Serious PC thread

[mrzz]

Ok, given that the PC bullshit thread was destroyed by trolls , let us try to organize the conversation and move the serious PC debate here.

I have a lot of differences with what I perceive as PC culture, even if I am quite aware that what we generally see is a caricature of what it actually is, or should be, or was or whatever.

I am quite sure that PC culture started from people who actually cared about others, and have a lot of good intentions in their hearts. I understand that the language one uses is something powerful, and care must be taken in choices of words. I agree that state policies should try to guarantee the well being of all regardless of political, sexual or religious orientation, ethnicity and etc. However, I strongly disagree about the actual ways PC culture tries to reach those goals, and also believe that this caricature of the PC culture that we see today is basically a consequence of the own PC original shortcomings. To be honest, I even debate the term "politically correct" in itself. I am sure the one who coined it does not know the meaning of the concept behind the word "politics".

But, before we (I mean, the ones here who do not like PCness in general) start (or continue) to carry on in our charge against it, let us give a chance to its supporters to make their stand, and say what PC culture is really about after all.

Let me just make a request: let us try, if possible, to avoid personal offenses in this thread. It would be quite interesting to see how far we can go, given the completely different views we have. There are a lot of people in this board who could contribute a lot here.

 

[Moxie]

Thanks for starting this thread, Mrzz, and for your fair summary. I fall in the category of supporters of "politically correct language," in it's original intent, so I'll start. It's basically a notion that came out of the '70s, and it was really all about how codified language drives thought. Feminists wanted us to rethink words like "spokesMAN", and allow it to be spokesperson. African Americans sought to take charge of how to identify themselves, rather than be told. As well as latinos, the disabled, etc. This, especially in its time, was a worthwhile effort, and a lot of really racist and sexist language, at least in the US, fell way out of favor.

Where we are now, however, is that the concept has become flabby, on both sides, I think. The fact that you want to call it a PC culture is indicative of this. I think you confuse that with just being generally liberal, and your lot see liberalism as a doctrine of political correctness that must be opposed. This leads to a false opposition of views, and a certain committed "anti-PC" notion, for no good reason. Being anti-PC doesn't mean you have the right to spout blatant and hateful things at all costs, just by virtue of some petulant resistance to "PC-ness." In the 21st C., much of the language that was pushed forward by the PC movement has taken hold. As well as the inclusiveness it was meant to engender. This is a good thing, and one that most of us generally have absorbed in our culture, whether we realize it or not.

Where I see us all now is generally more inclusive and generous towards the notion of "other." In language, I think most of us understand that you can say most anything amongst friends, (within your own chosen boundaries,) but most of us are more cautious about the words we chose at work and in broader company. I think most of us don't want to be offensive. That's pretty basic.

To me, the difference between us is that you "anti-PC" types think that someone is trying to steal your right to speak or think. No one is. As @Murat Baslamisli said, he can say "That's retarded," and he knows what he's saying. We all do. The point is to understand the power of the words you use, and chose consideredly how you use them. But it does fuzz out into "doucheness" as he also so eloquently termed it. (My new favorite word!) I don't think Ilie Nastase was expressing his "freedom of speech" by being offensive, in so many ways. He was just being a douchebag. If we stop covering for people that are using anti-PC as a way of being hateful, we can probably find common ground on this.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The word "offensive" offends me . It should only be used in the context of sports . NOT being offended is not a human right. You can't say you want to live in a free society with free speech as its cornerstone but you never ever want to be offended. Guys with man-buns offend me ! Food with cilantro in it offends me ! Justin Beiber offends me ! Is there anything I can do about it? None ! I move on and so should everyone else. The truth is, absolutely nothing happens to you when you get offended, not a thing! You don't get cancer, you don't die of a heart attack, absolutely nothing happens , so just move ON !

As I said in the other thread, I am only responsible for what I say, not how someone understands it. I am generally a nice guy (!) and my intentions are not mean. Intent is the key. Even in criminal law, intent is the difference between the degrees of a crime.

Universities, institutions that are supposed to be cradles of free thought are banning speakers because they may offend someone's feelings. If you are so weak in your belief system that you cannot even bare to listen to an opposing view, you will not survive in the real world. No safe spaces in the business world. None. No participation medals...

