PC culture protects against offensive comments

The argument

Political correctness is often described by its critics as a restriction on speech, but proponents of this position argue that its real function is protective. Language that demeans marginalised people does not merely offend; it signals that those people can be dismissed, and treated with indecency and vulgarity, without consequence. A norm against such language removes that signal. It makes clear that certain ways of speaking about a group are not simply one more opinion in circulation but a form of treatment the society has decided against. What this norm does not do, on this account, is prevent disagreement. The distinction proponents draw is between disagreeing and being disagreeable: a person can reject an argument, a policy, or a worldview entirely while still addressing the people affected by it as people. Political correctness polices the second register rather than the first, which is why it narrows the range of acceptable conduct without narrowing the range of acceptable positions. Behind this lies a claim about what the willingness to revise language indicates. Words that damage the wellbeing of citizens tend to be inherited rather than chosen; they persist because nobody has examined them. A society prepared to challenge outdated language is therefore a society prepared to examine its own inherited habits and to change them when they are found to cause harm. That willingness is not costless, and it is precisely the cost that makes it meaningful. The cumulative effect is on the culture rather than on any single conversation. As the norms shift, the collective culture shifts with them, from one organised around exclusion and marginalisation to one organised around acceptance and tolerance. For proponents, that transformation is the reason political correctness creates a better society.

Context

Political correctness encourages us all to take a closer look at the language we use and ensure that the way we express ourselves is not causing disrespect or offence to a specific demographic. It does nothing more than afford dignity to every member of society.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Political correctness demonises white males and makes the white male's opinion synonymous with privilege. In doing so, it marginalises the majority. Under political correctness, if a white male talks about females, they are sexist. If they talk about ethnic minorities, they are racist. Their opinion is shot down with a litany of curse words and they fall victim to the label of Islamophobe, homophobe, xenophobe, genocide-apologist, and transphobe. Consider the case of Richard Kemp, the former commander of the UK forces in Afghanistan. Kemp was shouted down at a meeting in Sydney, Australia for simply stating a pro-Israeli political position and labelled an enabler of genocide. In this respect, political correctness doesn't promote inclusivity for everyone. It promotes inclusivity for everyone except the majority. It demonizes the white male and puts the feelings of the marginalised ahead of the feelings of the majority. It isn't even marginalised communities who are the most offended by un-PC microaggressions. It is just liberals that get offended. Those most likely to support political correctness are white people with a college education who earn more than $100,000 a year. Even the communities political correctness is supposed to protect are ambivalent or actively dislike the practice.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] It doesn't promote inclusivity, it just demonises the majority.