Talk:politically correct

Earliest Usenet uses via Google Groups: &mdash; Hippietrail 02:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * politically correct: net.jokes - 14 Dec 1981 by G:kirk
 * NOW, being politically correct you must, of course, substitute "martian" What a clever joke this becomes! Hopefully, there are no martians listening.
 * political correctness: net.politics - 19 Jun 1983 by Zigurd R. Mednieks
 * Let me introduce you all to MIT's brand of public political correctness: There are a handful of people at MIT that are very visible in political advocacy. They are usually senior, tenured, faculty are have long since mellowed out of the publish-or perish game.

RFV discussion: October 2011–March 2012
Rfv-sense: the first definition, "incorrect". Should it be "correct"? If so, should it be ? Also the etymology, "first cited 1973": we have a citation from 1793, so is the etymology a typo, or should it say "the second sense is attested since 1973"? - -sche (discuss) 02:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Contributor has given a citation saying 'not political correct' and basically confused herself. In other words, I agree with everything you just said. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I, too, agree. I have reworded sense 2 a bit. Please review. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the first definition too narrow? It limits the usage to 18th century US politics, but I think the term may still be used in the literal sense, as e.g. in "It's not politically correct to suggest that the climate change might depend more on cosmic phenomena than on the actions of Man." --Hekaheka 09:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A while ago I have changed the definition for political correctness to "avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against". Then politically correct is "exhibiting political correctness". It's not about mainstream but minorities. --Anatoli 11:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The example in the first sense is about going with mainstream, as is my example above in this discussion. --Hekaheka 12:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. Sorry, I wasn't attentive. --Anatoli 12:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Resolved-ish. - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of men on this entry
Is there a reason why political correctness applies to women, but not to men? I mean, that does only further the notion that men are the "default" sex, which itself is politically incorrect. I mean, if you're a girl, then you'll probably think of being female as completely normal, while males are the "other" sex. I mean, I know women have had a hard time throughout history, but let's say if you're a young girl and you don't know about that dark history yet. And then, one day, you stumble upon this entry, and it specifies "women, minorities [etc.]". Isn't there something a bit off about this entry? Like, how come women are lumped in with these all these "minority" groups? Why doesn't this entry depict women as being equal to men?

You get my point, right? I'm just saying, why can't we treat women as equals? --Minervasux (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to imply that sexism is a thing of the past (at least in certain – Western – cultures, presumably), but nothing could be further from the truth (cf. James Damore's Google memo, sexism, gender inequality, Delusions of Gender). Women are still widely treated as the "Other" (inscrutable, mysterious, unpredictable, etc.). Women are not literally a minority, but they are still a disadvantaged and marginalised group, which is why they are usually listed separately. But evidently your concern (which sounds a lot like the – widely mocked by feminists – cry "will nobody think of the mens?!") has already been heeded, because the entry now vaguely references "certain genders, ethnicities, sexualities and/or other demographics", even though I've never seen humour exclusively targeting men (as opposed to "equal opportunity offenders", which are a newer phenomenon attempting to dodge charges of sexism) called "politically incorrect" (and it isn't exactly a cottage industry comparable to sexist jokes at the expense of women). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July–November 2018
first sense is SOP.
 * I disagree. The definition says "conforming to the correct political positions", but that seems more an attempt to explain how that sense of the word developed from a more literal meaning, rather than being itself a good definition. What does "correct political positions" even mean? So keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "The correct political positions" means the party line, doesn't it? Equinox ◑ 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe that should be included in the definition. I still think it's non-SOP though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Andrew Purplebackpack89 15:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and delete first part of def, which is not clear at best; the second part of def "following the official policies of the government or a political party" is a perfectly fine definition by itself. (If indeed that is what it means, which I am not so sure about); but in any case there needs to be a def for these early uses - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * RFD kept: no consensus to delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)