And of course there will be folks that will use the anti PC idea as a licence to just spew hate, racism and bigotry. That is not anti PC. That is pro douche. Repeat: If you are a racist bigot and you are saying you are just anti PC, you are full of feces. That separation is key.

A quote from Moxie "To me, the difference between us is that you "anti-PC" types think that someone is trying to steal your right to speak or think. No one is. "
Maybe not where you are but here , a bill (Bill 16C) is introduced and it is FORCING me to use a certain language when addressing a certain group of people. Otherwise it is a hate crime. I do not care how you identify as, I am not going to change the way I address people. When I see someone that looks like a guy. he is a "he" for me. When I see someone that looks like a woman, that is a "she" for me. I am under no obligation to figure out what you identify as. This bill FORCES me to use one of the over 30 (THIRTY!!!!) new and recently invented nouns like "zie" and "hir" and such...A University of Toronto professor said he will refuse to use these idiotic nouns and his career damn near got ruined. Never in the history of free speech a bill like this has passed ! Notice the distinction: This bill is NOT banning the use of certain words, which could be understood. This bill is making it a hate crime to NOT use certain words. UN EFFIN ACCEPTABLE ! So do you want to reconsider your quote up there @Moxie ?

I am a live and let live type of guy...I am a die-hard atheist, yet I am cool with what you believe, until such time you attack my way. I am all for gay rights, gay marriage, until such time you force a church/mosque to perform their marriage or lose their whatever status, and I am saying this as a die hard atheist !!! I am pro free thought and speech, until you yell "fire" in a theater for no reason . I have a lot of what would be considered "progressive" views socially, but the regressive left is changing that fast !

 

[Moxie]

Actually, I don't believe the word "offensive" offends you, per se. You said you're a nice guy and you don't want to be mean. That says you use a self-governor, and don't actually choose to be offensive.

I completely agree with this from you: "And of course there will be folks that will use the anti PC idea as a licence to just spew hate, racism and bigotry. That is not anti PC. That is pro douche. Repeat: If you are a racist bigot and you are saying you are just anti PC, you are full of feces. That separation is key."

If your government is considering laws to govern speech, I agree with your outrage. My plea for the concept of political correctness is that it asks people to think about the words they use and what they mean, and then make choices. It also tries to reflect the words that people of various minority groups chose to use to identify themselves, as opposed to being identified by others. This is respectful. Words can be hurtful and have consequences. I didn't invent that notion. But all that can be asked of people as that they think about the words they use, then choose them judiciously, not reflexively. Personally, I am against any real hate speech (as opposed to the freedom I give comics, as an example, and all satirists,) but remember that in the US, the ACLU, that bastion of liberal values, is the first in line to support the KKK in their right to march and speak.

 

[mrzz]

It's basically a notion that came out of the '70s, and it was really all about how codified language drives thought. Feminists wanted us to rethink words like "spokesMAN", and allow it to be spokesperson. African Americans sought to take charge of how to identify themselves, rather than be told. As well as latinos, the disabled, etc. This, especially in its time, was a worthwhile effort, and a lot of really racist and sexist language, at least in the US, fell way out of favor.

I marked the phrase on this paragraph that for me it is the key to understand much of the question -- and probably shows the issue were we agree the most. We might have some minor differences on the role of language (we will get to that in some point), and how "nice" is from a group to feel entitled to change it, but, in the end, given context, I am quite OK with how things began -- basically because, as I said in the OP, I believe in the good faith of the original effort.

But the thing is that now most of these feels completely anachronic. I spent a good part of my life arguing with my communist and/or socialists friends that their world view was anachronic, and I realized that at least some of them wanted to be so. I guess the same might apply here.

The fact that you want to call it a PC culture is indicative of this. I think you confuse that with just being generally liberal, and your lot see liberalism as a doctrine of political correctness that must be opposed.

It is not that "I want to call it". I was merely giving a name to a trend, or to a set of socio/political ideas. I called it "PC culture", but I will change it as soon as we find a better term.
You are slightly, even if inadvertently, underestimating my comprehensive skills when you say that I confuse it with "being liberal". Gauging for what "liberal" stands for in the US, there is indeed some overlap. I am not sure what my "lot" thinks (as "we" may disagree in a lot of things), but what I understood from your post is that we simply oppose liberalism for itself -- which, almost by definition, one way or another opposes conservative values. So you´re saying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that we are simply a bunch of conservatives. Well, I am a long haired heavy metal fan. I agree with some conservative values, but I spent my life defying a lot of them, so I don´t exactly fit the description.

