It's PC gone mad, 2.0
In the early nineties, there was something of a drive to be 'politically correct'. Initially the term was an umbrella description for language or behaviour that was knowingly sensitive to, and actively guarded against, causing offence.
For instance, instead of using a racial slur to describe a particular race or people, there would be a politically-correct alternative that would be politely inoffensive. It was all very well-intentioned and inclusive.
Very quickly, however, the term 'political correctness' started to be used as a pejorative. Some didn't see the problem with using
any language, regardless of offence caused, whilst others felt the 'PC brigade' had gone to far.
Thus was born the PC brigade
brigade - people who would actively seek out the most nonsensical examples of political correctness to strengthen their case that PC behaviour is inherently ludicrous and needlessly censoring.
They were not without ammunition. As with any movement, no matter how well meaning, there are always fringes that verge on parody. And of course there are always disingenuous people far more arsed about
looking good than doing good.
The PC backlash - which gained far greater media traction than the largely sensible initial movement - did however tar anyone looking to improve the manner in which people were treated, referred to, and respected with the same brush.
Fast forward nearly thirty years and there is again a groundswell against what is seen as unnecessary and unneeded PC-ness. This time around, the focus of reactionary ire is upon social media and Twitter in particular.
Jennifer Saunders recently voiced her indignation at how the extremes of political correctness are affecting modern comedy:
"You are not allowed to just write comedy and put it on television. There’s a lot of tutting. It’s very annoying. I do look back at stuff we’ve done in the past and think: oh God, the Twittersphere would go mad."
It's certainly not the first time Saunders has expressed such concerns. Last year she told the Press Association:
"People are so politically correct now, we couldn't get away with anything. You can't even get away to be a politically incorrect character, because that is seen as being politically incorrect."
Her sentiments are mirrored by comic actor James Buckley, who played Jay in the Inbetweeners. Speaking to
Digital Spy this week, he remarked:
"It seems to be cool at the moment to be offended by stuff, and that's a shame. I'm hoping it will pass, because I do think that possibly people would maybe be more offended by
The Inbetweeners if it was to be made today."
These concerns about the dangers of causing offence are partially valid. The parameters of what is and isn't deemed socially acceptable are constantly shifting, as was ever the case, so it can be complicated to navigate.
The omnipresence of social media also means that irked feedback is more immediate and shareable than ever. So even if a small percentage of your audience have taken exception to your output, you are jumped upon immediately.
That said, you do wonder how much of the incredulity is either unfounded or purposely exaggerated. Much like its nineties incarnation, the phenomenon of political correctness gone mad
gone mad often seems wildly disproportionate.
People love summoning up the invisible spectre of widespread righteous indignation, regardless of whether it is widespread at all. And of course the media love to amplify any unhappiness or potential controversy for the sake of 'news'.
For celebrities (or anyone with a visible social media profile), dozens of angry people all popping up in their mentions at once can feel like a wave of outrage, even if it's only a tiny percentage of hundreds of thousands, or even millions.
You can appreciate why individuals at the receiving end can feel under siege. Far more duplicitous are those who evoke political correctness as an all-pervading threat to 'freedom' - as if it's a binary war and you have to pick a side.
It is no coincidence that many of those who shout the loudest and most often about the scourge of PC are skewed to the right, whether that's media outlets, politicians, commentators, or tangerine-tinted world leaders.
The thing about any form of phantom menace is that it can be as big or far-reaching as your imagination and powers of persuasion allow. You don't have to prove the scale of the problem as long as you can evidence it exists at all.
The beauty of the internet is that it's a big place to fish, and if you look hard enough you're bound to find some whoppers. Someone somewhere
will be morally outraged about pretty much anything. That's not a threat to freedom, it's maths.
It certainly doesn't follow that there's an epidemic of new wave puritanism that needs eradicating. Language evolves, and social norms shift, but there's acute focus on the weirder edges of political correctness that's disingenuous at best.
There's the likes of Piers Morgan, or pretty much any Daily Mail columnist, who actively trade in outrage. It is their unabashed aim to poke at the online hornet's nest and react in faux dismay at the resulting outrage they attract.
And then there are those who try really hard to attract politically-correct consternation and are left looking rather pointless when it isn't forthcoming. The Sadiq Khan balloon was a particularly limp and unsuccessful attempt.
Even worst is when brands try to cause a stir for commercial purposes, essentially attempting to monetise the notion of political correctness gone mad. The stink of opportunistic desperation is hard to shake off.
The most recent example is Gourmet Burger Kitchen's quite atrocious efforts at riling people with their
#currywars campaign. There is no fucking chance the concept went through planning without a consideration for potential outrage.
It was clearly intended to aggravate and aggrieve, create something of an online brouhaha, and then even if/when the campaign was pulled, job done. A summoning of the politically correct phantom for free publicity.
Regardless of the time we live in and its new rules and preferred phrasing, the time-old tactic of not being an intentional dickhead prevails. Or rather, if you
are going to be a dickhead, accept you'll get some shit and deal with it.
You know what's more tedious than sad bastards being offended by everything? Sad bastards who are offended by sad bastards being offended (...although by that logic writing about the second-stage sad bastard makes me King Saddo)
It's not that you
can't say anything these days - unless it's illegal or against the rules of privately-owned mediums, you patently
can. It's that you can say anything,
BUT you will be called up on it if people disagree. Those are the terms.
There is a proud tradition of off-colour jokes on Twitter, that supposed bastion of PC-ness. You know the ones - you'll happily like, but not necessarily retweet. Some people will surreptitiously guffaw, some will outwardly complain.
That's the accepted risk for any sick joke. But it's not even a guilty pleasure if the author is being a genuinely cruel twat.
Political correctness can absolutely be taken to an extreme, and no can definitively say what those extremes are. But most people know what's out of order and what's not. Good intentions are generally accepted; dickheads are usually found out.
If you're going to say something risky, there's always a risk that some people will take it badly. And there's only a phantom if you really want to look for it - not unlike some offence.
