When being consciously politically correct, I'm saying one thing but meaning quite something else. The point is if I've already thought something, why does not saying it purported to make a difference? Even if the concern is that the statement is then set in stone and becomes a part of history, wanting to erase it and instead provide an alternative that sheds all insinuations and prejudices is more despicable.
The politically correct statement or phrase seems to have been constructed only to avoid uncomfortable silences in the present. In the long run, however, it masks very real tendencies in favour of a reality that perpetuates the existence of political correctness. It encourages self-censorship and restraint when expressing thoughts deemed unpalatable by others, even if only to the extent that those who speak their minds are driven underground and forced to engage in samizdat than in open discussion. Ultimately, if I'm politically correct today, I'll have to continue to be politically correct in the future.Some would argue that the way to look at the need for political correctness is to look at the way the world would be without it. I see a world of difference. For instance, I could say something and mean it instead of having to disguise it in terms of politically correct phrases and imply that that's what I meant. I could call a black man "black" simply because I find it easy to identify him that way, not because I think calling him "black" is any sort of testament to his heritage.
By extension, it's necessary that we decouple politics and correctness not only in terms of language, but also such things like colours, flora, and fauna. Using the syntax but dissociating it from its semantics for the sake of avoiding political discomfort is nothing but the prostitution of language. It's the act of borrowing words to use them for purposes they were never intended to serve.
Being politically correct all the time is causing a harmful disconnect between the way we're thinking and what we're saying. To think that a) "This is what I mean" and then b) "This is what must be said to mean what I think it means" kills the nature of language to be native and organic. Under the influence of mechanical considerations and case-by-case replacements, the way we use language is transformed into something machine-like.
Are uncomfortable silences in the present so detestable as to risk the mechanization of expression?
