A definition of “political correctness” in 25 words

for BLiP

Once an in-joke of the Left, stopping us taking ourselves too seriously. Now the cry of the privileged when their right to privilege is challenged.

8 thoughts on “A definition of “political correctness” in 25 words

  1. Graeme what Latta says is neither truth nor a substitute for real political correctness.

  2. Never seen it.

    I’m not a fan of political correctness, but I’ve frequently wondered whether we chose the wrong opposite to exalt.

    Why would anyone want to be incorrect/wrong? But equally, why should correctness be political?

    Can’t we just all agree that being politically correct is bad, and try to be apolitically correct instead?


  3. The term comes from Mao Zedong. It was coined as a propaganda term and has been appropriated as a propaganda term by those ideologically opposed to its usage and meaning, who also expanded its remit far beyond its initial scope, to the point where now it’s practically meaningless inasmuch as it means whatever its utterer intends it to mean. A Humpty Dumpty term.


  4. Brilliant! I’d sort of forgotten that it used to be a an in-joke amongst the left, but you’re quite right. I had been working on something like:

    “A label which acts a gob stopper for the brain preventing the thoughtful consideration of a concept that requires a change in thinking and behaviour”

    My reason for asking was that I am regularly accused of being too politically correct to understand just just “dangerous” the last government was. I’ve found myself floundering in trying to explain why its not okay to use the word “man-power” instead of “staff”, or “girls” instead of “women” etc etc . . . I’ve noticed a real increase in the use of previously avoided exclusive language, almost as if now that National Inc are in the bigots have permission to return to their old ways. Some even delight in the use of what they call non-PC language and think they are being terrible witty.

    “Oh, BLiP,” they say, “lighten up. The dark days are over”. I wonder.

    Still, being known as someone who takes an active interest in politics and has some level of knowledge of how things work in that murky realm has its advantages. Over the last few days at work, at sports practice afterwards and in the club rooms later one common topic of conversation was the anti-smacking referendum. I realise now just how cunning the duplitious wording of the question really is. Most parents I encountered were really too busy with other matters to make the effort to work their way through the logic-maze. They feel guilt for some reason for having at some stage smacked their kids and don’t realise the law actually permits most of these actions. Typical to their nature, the Right have been successful in creating fear and the parents really believe that they too will be hauled befor the courts for smacking their kids’ hands away from the hot plate.

    I’ve been approached repeatedly and asked what the question meant. My response has been: “if you think its okay to give the kids a wee smack then vote yes”. Most seemed to think that was the best option. Unfortunately, I know that there must be many thousands out there who are going to vote “No” without understanding what they are voting for.

    Big thanks Anita! I’m going to co-opt (pinch) your 25-words. U da bomb!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *