Those who oppose political correctness want to make prejudice acceptable

The argument

This argument reads opposition to political correctness as a tactic rather than a principle. What political correctness does, on this account, is hold people responsible for what they say — it attaches a cost to statements that demean others, and that cost is the mechanism by which such statements become harder to make. Anyone who wishes to make them without incurring the cost therefore has an interest in discrediting the mechanism itself, and objecting to political correctness in general terms is the most efficient way to do it. The tell, proponents argue, is how the objection functions in practice. The phrase "stop being so politically correct" does not engage with the content of a criticism; it reclassifies the criticism as an overreaction and thereby disposes of it without an answer. Merely invoking PC culture can tear down an entire valid argument, because the invocation shifts the subject from what was said to the supposed excess of the person objecting. That is what makes rejection of political correctness an easy excuse for saying bigoted and outrageous things: the responsibility has been shed in advance, and the speaker is free to say whatever prejudiced things they want while hiding behind the PC boogeyman. The wider framing serves the same end. Some have come to see political correctness as a symptom of the progressive liberal's fear of offending anyone — a caricature of squeamishness rather than a description of holding speech to account. The right deploys this characterisation frequently, and on this argument it is deployed precisely because it devalues the real reasons political correctness exists. Because its opponents are seeking to silence criticism and make prejudice acceptable again, this argument concludes, political correctness is necessary and useful in our society.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Sometimes political correctness goes too far, and a lot of people find it ridiculous. Instead of focusing on reprimanding other on insensitivities, people should focus on the issue being discussed. In many people's views political correctness must be actively fought against. This is because it is an attack that slows the discussion of difficult issues.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise assumes what the debate is about. Whether the practice holds people responsible or polices expression is exactly what is contested, and stating the favourable description as a premise settles the question in advance. [Rejecting P2] This is an argument about the motives of opponents rather than about the practice. Even where the imputation is accurate for some, it is an ad hominem: a position is not refuted by an account of why some people hold it, and the same move would work equally well in the other direction. [Rejecting P3] The generalisation is unsupported and is contradicted by the range of people making the objection, which includes writers and academics with no interest in defending prejudice. The counter-argument on record puts the criticism in its own terms — that the practice can displace attention from the substance of a difficult issue onto the manner in which it was raised, and that this slows rather than aids discussion. [Rejecting C] The conclusion also does not follow from the premises even if granted. That some opponents of a practice have bad motives would not establish that the practice is necessary and useful, which requires an argument about its effects.