Political correctness is a new form of prejudice

The argument

Although political correctness originally served to eliminate casual prejudice from public discourse, it has evolved into a new form of prejudice. Our culture's political correctness has led to the marginalization of those who do not conform to a rigid standard. As a result, people who hold politically incorrect views feel threatened by those who do not approve of their perspectives. They remain silent, fearing that their controversial opinions will result in outrage. In our society, it is common to hear of individuals being "canceled," which implies public shaming and withdrawal of support. The public shames these individuals for voicing politically incorrect opinions, which can even result in the loss of a job or educational title. By harshly policing political incorrectness, our culture has created a new form of prejudice against people who hold unconventional opinions.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Political correctness strictly limits what people can or cannot say while maintaining a positive reputation. However, this is not a harmful thing. Politically incorrect comments belittle the existence of other people. In our society, no one should be allowed to disrespect entire demographics. For this reason, political correctness is justified. It is not a new form of prejudice, it prevents people from sharing their prejudice without criticism.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] "Evolved into a rigid standard" carries the argument and is asserted rather than traced. The premise grants that the practice began by removing casual prejudice from public discourse, so it owes an account of what changed and when; without one, the claim rests on a contrast between an unspecified earlier version and an unspecified present one. [Rejecting P2] Calling this a new prejudice stretches the word past its use. Prejudice is prejudgement of people by group membership, whereas consequences that follow from something a person said are responses to conduct; collapsing the two removes a distinction the argument needs elsewhere. The premise also supplies no measure of scale — how often silence follows, or how often a job or title is actually lost — while the cases that circulate are, by their nature, the visible ones. [Rejecting C] The conclusion moves from a cost borne by some speakers to harm to society as a whole, which requires netting that cost against whatever the norms achieve. The premise's own opening line concedes there was something worth removing.