Being anti-PC doesn't mean you have the right to spout blatant and hateful things at all costs, just by virtue of some petulant resistance to "PC-ness."

Here we agree 100%, and @Murat Baslamisli ´s post masterfully exhausted this issue.

In the 21st C., much of the language that was pushed forward by the PC movement has taken hold. As well as the inclusiveness it was meant to engender. This is a good thing, and one that most of us generally have absorbed in our culture, whether we realize it or not.

..hmmm, language is a quite dynamic thing, you know that better than me, and with the spread of information that took place on the second half of the XXth century, I guess that you are giving way too much credit to the PC movement. But, ok, this is minor.

To me, the difference between us is that you "anti-PC" types think that someone is trying to steal your right to speak or think. No one is

Here is the core of our disagreement. Yes, someone is trying to do precisely that. Too much ideological wars were fought in the twentieth century, and the lessons were surely learnt. There is no logical reason not to believe that there is a political/ideological battle (where principles and ideas are used as excuses) precisely on this front (language and basic social principles). Some "soldiers" might not even know they are fighting, but I have no doubt the struggle is there.

I don't think Ilie Nastase was expressing his "freedom of speech"

Neither do I. I admit that at first I was sure he was a victim of PC, but once I read about it in detail, I saw he was being an asshole. In fact, what he did on court is not that absurd to me -- people curse and offend each other in competitive environments. And, there is an official sporting body to make him answer for his actions, by simply applying its code. So no problem here. What got him (IMO) were the Serena´s baby comments. Even if literally what he said (if I know it all) is nothing absurd (there is a lot of very beautiful "chocolate and milk" people in my country for me to find this term offensive), the point is why the hell is the guy discussing the skin color of the baby, the mother and the father? He raised the "I am a douch" flag there and everything else he would do was destined to sound bad.

But all that can be asked of people as that they think about the words they use, then choose them judiciously, not reflexively.

On the face of it, I can live with that. The point is that your phrase does not correspond to reality. People are not "asked" to chose their words. People are told what they mean and what words they should "choose". Murat´s example above is extreme, but very telling. Once someone uses the "wrong" word, she is not politely asked to freely reconsider her semantics, she is labelled as racist or something similar/worst. Even if you explain your disagreement with a term, you might get your label. This goes way beyond given groups choosing the terms used to describe themselves. Actually, I am sure in most cases the "accepted" terms would not win a fair election...

 

[Moxie]

It seems we have a lot of places where we agree. I am considering quoting you and going point to point again, but I think that would be very confusing. Let me try to make a coherent response that's legible to all. But I agree that this is a "semantic" discussion, and therefore, there are fine points on semantics that I may wish I'd made differently. I think we're not so far off on our understanding of this.

 

[Moxie]

I can see now where I chose to use the English inclusive "you," I should have said "one," as I have implied rather a lot of things about your (Mrzz's) thinking that I meant to apply more generally. My bad, in a semantic conversation. I will, however, still say that I don't think "PC culture" is necessarily a thing, and shouldn't be confused with more specific liberal thinking or liberalism. This is where I think things get flabby and non-specific. And people get resentful. Yes, there is some fatuous thinking in culture in general that leads people to say that all condemnation is bad, and every kid gets a trophy and anything negative is mean and out of order. That may be the PC culture that you speak of, but it is divorced from political leaning, if you ask me. It comes out of that, but it's just a soft-headed, baseless by-product.

However, when I said that people are not trying to steal your right to speak, you said this:

"Here is the core of our disagreement. Yes, someone is trying to do precisely that. Too much ideological wars were fought in the twentieth century, and the lessons were surely learnt. There is no logical reason not to believe that there is a political/ideological battle (where principles and ideas are used as excuses) precisely on this front (language and basic social principles). Some "soldiers" might not even know they are fighting, but I have no doubt the struggle is there."

I will have to agree that there is a battle on the front of what "truth" is, at least in the US. Language is a tool, used on both sides. When it comes to social principles, yes, I suppose there is a big disagreement there, too, for some. But believing in basic freedoms for all people, of all stripes, is not political correctness. It's a fundamental ethical position. If you disagree with my basic ethics, then we do fundamentally disagree, but this has nothing to do with PC-ness. It's a classic clash of beliefs about societal norms and what they should be. Which I'm happy to debate, or we may never see eye-to-eye.

