The term 'politically correct' has been weaponised not just to land a blow against foes but to shut down debate altogether. To be 'politically correct', critics say, is to be more concerned with being seen to do the right thing than to actually do it; to be more attuned to feelings than facts, and to be almost allergic to 'common sense'.
But when people decry 'political correctness', what they're really saying is that they want to say and do what they want without thinking of the consequences, either to themselves or others. In doing so, they double down on the existing discriminations and inequalities that are the subjet of that political correctness.
Look at the comments in August 2018 from then Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg about the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services urging its staff to avoid using gendered language and issuing staff with badges that stated their preferred pronouns. It was 'political correctness gone mad', he said. Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton agreed: 'It's an affront to common sense,' he told 2GB, suggesting the Victorian government had 'lost the plot'.
Dutton's language in particular is coated with disdain for anyone whose experience of gender differs from how he thinks the world should operate. It also sends a clear message to the Department — and anyone who thinks the badges are a good idea — that they are lacking some sort of moral strength.
While there are examples of people taking the label to taxing extremes, political correctness at its core essentially just means being considerate and inclusive of a wider range of people who have traditionally been ignored or openly discriminated against. It's acknowledging that the way the world operates today has nothing to do with the natural order of things, but has been deliberately created by those in a privileged position to benefit themselves.
Yet today, to accuse someone of being 'politically correct' has become a fast and effective way to shut down any attempts to make public spaces not only tolerant of but welcoming to disenfranchised people. It means that those whose words and actions are at best thoughtless and at worst deliberately discriminatory can continue to avoid having to think about what they said or did. As such the pace of progress gets bogged down in the mud of excuses and counter-claims.
The concocted rage and moral frenzy that accompanies these outbursts by self-appointed moral crusaders results in fundamental