It is stupid to compare politicla correctness to the rules of a religion

1 - Definition of Political Corectness"The full definitions do a reasonable job of conveying orthodoxy"Just because both definitions include the word 'belief' in them it does not mean you can jump to the conclusion that Political Correctness = Religion..... Political Correctness is the belief that certain language can be offensive to people, which is a complete fact that. Religion on the other hand is a belief in worldly supernatural, all knowing beings who can control everything, which is a totally different kind of belief to be talking about. 2 - Moral Superiority"Pro's response is no more than his personal opinion that there is nothing more to PC than being sensitive."Its not a personal opinion that PC is nothing more then being sensitive since the definition of Political Correctness is literally the understanding that certain terms and language can be offensive to others and that people can choose to be sensitive about their word choice as to not offend others on accident. " Under political correctness, it is unacceptable to refer to a female restaurant server as a “waitress” and a male one as a “waiter.” "Its perfectly acceptable to refer to a waitress as a waitress and a waiter as a waiter since there isnt an inherently evil connotation with the words 'waitress' or 'waiter'.... "But it takes a lecture in PC doctrine to explain why waiter and waitress are insensitive"Theres a difference between words being slightly, even completely unnoticeably insensitive like using 'waiter' instead of 'server', and words being very visibly insensitive like using referring to anybody by the color of their skin. Political Correctness isnt practiced by people who want to make sure everything they say is completely neutral to everyone, its practiced by those who only want to make sure that what they say is acceptable to a reasonable degree.... And referring to waiter as a waiter or a waitress as a waitress is still reasonable to do. "To believe in political correctness, you must first believe it is morally unacceptable to distinguish between men and women. Politically correct speech includes long lists of gender neutral terms. It is politically incorrect to call Meryl Streep an actress; political correctness demands in written rules actor be used universally."You have an absurd idea of what political correctness means then, since there is nothing morally unacceptable with referring to Meryl Streep as an actress because she is quite literally an actress and because there is nothing wrong with calling a female actress an actress. "Political correctness often allows insensitive, even outright vile, insults of conservatives, Christians, rich people, capitalists, men, Americans, and white people."Roy, that is literally the exact opposite of what political correctness is, and a source listing statements that liberals have slung at conservatives doesnt prove that political correctness allows people to act atrociously towards white conservatives..... In fact each and every one of the examples in that list you sourced are cases where people are NOT being politically correct. "Modern Islam is a contemporary example of religious control; insults of their holy figures can put you on a death fatwa."But its the governments of those Predominantly Islamic nations that enforce those crazy fatwas. If the governments didnt enforce death fatwas on insulting holy figures then there wouldnt be any way for death fatwas to be enforced at all on those who insult Muslim Holy figures.....3. PC 'restricts freedom'"Restricting people from freely bludgeoning there neighbors is a restriction on freedom."And its a sensible one too. "The restriction has always been in place, so it is ordinary. Ordinary means “what is commonplace or standard.” I gave other examples of ordinary restrictions on personal freedoms. The rules of political correctness are outside of the normal restrictions on personal free speech and actions, so they are extraordinary."Yeah, but that doesnt mean that PC restricts freedom because people can CHOOSE to not be politically correct if they dont want to be. Its completely voluntary!If people want to voluntarily use safe language to not offend other people, then political correctness isnt the one curtailing their freedom because the person is voluntarily deciding to censor himself, its not being forced upon him to be politically correct. " the orthodoxy exists and is imposed through rules for textbooks, style guides, and campus rules on speech."Its not imposed though. Using politically correct speech is nothing but a recommendation for people to use a certain type of word choice if they want to avoid being seen as a hateful hick to his peers. "My point is that we observe that most liberals choose to conform to political correctness, just as we once observed that Puritans conformed to Puritan orthodoxy."Thats the equivalent of saying that since we observe that bad drivers choose to not use their blinkers, and that Puritans choose to believe in Puritan orthodoxy, then you can compare bad driver habits to the rules of any religion......4. Political correctness 'governs' behavior"Controlling how people may speak is controlling behavior. Say the wrong thing and language police will require you to take “sensitivity training.”"There is no such thing as a formal language police though, and your examples just list people or organizations going (sometimes absurdly) too far in responding to what they believed are inappropriate, prejudicial, and even racist behavior because they look bad because of the actions of their subordinates. If you go out into the street and start yelling the N-word as loud as you can, no one is going to detain you and send you to sensitivity training because youre only making yourself look bad, not anyone else. If on the other hand you use examples of killing slaves as a fun way to teach kids how to lean math, then that makes you, the school, and even the state look bad and look like a bunch of prejudiced racists, in which sensitivity training is enacted.Sensitivity training is only used when someone's insensitivity makes a company or an entire organization look bad when it isnt. On the personal level there is nothing stopping you from going out into town and yelling racist obscenities, because there is no language police. "The Fort Hood massacre was carried out by radical Islamist Nidal Hasan, who openly preached jihad while serving as an Army officer. So why wasn't Hasan drummed out of the military before he got to killing soldiers? The climate of political correctness made people fearful of reporting and prosecuting radical Muslim behavior"Political correctness did not cause the Fort Hood massacre to happen like your source idiotically claims, it was just one of many things that ALLOWED it to happen. There is a HUGE difference "The president of Harvard was fired for merely suggesting the possibility that psychological differences between men and women account for there being more men than women in some branches of science"He resigned because in addition to his statements which sparked an uproar at him and the university which made the University look bad, he also clashed with other teachers at Harvard, and had problematic financial conflict of interest questions between him and another professor. It was a multitude of things that caused him to resign. "Pro dropped a number of points, and he used personal insults"I deny that I did either of those"It's unfortunate that some of the best work is not free, but that's not a good reason for excluding it from debate. Libraries have the books."If I cant verify your sources then I'll treat those arguments as unsubstantiated opinions, if you want to run that risk then thats your choice, and choosing to use verifiable sources is just like choosing to be politically correct.... It doesnt make it a religion.