Yes, because not saying "black coffee"* is all about dignity and respect...
Treating people with dignity and respect is not changing normal, everyday, interactions in case somebody, somewhere, might take offence.
This, to my mind, is the problem here. Most people couldn't give a damn about how somebody differs to themselves, especially in a work environment, and will treat others with respect. However, a minority of people think that is not going far enough and changes should be made "on behalf of" some imaginary offended minority.


*I'm sure we can all think of our own examples.

The problem is you do not understand the huge difference between politeness and political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with basic dignity and respect. It is about trying to force the beliefs and values of a small number of people onto everyone else that creates an atmosphere where everyone except a few loud-mouths are afraid to speak lest they offend "somebody". A law forbidding urination on the sidewalk is a measure to stop bad behaviour. Pressuring people to replace "short" with "vertically challenged" is political correctness.

But, on the other hand, you can also "give the good-natured finger to" such political correctness ... and make a ton of money at it.

Ladies and Gentlebeings, I give you: Short People. (From 1978.)

And if you find yourself unable to chuckle and laugh at the humor of this "obviously tongue-in-cheek" song, then all that I can say to you is that: "both your tongue and your cheek need to Seriously Get A Life."

Quite honestly, there really-is a dividing line between "taking something seriously," and taking the same thing "too damned seriously." If we somehow lose the ability to laugh, especially "at ourselves," then I do think that we are in danger of losing our ability to survive our appointed lot of time on this very-crazy planet.

"And that," I think we all can agree, "would most-seriously suck!"

Like Sacha Baron Cohen does in his movies. Wonderful!

If that was truly what PC is about. It would not be a problem.
The problem is political correctness has gone far beyond that. To the point of only to protect those that are overly sensitive.
For an example of PC gone too far, look up "Speech codes"

Apparently, the lesson-learned is that one should not call a bunch of drunk women "water buffalo." Duly noted.

I have not been following this thread, because I knew from the git-go where it would get up and go.

Nevertheless, I caught up on it today (my expectations were met), as I wish to post this link to this column from today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as it is germane: http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/...s/201508120066

I once belonged to a forum where your profile included the pronoun you wanted people to use when referring to you: there were a lot of members who opted for Xe and the like. I'm afraid I didn't last there for long... Then there was the religious forum where I was placed on moderation for telling an atheist who'd made several thousand facetious posts that he needed to get a life.

Incidentally, you can't always identify people by names. A couple of days ago I read a review of a book by an Italian "Michele" which consistently referred to him as "her". Anyone in Ireland will tell you that most McCanns are Catholic, but this one is an Hellenic Pagan.

I don't blame you. Stuff like that drives me nuts. When talking about unknown/non-standard gender people, I just use singular they.
Maybe technically incorrect from a language standpoint but at least more understandable than something like "xe"
The bold part is definitely correct. For example "Jan" could be a Dutch male name or it could be female shortend version of "Janet" in English. They are pronounced differently but you don't know that in text form.

To my mind the reason why people like Donald Trump (and I use the term "person" loosely) can hide behind "not being politically correct" is because so many whinging morons go too far and make the general "man in the street" who has no particular prejudices get a bad impression of what "political correctness" is all about. I really was not kidding about some places, in the name of political correctness, instructing people not to say "black coffee" lest it offend somebody. To my mind doing that is playing into the court of the likes of Trump and others who wish to actually display prejudice.

To go back to the original post -- it seems that certain developers, in their well-intentioned desire to make things better, may have inadvertently got the backs of many normal, well-adjusted individuals up by being a little too prescriptive and a little too eager to avoid any offence being caused to anybody whatsoever.
As I mentioned though I'm still not quite sure how anything which "political correctness" covers (apart from, possible, mental an emotional illness) could have any bearing on coding and would need to be mentioned in discussion of any technical matters.

Sorry, I am reminded of a social chit-chat site* where a prominent member and moderator when I joined was referred to as "it" then, later, became "she" and remained so. I met the guy on a meet-up the site had and we had a laugh about how I'd flirted with him before I'd realised his real life gender -- I really did not know for certain until I met him (In that case the nature of the forum and chat room was such that bawdy humour and flirting were expected and part of the humour of the site.). Many people who hadn't met him still, probably to this day, either thought it was a female or just didn't know -- there really is no way to tell from what somebody types.



*This wasn't actually the forum's specified purpose but it was what most of us, including the owner, spent our time doing.

What constitutes "overly sensitive," exactly?

Perhaps short people who prefer to be described as "vertically challenged", black people who cannot tolerate black coffee being described as "black" (I guess it should be called "warm beverage of color" instead), old people who prefer to be described as "chronologically advantaged", poor people who don't feel poor, but "underprivileged", and so on and so forth. If they actually do exist (which sometimes I doubt) I would describe them as quite sensitive people.

There's a major difference, in my opinion, between being genuinely respectful and being politically correct: the latter is usually full of hypocrisy and conformism, which should lack in the former.

Does anyone have an example where making a statement that is termed "politically correct" involves stating something that is factually incorrect (i.e. false)?
jdk

The nearest I can think of off the cuff is the belief of British journalists that calling people Eskimos is impolite and they must be called Inuit: including the Alaskan Eskimos, very few of whom are Inuit.

Not really an example were the USians who reviled the British actor Benedict Cumberbatch for his "racist" use of the expression "coloured actors". I wonder if the same people are lobbying the NAACP to change its name?

Off on a tangent, I was equally irritated by BC making a groveling apology: he was "devastated" that he had been "thoughtless" and a "complete fool". I belong to the Leroy Jethro Gibbs school of thought myself; I'd have have just told them to get over themselves.