I liked it much better when GaGa was threatening to throw Laffy off the Space Needle to see how many times he'd bounce. LMAO!
So, there appears to be some lack of clarity in some quarters as to what PC is, and whether its a child of the left, or a bipartisan independent phenomena. Of course, the answer is so obvious that one suspects once again that feigned confusion is just more bad faith or stupidity from certain persons.
So, to answer who PC belongs to, we must first define PC.
PC does involve a hyper sensitivity to perceived insult, true, but dislike of insults is not what PC is.
People have always disliked intentional insults like nigger, or rag head, or hillbilly, or fudgepacker, or thumper. Dislike of intended insult and having polite terms for people has always been with us.
PC is different. PC is a conscious effort to shape language and rule certain terms and therefore ideas which previously had been considered non insulting, or actually respectful, as grievous insults. Attendant to that is to make these insults not only cause for personal offense, but for political persecution and legal punishment. So, when one rules Colored (as in NAACP) a grievous insult, then in turn Negro (as in United Negro College Fund), then Black (as Black Panthers), all formerly terms of respect voiced by AA leaders, in order to enforce a new term, this is different than merely disallowing Nigger or Spook etc. Same with many other terms. The latest effort in this line is to attempt to change the recently respectful transsexual to trans-woman, and even to enforce the sexually normal to name themselves cis-women and cis-men in order to equalize their status with the trans.
And along with all of these are extreme efforts to use various forms of legal and social punishment to enforce conformity in the severest fashion, such that mere ignorance and lack of keeping up with the latest linquistic fashions can be cause for career destruction, prosecution, personal online vendetta etc.
Some have said that this is an equal opportunity phenomena, because conservatives don't like being called sexual insults like Tea Bagger, or Christians don't like being called Thumpers, etc etc.
But these intentional insults are clearly different. And use of these epithets is not even considered out of bounds among the left, with even the President using Tea Bagger, a highly vulgar term one might have thought below the dignity of that office.
No, the hyper sensitivity to recently neutral or respectful language, the hyper vigilance and ferocity in enforcement, and the constant effort to invent then enforce new and ever more convoluted rules is clearly entirely a phenomena of the Left. The purpose here is to win debates not by free and open debate and resort to argument and fact, but to so constrict the language and rule so many facts and arguments as Hate Speech and out of bounds, that they win by default. It is totalitarian and dishonest in intent and effect. Someone disagrees with you about your radical new idea about homosexual "marriage"... call it Hate and a psychological problem, a Phobia, and try to silence dissent. It turns out the Left never really meant it when they said Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism.
The modern Left puts old Joe McCarthy to shame. He was an inquisitor at least concerned with membership in suspect organizations, the modern Lefty McCarthyites are concerned with the equivalent of merely misspeaking and being caught calling Capitalism or Communism by the wrong terms. Turns out Stalin, Lefty extraordinaire, was a better McCarthyite than McCarthy ever was, and so are his intellectual decendants.
Its libs that constantly want to change terms. Think about the word "mongoloid."
Ok they changed that to "retarded."
Then it morphed to "mentally retarded."
Then it magically changed to "mentally handicapped."
That term was too offensive so its was changed to "mentally challenged",
Liberals got tired of that hateful term they themselves created so they came up with "special needs."
What will it be next time?
Who knows, but one thing I do know is IT WILL CHANGE because some lib group somewhere will get offended.
They like to change terms so they can feel a sense of superiority so when conservatives use the term that libs used to use, they can bash them for using offensive and hateful language. LO
One that hits home for me is "Asian American. I am NOT an Asian American. I don't want to be a "different" kind of American than anyone else. I am an American, plain and simple, I have Asian heritage, but until we start calling white people "European Americans" I find it quite offensive that white libs want to call me Asian American. For the record, I am fine with "oriental" I don't find it offensive in the least. The same thing of course applies to African American, but I can't speak first hand about that one as I am not black, but you will never see me use the term African American either.
Ok they changed that to "retarded."
Then it morphed to "mentally retarded."
Then it magically changed to "mentally handicapped."
That term was too offensive so its was changed to "mentally challenged",
Liberals got tired of that hateful term they themselves created so they came up with "special needs."
What will it be next time?
Who knows, but one thing I do know is IT WILL CHANGE because some lib group somewhere will get offended.
They like to change terms so they can feel a sense of superiority so when conservatives use the term that libs used to use, they can bash them for using offensive and hateful language. LOL
An actress from the TV show ER, Gloria Reuben was being interviewed years ago. Ms. Reuben is black. The interviewer asked her:
"So what is it like being an African-American female in Hollywood these days."
Her response:
"I wouldn't know. I am Canadian." LOL
"Hyphenated" Americans only draws us apart. We used to subscribe to the melting pot approach but sadly "multiculturalism" rules the day.
Yes and we are SO much better on account of that. LOL
she had a Jamaican GF that I would occasionally go out with, both obviously were black. Whenever we wanted to REALLY piss them off, we'd call them African American, You wouldn't believe how pissed they would get.
I also remember watching a track and field event and the announcer called some guy from Kenya African American, his much smarter counterpart had to remind him that the give was a Kenyan national and it was rather insulting to call a guy running for HIS country of Kenya an African American.
Started off with n*gger...(ok, clearly repugnant)...then to "negro"...then to "colored person"...then to "black"...then "African-American"...then to....
PERSON OF COLOR!
Wtf! LOL
Call we all just be AMERICANS for fk sake???
I am included in that group "person of color" as well.
To tell the truth I much prefer "person of color" to "Asian American" I REALLY don't like that term except when applied to people born in an Asian country who now live here, although it's really a cop out for people who think 'we all look alike" and are too lazy to ask if an Asian person is Chinese, Japanese, Korean et al. Not just too lazy to ask, but too lazy to even care.
