I have yet to have heard a satisfactory definition for political correctness from those who rattle on about it in opposition. The words are wrapped in this ambiguous cloud of negativity, that the phenomenon is somehow censorship or euphemizing that it is simply to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. This idea, however, is a common and quite probably intentional misreading of the fundamental message of political correctness. Additionally, “micro-aggressions” receiving the same misinterpretation and ridicule. This all aides the same reactionary goal though, to minimize a push back against subliminal bigotry and widely accepted insensitivities.

At the foundation of political correctness is to avoid offense. But what kind of offense? There are petty and facile offenses; statements like “all Cubs fans are just band-wagoners” or “sports fans in ought to find something better to do with their time anyways” could easily offend someone. But these sentiments are not aimed to imply inferiority because of race, gender, orientation or ability; they are slandering people for their preferences and attitudes, not attributes of their identity. Political correctness aims to abate far more insidious offenses. Terms like “gypsy”, “negro”, and “mulatto” as well as phrases like “that’s so gay” or “don’t be retarded” are not politically correct simply because they hurt someone’s feelings, but because they are oppressive.

Using the term “gypsy” to refer to the Romani people is pejorative, just look at what the term “gypped” means. One ought to avoid it not because it simply causes offense, but because the use of that particular language carries the weight of a history of discrimination. “Negro” hauls the same baggage, as the term harkens back to the cruelty or slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, et all; it reinforces White supremacy. Similarly, “mulatto” is soaked in colonial attitudes of genocide, occupation, and White purity.

To continue, the aforementioned juvenile phrases like “that’s so gay” and “don’t be retarded” are not just fun little quips. They are expressions of homophobia and ableism, each trying to say that it would be abhorrent to be queer or developmentally disabled. One doesn’t denounce these phrases because they might make someone feel bad in the way similar to that of “I don’t like your shoes”, but because they make someone feel inferior or de-humanized.

Everyone knows that racial slurs are unacceptable, as they are direct manifestations of racism, but we would be remiss to ignore more nuanced forms of this kind of discrimination. That is a micro-aggression, it’s not simply a harmless joke, it’s a demonstration of intolerance disguised as a harmless joke. Every instance of politically incorrect language is this concealed discrimination, whether cognizant or not. American linguist John McWhorter once said that “racism these days almost always requires discovery, interpretation”. Scrutinizing the language we use is a part of this interpretation. Demanding the “Washington Red Skins” change their name is not oversensitivity, it’s an objection to the trivialization of slaughter of indigenous peoples and the literal racist slur that is the word “red-skin”.

Moreover, people would like to have you believe that being politically correct is a matter of using euphemisms instead of stating things how they are. Euphemisms exist to state something politely while allowing the true meaning to go unsaid. But someone of Asian descent is not in essence “oriental”, they are a human being. Political correctness is not censorship, as someone being referred to by a preferred self-identifier does not obfuscate what they “really are” or the truth of the matter.

In many forms, whatever you hear conservatives refer to as “political correctness” is not a real thing. It is a phantom created by people who fail to recognize or are complacent with being bigoted in their speech, and are now upset that people are willing to call them out for it. The phenomenon of editing your language as not to offend someone is not a matter of infringing of free speech, it’s a matter of fighting against the sickening prejudice ingrained in our words. Language is the crystallization of thought, and if we acknowledge the discrimination in our speech patterns, we can eradicate it. Toni Morrison once said that, “the political correctness debate is really about is the power to be able to define. The definers want the power to name”. The definers of this language have for too long been the privileged that seek to oppresses with thought and the language that ensues, or fail to recognizes. She finishes, saying that “the defined are now taking that power away from them”.