I hope we have successfully amputated political correctness from an otherwise political and ethical discuss about social mores. What do you think?

 

[mrzz]

^Well, yes and no. (but we are getting closer).

I agree with you that believing in basic freedom for all people is a fundamental ethical position. But there are two things:

1) On my personal list, this position is in first position. But for somebody else´s, it could be still a fundamental ethical position, but behind something else (for example, some religious value).

2) How do you guarantee this freedom? How far should you go to guarantee it in other people´s sake? What you do when interests of different groups seem to collide?

I believe that "PC" moderately fails to deal with 1) (but this is a long and hard objective, anyway).

About 2), I give credit to the original "PC" movement for trying to tackle these questions (even if I do not agree with the answers). You have to try, and it is too easy to criticize and too hard to do something. But with time, the "PC" positions evolved (in a bad direction IMO), and the answers to those questions became more and more absurd to me.

P.S. And we still haven´t touched the fact that, as with any other ideology, a large group of people appropriated it for their own self interest.

 

[Moxie]

As to your #1, "fundamental ethics." I don't see that there should be any conflict when it comes to sexism and racism, per se, though I understand that "affirmative action" initiatives cause conflicts as to what is right and called for. In terms of where people's religious beliefs conflict with what the State chooses to affirm, here in the US we have a mandate to separate Church and State. A big problem here is the rise of a religious Right as a political entity that doesn't actually believe that means separating Christianity from the State. On this, I think we must hold firm. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to have one, for example. I know that's a bit facile, but where the law of the land opens its arms to freedom for all people, it is up to the individual to make their own choices.

As to your #2: I think it's the same as #1. You guarantee freedoms by the law. If the conflicts are the religious ethics of an individual, they are their own. If they are of a business in conflict with the owners' ethics, that's a bit thornier. (Such as a bakery not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding, as happened.) Perhaps we should make that provision, and if you're willing to lose business on personal ethical grounds, then you should be allowed to. At a certain point, if you're looking for a caterer, or for that matter a lawyer, who doesn't agree with you fundamentally, then perhaps you should choose another. This is a free market, after all.

I understand why you think the PC movement has evolved into something absurd, at least in some circumstances. We all do, to some extent. (I tried to make examples on your jokier thread.) As to your PS, though, I'm not quite clear what you mean.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I have a problem with even the "original intent" of the PC movement though, to some degree...Because I see absolutely no tangible improvement in anything that the PC movement provided. Only superficial stuff . You cannot fix a problem by only changing the name of the problem ! The PC movement is almost like a veil over the eyes of the society . It is dishonest and it masks real problems with soft language. Way too many examples but I am tired and going to bed

 

[mrzz]

Well, @Moxie, I now one of the reasons we have a bit of a hard time reaching common ground -- we go from specific to general in opposing moments. Sorry but I'll need to quote you directly not to lose track of the ideas.

As to your #1, "fundamental ethics." I don't see that there should be any conflict when it comes to sexism and racism, per se, though I understand that "affirmative action" initiatives cause conflicts as to what is right and called for

I was really yet in the completely abstract and general case, just noting that people's ethic principles may not (and will not) agree. Surely I agree that this should not, in principle, lead to sexism and racism (at least it does not for me), but I see you already "went down to business", touching directly issues which are very present (I suppose) in your reality there.

On this, I think we must hold firm

100% agreement here. While I believe that people must have 100% freedom in their religious choices, I believe that religious groups are 0% entitled to tell others -- who do not share their faith -- what to do. However, referring to your earlier remarks, please note that not only religion is a source of personal values or beliefs.

For example, we started agreeing that ensuring freedom is the most important ethical value. One of the great debates of the 19th century was exactly what is more important, personal freedom or social justice? We will still find today people who honestly believe that social justice is the #1 ethical value. We must be prepared to deal with those differences -- and that's why I raised issue #1.

As to your #2: I think it's the same as #1. You guarantee freedoms by the law.

