The censure or suppression of speech which is deemed to offend the dignity of select classes of people, regardless of whether the speech is in fact true.
That is where political correctness differs from defamation, which is inherently deceitful.
There is of course a vast gulf between expressing uncomfortable truths and active ridicule. If you would like some examples, I'm sure Dr. Haidt's speeches are replete with them. Many other well-spoken liberals academics (such as Dr. Steven Pinker) have also addressed this.
> there are ideas which fall into politically incorrect which don't offend the dignity of any class but are held abhorrent or insane for another reason. Advocating for gay marriage in the 1950s would offend both the mainstream of both the US and the USSR for instance.
Simply being outside the Overton Window of whatever politics are at play in a given society is not sufficient to be politically incorrect. "Politically incorrect" wasn't even a term in the political lexicon in the way it is today, so anachronistically applying an incorrect definition is of course going to lead to aberrant results.
If you would like another source aside from myself, I present the first line from the Wikipedia entry on Political Correctness:
>The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.
In the 1950s? Politically correct was most certainly in use by then - for almost or over two decades at that point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Histor...
Being totally outside the overton window may effectively the same thing - although it may receive the handwave "offensive all of proper society" or similiar. Especially back when obscenity laws were in force in naked defiance of the first ammendment.
The whole point? You think that Dr. Haidt is just pining for the days when he could refer to ethnic minorities with whatever racial slur he pleases?
> In the 1950s? Politically correct was most certainly in use by then - for almost or over two decades at that point.
The Fine Article points out that the term was obscure until probably the late 80s/early 90s, so hardly part of the "political lexicon". But I'll grant you that if you want.
However, at no point in it's history has political correctness meant "the range of acceptable political ideas". Again, I point you to the definition of the term at the top of the page.
When people criticize political correctness, their complaint is generally that they are prohibited or reprimanded for saying things that are true (or might be true) but may be offensive to particular classes of people.
The goal is generally not to actually offend people, but to preserve a society in which truth, even uncomfortable truth, can be discussed.
EDIT: If you look at Wikipedia[1] you'll find that my definition matches almost precisely in meaning to the definition listed there.
You are in fact redefining the term. Which isn't an issue, it has been redefined many times before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness (Which I see you've edited to be included in your response). My problem with your definition is that it obscures the fact that "political correctness" is almost always used as a pejorative, whereas your definition gives it a more neutral, clinical meaning. If we were discussing religious dogmatism, it would be the difference between "devout" and "puritanical." Your definition obscures the normative usage of the phrase, and can lead to people talking past each other.
The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided, or if I applied it in an inconsistent manner. Neither I nor Dr. Haidt do this.
EDIT: so there is the pejorative and non-pejorative sense that is worth addressing. As the wikipedia article says, it is used in a pejorative sense when used to refer to situations where the suppression of potentially offensive speech is deemed excessive or unwarranted.
I (and Dr. Haidt) do use it in that sense, with the clarification that by "excessive or unwarranted" we specifically mean "without regard to the truth or falsehood of the speech expressed". That is the best way to summarize how the term is actually used in modern parlance with a great deal of consistency, particularly by groups such as Heterodox Academy.
Anyone who has a negative visceral reaction to the use of the phrase "political correctness" needs to be sure that they can understand and address that meaning of the word. It's not just a general "boo" word, but one with specific content and describes a real phenomenon.
The Puritans were a more radical branch of the Church of England, famous for their early role in the American colonies. "Puritanical," according to Wiktionary, has two meanings: one referring to things related to the aforementioned group, and the other to "Precise in observance of legal or religious requirements; strict; overscrupulous; rigid (often used by way of reproach or contempt)."[0]
Of course, one could argue that this is an adequate synonym for the word "devout." However, saying the Pope is devout is very different from saying the Pope is puritanical (and, given the word's history, somewhat ironic). It is technically correct, similar to your definition.
> The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided
Why would you pejoratively refer to something as "politically incorrect," if you think political correctness is bad?
No worries, I actually live in the States and I have Puritan ancestors. I just don't think your analogy is correct.
Let me see if I can reconstruct your analogy in a way to show why I think it fails.
We can think of two definitions for "puritanical":
A) Devout (neutral connotation)
B) Excessively dogmatic (negative connotation)
In this case, (B) is the more correct definition because it captures the connotation. You claim my definition is closer to (A), whereas I think mine is closer to (B). Namely, by highlighting the fact that the suppression of speech is done "without regard to it's truth or falsehood" I think that's a pretty clear red flag.
Of course, this is more or less consistent with how it was originally used by the people who originally coined the term and had positive associations with it.
> Why would you pejoratively refer to something as "politically incorrect," if you think political correctness is bad?
Sorry, typo. I meant "pejoratively referred to policies as 'politically correct'".