in the New Left, it's chronicled usage indicate absolutely no tone of jest as suggested by the current version of this article. In fact, my source even clearly indicates when the derisive phrase "PC" comes into play; in 1992, after being subjected to countless examples of forced political correctness from ~20 years of Leftist agitprop.

This section of article is intellectually dishonest and is cherry-picking for revisionist purposes. Please consider incorporating this source to set this article straight.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zzw9WabmmVwC&pg=PT61&lpg=PT61&dq=political+correctness+1960s&source=bl&ots=tZq6xyckEG&sig=j_3d4UlpQpzBoOhaYmtVb7bLeHg&hl=en&ei=wUTNTtbJHKWhsQKK9ZX_Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=political%20correctness%201960s&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12dCode (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth clarifying that the term was used seriously by Maoists, and initially some in the US New Left (that's what the first two sentences of the section are about, but it may not be sufficiently clear). But the rest of the section, about the ironic use of the term, is well supported by sources, including the source you give, which says: "The formula came to be used in an ironic or self-deprecating sense by insiders even in the early years of its currency."VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The ironic intentions of the originators are supported in the sources, as you've pointed out, VoluntarySlave, but so are the unintended consequences. In 1986, the New York Times stated that "There is too much emphasis on being PC" while The Independent in 1989 said "We'd thought we'd be accused of not being PC." Even out of context, there is an anxiety being alluded to by very large media outlets at the time in regards to what they can and may not publish. The source of this anxiety is not covered in this article, yet, light-hearted intentions are.

Not to go full Godwinesque, but the KKK started with the name the Merry Band of Six and played pranks. We still are compelled to mention the consequences of those intentions, regardless of acceptable standards of purity. This disconnect supports my previous claim of cherry-picking and revisionism. Also, I'll get a real siggie soon. :D 12dCode (talk)

I think that those explorations and backgrounds are good, but IMHO this article isn't primarily about every usage of that two word sequence, it's primarily about the behavior posited by / through the lens of the current meaning of the term and, supportive to that, coverage of the current meaning of the term. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

SNL

I think this article should have some kind of inclusion re The ConeHeads from Saturday Night Live. Current pc includes many derivatives from Beldar(Dan Ackroyd)'s over technical language (as stated in WIKI). Considereding that the original sketch was from 1977, I think it's reasonable to think that that type of language has certainly crept into the current pc language.Dcrasno (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)