Now you are talking in general while I was worried about specifics. Sure that you guarantee by law, but guaranteeing freedom is a principle. When it comes down to law, it comes down to specifics, and you know the devil is in the details. If you have a political program, you need to deal with those specifics, and it is exactly on this that I believe that PCness has failed soundly (even if I am the first to admit that this is a very difficult task).

on your jokier thread

It is @Federberg 's. Don't take that far the idea that all men are the same...

 

[mrzz]

I have a problem with even the "original intent" of the PC movement though, to some degree...Because I see absolutely no tangible improvement in anything that the PC movement provided. Only superficial stuff . You cannot fix a problem by only changing the name of the problem ! The PC movement is almost like a veil over the eyes of the society . It is dishonest and it masks real problems with soft language. Way too many examples but I am tired and going to bed

Spot on, I was saving this discussion for later but you're image of the veil is a perfect one.

The "P.S." on my above post, which Moxie questioned, aimed mainly on this. A lot of people appropriated the PC language because it is on their self interest to mask a lot of problems.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Spot on, I was saving this discussion for later but you're image of the veil is a perfect one.

The "P.S." on my above post, which Moxie questioned, aimed mainly on this. A lot of people appropriated the PC language because it is on their self interest to mask a lot of problems.

One example: Now that we had a black president and there is affirmative action and nobody calls anybody the N word anymore, how is the race relations working out in the US of A these days? As someone watching it closely from not too far away, it is the worst it has ever been in MY lifetime. Could it be maybe the semantics and all was never the real issue ? Maybe, just maybe, there are much deeper issues? Just asking...

 

[Horsa]

I feel like saying something but don't want to interrupt your conversation if I'm not wanted + although 99% of my comments are serious the topic reminds me of a famous 2 Ronnies sketch so has me laughing thinking about Ronnie, how he looked in it & what he said.

 

[Moxie]

I feel like saying something but don't want to interrupt your conversation if I'm not wanted + although 99% of my comments are serious the topic reminds me of a famous 2 Ronnies sketch so has me laughing thinking about Ronnie, how he looked in it & what he said.

Go for it, EquineAnn. It's an open discussion. I know the conversation is a bit dense, but just jump in.

 

[Moxie]

Spot on, I was saving this discussion for later but you're image of the veil is a perfect one.

The "P.S." on my above post, which Moxie questioned, aimed mainly on this. A lot of people appropriated the PC language because it is on their self interest to mask a lot of problems.

Here we fundamentally disagree that it's meant to mask problems or put a veil on them...exactly the opposite. I was ever meant to make people conscious of the language they use and that it informs thinking. A lot of seemingly superficial things are exactly what fixes the problems: sports and entertainment stars who become heroes for people who ever only saw blacks/gays/jews, etc. as "other." An advertising industry that embraced multiculturalism because it sells products, out of a notion of political correctness. You can't get more "superficial" than that, but it happens, and it changes the way people see the world and what they accept in it. Political movements and activism drive change, and they use various tools. The theory of political correctness is one, and it changed a lot of things about the way we see the world. You can't just legislate equality. You have to change hearts and minds first. Images and personal experience, direct or indirect, open the heart. Language is a powerful thing in the opening of minds.

I don't mean to imply that problems are fixed...far from it. I defend political correctness - when it is used mindfully and doesn't go overboard and piss people off, as it has done in some ways - as a tool of social activism.

 

[Horsa]

Go for it, EquineAnn. It's an open discussion. I know the conversation is a bit dense, but just jump in.

I was just going to say that political correctness is good to a point when it's balanced as it makes people treat others equally & stops abuse however much of the time it is taken too far as in if it stops some people from discriminating against others because of their colour, religion, sexuality, gender, age & size it's good but when it's getting in the way of everyday life it's bad. There needs to be a happy medium. At 1 time gay meant happy. It doesn't now. We used to copy off blackboards at school. You're not allowed to call them that now in case it offends black people. Why would it offend black people? It's a board to write on with chalk & it's black so it's a blackboard. They don't think calling whiteboards whiteboards would offend white people. A lot of old books have had to be rewritten to be more politically correct, e.g. some Enid Blyton. Can't people think that it was socially acceptable to use certain language in history but it isn't now? A lot of people nowadays get offended over the least thing. You can't call gasmen gasmen now etc. It reminds me of the old 2 Ronnie's sketch where Ronnie Barker has 1 side of his body dressed as a woman with the face made up like a women & the other side of his body dressed as a man discussing man-hole covers which should be person-hole covers & spokesmen who should be spokespeople, etc.

