Political correctness is something that should be acknowledged as a threat to society.

You bring up the contention that political correctness, by seeking to not offend people, then is comparable to Marxism by making "everyone equal". You claim it is a threat to our society that must be acknowledged. Political correctness, however, does not appear to be a new concept in our society but rather it seems to be a term invented to allow certain groups of people to feign victimisation in order to make their speech more palatable to the general public. The idea of changing the words that one uses or the way that certain topics are handled in order to conform to cultural expectations is as old as humanity itself: there have always been "taboo" topics, certain words that implied far more than one might literally take from them, that sort of thing. In my household, any references to kissing or that sort of thing was considered quite taboo. This is not oppression - this is simple politeness. There are certain things that one does not do for fear of breaking social convention, such as go nude to a business meeting or calling a man "madam". The actual harm of these is very low (excepting very rare circumstances, your nudity will not maim or kill), but the purpose of politeness is not to prevent actual harm but rather to create a "common ground" by which people in a society may interact on an equal and comfortable level. Regardless of what you may think of the chief executive of some company or group, to call him "sir" rather than various disaparaging titles (some of which may refer to race or sexual orientation) helps to create a more productive atmosphere for goal-achieving behaviour. This benefits society directly by allowing a wider range of contributions. Indeed, one can say that politeness has a very important role to play in helping to prevent the marginalisation of minority groups. When one uses a racial slur or makes a reference to gender even in a joking manner, it helps to reaffirm the idea that the targeted minority group is "different" and "separate" from the dominant group. The perpetuation of this meme slowly results in these groups being treated separately and, ultimately, in forming their own insular cultures. Division is not in the best interests of any nation, and the promotion of unity is a very important aim of politeness. This does not at all imply that free speech out to be stifled or that certain ideas must become off limits: indeed, history has shown time and time again that attempting to legislate this sort of thing is rarely effective. However, even the most scientifically dynamic of societies have had standards of politeness that do not infringe upon their ability to research and speak. In the United States, most speech is protected under the Bill of Rights, and it is social mores that create an atmosphere of "political correctness". In this view, however, political correctness (far from being the antithesis of freedom of speech) becomes the realisation of freedom of speech. I personally wholeheartedly agree that any person ought to be able to make whatever racial slur he or she wishes. However, is it not equally important that the people around that person be able to then register their displeasure, either through speech of their own or through "voting with their wallets"? I should note that both people in my scenario are presently free under our society to execute their respective actions. Furthermore, the definition of "political correctness" itself can be somewhat confusing for a debate such as this. So long as free speech rights are protected, is it not "politically correct" to be railing against the "politically correct"? For instance, when Mr. O'Reilly goes on the television to demand that various retail outlets use "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays", is he not demanding that people change their (consequentially neutral) speech in order to prevent him and those who agree with him from being insulted? By using a definition of "political correctness" that encompasses anything that anybody may be offended by, the definition becomes too wide and loses its power to describe society. Thus, what we see is that politeness in general serves an important function in promoting social stability without at all sacrificing the ability of society to move forward in freedom and liberty. Indeed, we see that exercise of political correctness is an affirmation of freedom itself. As well, many definitions of "political correctness" are too broad and become useless in discussion. In the face of all this, the charge that political correctness is somehow cultural "Marxism" appears to be quite irrelevant: unless state-based harms can be demonstrated, it is exceedingly difficult to say that politeness infringes upon ones legal right to free speech or that it at all "threatens society". I look forward to your response!