....treating all people with the respect and sensitivity with which they wish to be treated.
PC has NEVER been about treating people the way one would want to be treated. If that were the case, and if the DUmp were to exercise it, you'd never see a thread on their site speaking ill of those who hold religious beliefs.
PC has always been about power and using it against those of whom you disagree politically. It's too easy to note the differences between, let's say, NOW's reaction to liberal Bill Clinton's sexual romps as opposed to how they would have reacted were it a conservative. Their inconsistencies reveal their agenda.
The individual who wrote this is a quack. Look at this:
Interestingly enough, according to this non-sarcastic, relatively unconsidered, more meaningfully precise definition of the term, the USA is a politically correct nation indeed; but not in the way that most Americans are led to believe. Some examples: Magnetic yellow ribbons are PC. Denouncing Islamism in the name of 9/11 is PC. Reciting the pledge of allegiance is PC. Not talking about radical politics at work or in polite company is PC. Gay-bashing is PC. Standing and placing your hand on your heart during the national anthem is PC. Smiling and applauding when the president enters the room is PC. On the other side of the equation: Marching for civil rights is not PC. Protesting a US war is not PC. Questioning US-Israeli neo-colonial policy in the Middle East is not PC. Calling the US government a white male supremacist corporatist kleptocracy is not PC. Agitating for structural change in our society's distribution of wealth and power is not PC. Refusing to shake a corrupt president's hand is not PC.
Frankly, I can think of far more extreme examples of politically incorrect acts and statements, but it's a testament to the real coercive power of the police state — not some imaginary "PC police" — that I hesitate to publish these thoughts even hypothetically, even with ample theoretical padding. Given this reality, perhaps we might reconsider exactly whose free speech is being violated by whom. As far as I know, "the PC police" haven't thrown any insensitive white men into Gitmo or launched CointelPro operations against white bloggers who publish blackface. For some reason, people of color who oppose US imperialism haven't had that same good fortune.
Simply put, the great "PC" cliché, as commonly deployed in mainstream discourse, is cultural propaganda designed to befuddle and misdirect while defending the current power structure. All politics deal with power relations, and in the debate over America's alleged climate of "political correctness", there's a stark asymmetry of power between the defiant megaphone-wielders who complain of being constrained by humorless hypersensitivity from below, and the under-represented people of color, women, LGBT, disabled, poor, and otherwise marginalized or dispossessed people who have no choice but to absorb the linguistic, cultural, and physical barbs of the ruling class. The former feel psycho-emotionally oppressed by their inability to crack puerile ethnic jokes without criticism; the latter simply are oppressed.
Looks like some of the junk I used to read on Indymedia. And this "I would say more, but I dare not because they might come and get me, which in itself is a form of terrorism since I am afraid of where my supposed free speech might land me" is a crock. Paint yourself as a victim (of your own imigination), claim that it's real, and it elevates your status as one who's willing to go as far as the "white male supremacist corporatist kleptocracy" will allow, at least in the eyes of your fellow whackos.
.
