Ultimately I suspect the question of 'PCness' boils down to the old conundrum of whether or to what extent a society should seek to censure hate speech. The 'PC' camp obviously falls on the pro side of this debate - unfortunately however the influence of New Left ideas has left many of them with a complete disregard for the Principle of Difference Blindness: were that principle applied consistently then people would recognize that a hip sic Afro-American Gender Studies lecturer complaining about a department being filled with ‘old, bearded white guys’ is equivalent to one putting up the old ‘No Blacks, Dogs or Irish’ sign. If one gets into an argument with a PC proponent it's an advisable tactic to try to get them to apply their principles consistently.
 

Last edited by DanielCC (6/18/2016 4:41 am)

I'm fine policing speech that leads to direct action. But I am by no means comfortable giving over to the state the power to police "hate speech", not if what you're aiming for is popular representation. Incitement might be a different matter, but not speech itself.

iwpoe wrote:

I'm fine policing speech that leads to direct action. But I am by no means comfortable giving over to the state the power to police "hate speech", not if what you're aiming for is popular representation. Incitement might be a different matter, but not speech itself.

I'm not sure where I stand on the state's involvement.

It's often thought that politically incorrect speech that apparently does not lead to direct action still sustains "structures of oppression," by altering people's attitudes and legitimizing poor treatment of minorities. In that way political correctness has a kind of consequentialist structure, where the interests of minorities are supposed to be maximized and are incommensurable with the interests of anyone else.

I would also distinguish between the attitude that the state takes toward "hate speech" and the attitude that society should take toward it. It might be admitted that the state shouldn't punish people who engage in otherwise harmless hate speech, but nevertheless they can be practically excluded from academic discussion, since the people doing the excluding aren't the state.

An analogy: It's sometimes noted that due process isn't realized in university sexual assault trials. Sometimes it is responded that universities aren't the United States government and constitutional protections of due process do not bind them. While that may be the legal fact of the matter, that does not mean that due process is not a reasonable constraint to place on any such proceedings, and it shouldn't be forgone just because it can be forgone. So also for the freedom of academic discussion.