Whatever benefits PC might bring to society, all I tend to see any more is the malignant outgrowth of the idea, with do-gooder dimwits using it as a weapon to wield. Where conversation is now a mine field, waiting for some eavesdropper to derive some offense and send us off to the equivalent of a re-education camp.

Hell is other people.

The video pretty drastically oversold the benefits of Political Correctness, in my opinion. I do, however, completely agree that generic "politeness" is a far superior standard to hold yourself to or goal to aspire to.

PC vs politeness seems very highly analogous to perceiving things as either intrinsically "offensive" or being personally "offended". Humor is frequently a fantastic way of exploring those kinds differences, and SMBC comics did an excellent strip on offensive vs offended:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-02-23

The conclusion there is that "I'm offended" starts arguments (ie., it can create rational and beneficial dialog) while "offensive" ends them (ie., it stifles progress). I feel that it is equally accurate to say that politeness can help resolve problems while PCness really doesn't; it is possible to politely disagree, but in the realm of PC disagreement in and of itself is often deemed offensive and seen as something to be discouraged.

I think part of being an adult is learning that people will often disagree, and that is actually a good thing.

I look at it in a simple way: words having meanings; people have motivations. A conversation has a context, and in your example the passerby isn't aware of that context. If she chooses to eavesdrop and feels offended, well, while I do feel sorry for her...it's really not any of her business what you and your brother are conversing about. You might as well turn to her, give her a once-over and criticize her choice of pantsuit. She doesn't know you; she didn't ask for your opinion; and your retort probably made her upset.

Should people try to be aware of their surroundings and try not to say inappropriate things? Of course, but that's just common courtesy...like not commenting on a funky smell at a funeral visitation. Political correctness is fine if we all agree, but we usually don't. And therefore we get people who virtue signal over others because they refuse to kowtow to the newest linguistic fashion.

Now, I'm a fairly polite guy. I hold open doors, give up my seat, offer to carry heavy packages, smile, wave and nod greetings to many strangers, etc. Yet I still occasionally get someone who disagrees with my legitimate use of a term (as I understand its meaning). Generally, I still apologize...but I don't then re-evaluate my language ability. I'm not willing to let the connotations of words take on new, questionable-yet-popular meanings.

I've had a Native American friend laugh at me for asking what he preferred I say: redskin, indian, aboriginal, first people, etc. I've also asked a "retarded" person if they preferred if I said "intellectually challenged." He preferred retarded because...wait for it...he had a lot of trouble saying the other one. Now that's irony.

I think my heart's in the right place. I was taught to be polite, and I try to be at all times. But it gets under my skin to have a total stranger "chastise" me when they know nothing about me. Frankly, I find it more offensive to interrupt and belittle a stranger than it is to overhear some stranger's questionable utterance.

@SDGundamX

The idea that anyone would chastise(rebuke or reprimand severely) someone they don't know, who were engaged in a normal private conversation (your example) seems insane to me. I find people like that completely offensive.

I've told many an acquaintance (someone i have SOME relationship with) why i might find a term they used ugly/offensive, but NEVER would i "chastise" them. It's unnecessary and usually accomplishes nothing or the exact opposite of what i can only assume ones trying to achieve. I find people who "chastise" as a way to go about it are generally high horse types who think they are better than others in one way or another.

@Diogenes

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:

I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.

Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.

Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?

his best testimony is where he shows that trump obstructed justice which is an impeachable offense if the Republicans had any nards or love of country

well trump has clearly obstructed justice; any sane person or someone that doesn't put party first would consider this an impeachable offense

One of the worst offenses I can think of is a bit in GTA: San Andreas where you have to pass a fairly difficult one-off rhythm game to keep playing. I had to be called in to do that part as a favor for a couple people I know. And if I failed, we'd have to slowly drive back to the beach to get another shot at it. It's like the developers at that point all agreed, if you haven't mastered Parappa the Rapper you can fuck straight off!

Rather than bowing to intimidation and apologizing, Maher should have run this clip. Carlin's use of the n-word here is potentially more offensive because he used it towards an actual black person rather than Maher's self-deprecating (and frankly humorous) use of it. Unfortunately, I suspect that HBO actually threatened to pull the show if he didn't apologize, so I can see why he did.

Your video, George Carlin: racial slurs need context to be offensive, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The content of the video wasn't bad, but the tagline / title they chose gives a very faulty perception, I think.

I guess "how accurately can the skill of players on a team relative to players on competing teams predict their aggregate regular season success in various sports" doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily.

I love hockey largely because a great team can be good at everything OR specialize in being offensively skilled / big and mean / fast and opportunistic / defensive system minded / whatever. Take a team loaded with extremely skilled superstars and put them up against a team of low-skill bruisers that play tough but legal and work well as a unit, and the pure skill team can easily lose. Makes for fascinating interplay between philosophies / rosters / coaching schemes.

Everything about this guy and this insanely overpriced speaker is offensive imo.

It seems pretty clear that the car crosses the white "stop here" lines after the arrows. He's obviously not a danger to the pedestrian though who seems like the type of person who enjoys taking offense at every opportunity.

Only prudish Americans think the word "cunt" is so outrageously offensive. Everywhere else, its just the female anatomical equivalent of the word "dick".

So get off your fucking high horse... you cunt

ok,that is not fair,i adore that piece from the oatmeal but it really does not apply to this current discussion.

at least in my case,and my commentary.(i do not want to speak for anybody else).

i simply was using the very same metric prager was using to make HIS point,and turned it upon itself,because his logic is obviously biased,and flawed.i was using HIS parameters to come to a different conclusion.

i am not coming from ideological standpoint.i was simply pointing out the flaw in his logic.my own,personal biases and prejudices,have nothing to do with my conclusions.

so what exactly is unbelievable?

that people pointed out that his argument is weak,facile and totally without merit? do you think this is due to some partisan bias? some emotional adherence to an economic or political system?

or maybe his conflation of a socio-economic political system and murderous,despotic tyrants was an incredibly weak tactic to make the argument that communism was "evil".

now you are free to believe whatever you wish,and maybe you think that communism is actually "evil",but if that is the case,then i would suggest that you do not utilize the tactic prager uses in this video,because HIS argument is incredibly weak and flawed,and easily de-bunked.

personal biases and predjudices have nothing to do with this mans shitty argument.

and no offense mate,but countering that people disagreeing with this video is somehow due their own partisan,political philosophy,is just as weak as pragers shitty argument.

prager made a shitty argument,based on extremely flawed logic,in order to push his own biased agenda.we exposed that flaw,plain and simple.

political affiliation had nothing to do with it.