I am with you on the "can't we all just be Americans"
Stop walkng around dressed like this
I too have never agreed with some of these terms. And I only use terms like asian, black etc if it adds something to the discussion. Otherwise, we're all humans and I rarely feel the need for such identifiers.
But, the modern liberal establishment has had great success with their brand of identity politics and continue to slice and dice our country into whatever divisions will win them elections.
Regards........RR
You started out with a good distinction between pejorative terms vs. PC. And, I even agree with you regarding it coming from the left. Yet, your reasoning aligning the intentions with the likes McCarthy, who ruined many lives with hearsay in anideological and political purge, and Stalin, who killed many, for the very same reasons, is way out of bounds. Yes, the left tried to change terms, but in order to advocate for equal standing for various groups, so as to argue they have the same rights to resources from our society as everyone else. As terms became more pejorative, through being said in hate, contempt and disdain, in order to block these groups from said rights, it became needful to change the terms for the various groups. It's difficult to advocate for the above mentioned rights for nigroids, blacks, queers and retards, because of this. The new terms are imperfect, but they've yet obtained the taint of the hate, disdain and contempt of the previous terms. If, and/or when the do, they'll be changed once again. ;
Many "queers" are proud of the term and use it all the time.
How many times do you hear someone black use the word "nigger?" Quite often, right?
Liberals believe certain people can use certain words while other people cant use those same words. That's just fkked up.
If they are as you say they are i.e. "pejoratives", shouldn't we try and get everyone to stop using them rather than just a select group of special people who we happen to be on the same side of the political aisle with? OR...just allow everyone to use them?
When you give one group "special dispensation" while calling another group hate mongers for using the same word, it creates division, confusion and sews the seeds of racial animus.
How many queers are still in the closet, and why! 
So, to answer who PC belongs to, we must first define PC.
PC does involve a hyper sensitivity to perceived insult, true, but dislike of insults is not what PC is.
People have always disliked intentional insults like nigger, or rag head, or hillbilly, or fudgepacker, or thumper. Dislike of intended insult and having polite terms for people has always been with us.
PC is different. PC is a conscious effort to shape language and rule certain terms and therefore ideas which previously had been considered non insulting, or actually respectful, as grievous insults. Attendant to that is to make these insults not only cause for personal offense, but for political persecution and legal punishment. So, when one rules Colored (as in NAACP) a grievous insult, then in turn Negro (as in United Negro College Fund), then Black (as Black Panthers), all formerly terms of respect voiced by AA leaders, in order to enforce a new term, this is different than merely disallowing Nigger or Spook etc. Same with many other terms. The latest effort in this line is to attempt to change the recently respectful transsexual to trans-woman, and even to enforce the sexually normal to name themselves cis-women and cis-men in order to equalize their status with the trans.
And along with all of these are extreme efforts to use various forms of legal and social punishment to enforce conformity in the severest fashion, such that mere ignorance and lack of keeping up with the latest linquistic fashions can be cause for career destruction, prosecution, personal online vendetta etc.
Some have said that this is an equal opportunity phenomena, because conservatives don't like being called sexual insults like Tea Bagger, or Christians don't like being called Thumpers, etc etc.
But these intentional insults are clearly different. And use of these epithets is not even considered out of bounds among the left, with even the President using Tea Bagger, a highly vulgar term one might have thought below the dignity of that office.
No, the hyper sensitivity to recently neutral or respectful language, the hyper vigilance and ferocity in enforcement, and the constant effort to invent then enforce new and ever more convoluted rules is clearly entirely a phenomena of the Left. The purpose here is to win debates not by free and open debate and resort to argument and fact, but to so constrict the language and rule so many facts and arguments as Hate Speech and out of bounds, that they win by default. It is totalitarian and dishonest in intent and effect. Someone disagrees with you about your radical new idea about homosexual "marriage"... call it Hate and a psychological problem, a Phobia, and try to silence dissent. It turns out the Left never really meant it when they said Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism.
The modern Left puts old Joe McCarthy to shame. He was an inquisitor at least concerned with membership in suspect organizations, the modern Lefty McCarthyites are concerned with the equivalent of merely misspeaking and being caught calling Capitalism or Communism by the wrong terms. Turns out Stalin, Lefty extraordinaire, was a better McCarthyite than McCarthy ever was, and so are his intellectual decendants.
Black is what "they" wanted to be called not all that long ago. Racists didn't come up with that word, black people did.
Oriental was just fine for decades and speaking as an oriental, I don't find the least bit of offense, intended or otherwise with the term
Calling "manholes" personholes" is PC on steroids as is the latest word being forced on us by the PC police "cisgender" Sorry, but just like African American, I absolutely REFUSE to use the term, and I quite frankly don't give a fuck what the PC police have to say about it.
I will concede that gay marriage is a different issue, as far as I am concerned a marriage contract is a financial contract between two adults basically a merger of their lives and assets. It will not lead to marrying chickens, dogs or inanimate objects. The right is simply full of shit on this one. If the church doesn't want to "bless" these unions, that is their right, but if two consenting adults want to merge their lives, I don't really care what sex they are. Anti gay marriage laws are clearly religious based laws, and should be shot down as unconstitutional. but I don't recall the PC polic asking us to change the English language where it comes to two people of the same sex marrying.
What about polygamy? What about a brother and a sister that want to get married? A mother and son, of age?
My problem with redefining marriage is not redefining it. The court, I think this week, will make gay marriage legal.
But how will that not lead to all sorts of insane relationships that, imo, will be bad for society?
Wont the equal protection clause lead to this sort of nonsense one day?
DONT read into this that I am therefore making the argument against gay marriage. I am not. I am asking if we shouldn't define what a marriage is, or isn't, if the SCOTUS rules like I think they will.