Has political correctness become the exact opposite of what it was originally intended to prevent?

MayCaesar

Political correctness originally emerged as a concept in response to the needs of the diplomacy in the modern world. Around a century ago people realised that the old model of diplomacy, with officials trying to gain the most out of every exchange and never making any concessions, so as to not appear weak, was not working and led to a lot of unnecessary conflicts, economical, political and military alike.

Hence the concept was born. Its idea was that diplomatic exchanges must be based on courtesy and mutual respect, that the participants of the exchange should set aside their differences and focus on their common values. That included not only being polite and agreeable in conversations, but also not touching sensitive subjects in a careless way, such as cultural differences, old geographical and ethnic disputes, et cetera. 
You can see the difference between the old and the new approach in some of the recordings of debates in the UN from 50-s and later, with members of the socialist camp on one side and the Western camp on the other: where the former would bombard the convention with threats and accusations, the latter would keep it cool and refrain from direct criticism.

Over time, the concept started being applied to domestic politics as well. Politicians from different factions learned to converse with dignity and respect, and it was now expected that, say, presidential candidates during debates would shake each other's hands, smile at each other, nod at the points of agreement and be understanding at the points of disagreement. Look at the debates between Kennedy and Nixon from 1960: they are a perfect example of this phenomenon.
Nowadays this concept is not as deeply entrenched in politics as before, which I believe the Internet is partially responsible for. However, you can still see its traces every now and then, and the fact that Donald Trump's temperament causes so much controversy in politics is a testament to it. 200 years ago, this type of mannerism was very common in politics, and the Founding Fathers with their intelligent debates were outliers, as far as the politics in the world as a whole went at the time.

"Political correctness" in the sense in which it is often used today has only a loose connection with the original concept. People took a decent idea from politics and employed its perverse version. Instead of setting differences aside, people now focus on those differences and shame each other for them. If someone has a controversial opinion, then the original version of the political correctness would prescribe hearing them out, trying to understand them and responding them in a polite way. Instead, the opposite is often expected: shaming and silencing, out of the fear of others being offended.
The original political correctness was exactly about NOT being offended at unpopular opinions and being willing to discuss them with utmost courtesy and understanding. Everyone would do their best to not raise subjects that are likely to offend the other side, but should such subjects be raised, the other side was just as much expected to maintain a civil discussion and put their feelings behind them.

People must understand something about politeness: politeness goes both ways. Just as you expect others to be polite towards you, you must be polite towards them. And if you perceive their words as impolite, you still should respond in a polite way. This is what the concept prescribes.
Politeness cannot work one way: your opinion is free to be stated, but someone else's opinion is not, because it is "shameful". No. Either you are polite no matter what others say to you, or politeness is just a word for you meaning nothing.
It is easy to remain polite and courteous when talking to someone you fully agree with. It is not a hard achievement to be nice to those who you perceive as nice to you. What is hard is to allow the other person to say things that disturb you and not be disturbed by them, and that is exactly what political correctness is supposed to be about.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar ;
Do you mean the right to file grievance is threatened on social media?

smoothie

social media companies are businesses and they have the rights from the government to choose speech. If you want to say the n word make your own social media

Haydn_E_Sheldon

@cumsmoothie

True

Social media companies are businesses, and as of right now the law protects them to implement whatever terms, or conditions they deem fit to enforce upon any users that wish to communicate via their services.

But........the real argument here is have they gone to far with this new style of political correctness?

I believe we have seen the sad results of this hyper sensitive PC culture, and one only needs to browse a few networks to truly feel its dangerous effects on not only free speech, but the very process of free expression of any or all opposing ideas or views.

This form of policing thought under the umbrella of PC culture, and identity politics seems to me somewhat crass, and very dangerous to the future of any real democratic system.

If we just simply allow ourselves to just look away, or move away to another source which allows us to speak honestly and freely without being censored then we are in a way condoning this type of PC behavior to continue unabated.

So once again I ask, has political correctness become the exact opposite of what it was originally designed to prevent?.

Cheers