In the above video Jordan says:-
Free speech is a prerequisite to a civilised Society because freedom of speech means you can have combat with words, that what it means, it doesn't mean that people can happily and gently exchange opinions. It means we can engage in combat with words on the Battle Ground of ideas. That's the reason it's acceptable and that's why it's acceptable that people's feelings get hurt during that combat is that the combat of ideas is far preferable to actual combat and is also the only alternative because people have genuine disagreements and if you don't let them talk them out and reach some sort out consensus, some sort of negotiated settlements then they can either swallow their opinions and become enraged, or they can engage in actual combat. So I think that anything that threatens freedom of speech threatens the stability of society, and I think the PC excesses threaten freedom of speech and I think they threaten it quite severely...
I was reminded of this. I thought I'd share. It's easy to get hung up on the semantics, but instead of saying 'polictical correctness' you use the words 'treating each other with respect' then that sheds a whole different light on the matter. And that's how I use the term.
I think - in support of Bee - that you can be completely open about your feelings and be even more disrespectful. Consider the goose-stepping Nazi strutting up and down in front of a gaggle of Jews. Is this open contempt not a display of disrespect?
The real answer, I believe, is more nuanced. In essence, it depends on the circumstances. Moreover, it depends on the audience. If there were a group of Nazi's nearby, they might consider it disrespectful to not goose-step. Ultimately, you can't please everybody and it is difficult to predict who will feel disrespected all the time. I'm always saying things that are not PC, and accidentally making comments that are not intended to disrespect those in my vicinity. To me, I think it is the intent behind what you say, not the words themselves.
Or you could always take the Antifa view: "Words are violence." And then that gives you the right to be physically violent back, because you have justified it to yourself.
Unfortunately, too many people use a bit of mental gymnastics to contort their view of reality and from that twisted viewpoint, they can justify almost ANY bad act - verbal or otherwise. In the case of some of the shooters (USA and otherwise), they have twisted perception of one group into a threat, so they say they are merely defending themselves from a "greater threat." The New Zealand shooter and the Texas shooter both engaged in "hate crime" mentality - shooting at a particular ethnic group. The Las Vegas shooter, so far as we have been able to tell, was just a plain nut case.
(Not defending! Just drawing a distinction.)
and if Wikipedia also similarly describes PC in this passage
Since the late 1980s, the term has been used to describe a preference for inclusive language and avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race.[
Perceived by who exactly? If you think something is not politically correct, but I don't, what do you do then? You see there is already a division and it is inherent in the nature of beliefs. To say otherwise is to oppress those who disagree with you.
then how can you say that it creates division where no division existed before?
Because what was previously not insulting becomes insulting. The search for micro-aggressions everywhere leads people to stimulate their reticular activating system to be on the lookout for division. It is rather like the Eskimo who notices the way more subtle differences in snow, with their 50 words for types of snow. Most people will not be aware of the differences.
I'm going to use a practical example just to establish some common ground, so we have something tangible to talk about.
Let's say Tom was born as man. At 20 years of age Tom tells everyone that he has really always felt like a woman and he wants to live his life as such. To that end, he would like, from now on, for people to refer to him as 'her' and that, as part of her new identity, her name is going to be Jenny.
Now, historically, transgender people have been marginalized and so Jenny would fall into the category above.
The PC way to address the situation is respect Jenny's wishes, refer to her as woman, etc.
The non-PC way to handle the situation is to refer to Jenny as "a guy in a frock" and refuse to use feminine pronouns, etc.
I think the term marginalised is one of those PC terms. But everybody is marginalised to some degree. It just depends on what you are talking about. For example, if I was at the gym standing next to some body builders, I would have an element of being marginalised. If I was at a rock concert, we are all marginalised, except the performer.
The PC way is as you wish. The non-PC way you gave is one example. But then how do you know how to refer to anybody nowadays because they want to turn gender into this ridiculous multitude of options! Its bonkers!
The PC concept of gender is expecting someone else to modify their views on what gender means. It is like a flat-earth conspiracist asking you to refer to the earth as being flat. But gender is not a biological thing, you argue. But it is, someone else argues, and has always been.