 

[Moxie]

Well, @Moxie,
100% agreement here. While I believe that people must have 100% freedom in their religious choices, I believe that religious groups are 0% entitled to tell others -- who do not share their faith -- what to do. However, referring to your earlier remarks, please note that not only religion is a source of personal values or beliefs....

For example, we started agreeing that ensuring freedom is the most important ethical value. One of the great debates of the 19th century was exactly what is more important, personal freedom or social justice? We will still find today people who honestly believe that social justice is the #1 ethical value. We must be prepared to deal with those differences -- and that's why I raised issue #1.

People have personal (secular) beliefs and values, which also don't supersede the law of the land. However, I rather think that people with strongly-held religious beliefs have a harder time conceding ground, as their god commands them to one thing or another. A secular principle is more personal, even if deeply-felt. I believe that one can compromise more easily by opting out, and yet live-and-let-live.

In any case, people have a right to fight via activism for what they see as right for their country. This is why the US is deeply divided, and involved in entrenched culture wars. Personally, I don't see that you can't have a great deal of personal freedom AND social justice. However, living in a democracy, and defining a "free" society is complicated. You say that "guaranteeing freedom is a principle." Perhaps, but guaranteeing rights can be legislated for. I don't think that PCness has failed...this question goes beyond a political tactic or strategy. Negotiating these things, particularly in a large population, is just fucking difficult.

And, btw, I have no problem with the jokey PC thread (as you said, it was Federberg that started it.) And I didn't think it had to do with anyone being a man. I actually DO have a sense of humor.

 

[Horsa]

I was just going to say that political correctness is good to a point when it's balanced as it makes people treat others equally & stops abuse however much of the time it is taken too far as in if it stops some people from discriminating against others because of their colour, religion, sexuality, gender, age & size it's good but when it's getting in the way of everyday life it's bad. There needs to be a happy medium. At 1 time gay meant happy. It doesn't now. We used to copy off blackboards at school. You're not allowed to call them that now in case it offends black people. Why would it offend black people? It's a board to write on with chalk & it's black so it's a blackboard. They don't think calling whiteboards whiteboards would offend white people. A lot of old books have had to be rewritten to be more politically correct, e.g. some Enid Blyton. Can't people think that it was socially acceptable to use certain language in history but it isn't now? A lot of people nowadays get offended over the least thing. You can't call gasmen gasmen now etc. It reminds me of the old 2 Ronnie's sketch where Ronnie Barker has 1 side of his body dressed as a woman with the face made up like a women & the other side of his body dressed as a man discussing man-hole covers which should be person-hole covers & spokesmen who should be spokespeople, etc.

I'm saying we have to accept history, we can't re-write it though some things that happened in history weren't right but once we know our history then it's our choice whether we forget about it, think about it & allow mistakes made in the past deter us from making the self-same mistakes or remember it.

 

[Moxie]

I was just going to say that political correctness is good to a point when it's balanced as it makes people treat others equally & stops abuse however much of the time it is taken too far as in if it stops some people from discriminating against others because of their colour, religion, sexuality, gender, age & size it's good but when it's getting in the way of everyday life it's bad. There needs to be a happy medium. At 1 time gay meant happy. It doesn't now. We used to copy off blackboards at school. You're not allowed to call them that now in case it offends black people. Why would it offend black people? It's a board to write on with chalk & it's black so it's a blackboard. They don't think calling whiteboards whiteboards would offend white people. A lot of old books have had to be rewritten to be more politically correct, e.g. some Enid Blyton. Can't people think that it was socially acceptable to use certain language in history but it isn't now? A lot of people nowadays get offended over the least thing. You can't call gasmen gasmen now etc. It reminds me of the old 2 Ronnie's sketch where Ronnie Barker has 1 side of his body dressed as a woman with the face made up like a women & the other side of his body dressed as a man discussing man-hole covers which should be person-hole covers & spokesmen who should be spokespeople, etc.

This is very concisely put about the worst of political correctness, and I agree. Crikey, I didn't realize that someone doesn't want us to say "blackboard." That's doesn't just miss the point, it sails past Antarctica of it. I also think "gay" does still mean "happy" in English, but I take your point. You also very succinctly lay out the best reasons for political correctness, and I appreciate that. I think you got reasons for and against in a nutshell.