= new reply since forum marked as read
At some point, the n-word became rude.
"Politically correct" is to say there's a policy established by a group or individual that must be enforced. What was acceptable yesterday is now, according to policy, wrong, without discussion or buy-in by a wide range of people. Continuing with the same example, the n-word for a while was politically incorrect. Even among populations in which it was considered to be okay to use, if only in private conversation, the declaration "that is unacceptable" was imposed--whether by government, the media, or others that came in to shape politics and culture.
It goes beyond simple use of individual words to the expression of opinions, thoughts, and even opposing policies. People aren't considered just "rude" in they express them: They are dangerous and might invite some sort of additional consequence.
The origin is different from good manners. You can have both political correctness and propriety operating, but they have different origins and foci. "Politically correct" started off as a completely serious term: "This is not according to right policy" (or "right politics"
or "proper according to policy" (or politics). Russian wasn't good at the time at distinguishing between politics and policy, and originally it was "Eto ne politicheski pravil'no" where all kinds of things could be "politicheski pravil'nyi" or "politically correct". Politruks used the phrase a lot: Policy was top down, set from above or by a committee, and what was right was decided by political concerns and policy concerns.
From Russian it got into the American Communist Party lingo, which obediently followed the KPSS party line and calqued as needed. In both cultures, it quickly became ironic: It was a jab in the eyes of policy-makers and officialdom, who often said, "We like democracy and want to consult broadly with the people" but, nonetheless, imposed a changing and sometimes capricious set of policies and politics on their flocks. It often sights "rudeness" not in intent, but in some interpretation by others.
Take the entire mess of what to call Americans of sub-Saharan African descent. I grew up in the '60s with one term that was acceptable, and fairly newly in vogue in the media. Then in the early '70s I was told to use another. A couple of years later I was told that was offensive and if I didn't use a third term it was racist. So I used that term, only to be told that it was racist and given a new term to use--one that had just, a month before, been described as racist and passe. It wasn't thinking; it didn't matter what intent was behind any specific term. The use of the terms was dictated by somebody; I was judged not by intent, not my motive, not even by intonation and sentence content, but by whether I was kowtowing to what somebody (or somebodies) somewhere said I had to use to avoid being judged and condemned. The politics kept changing; right or wrong depended entirely upon the politics. It had nothing to do with "rudeness" as far as I was concerned, broadly accepted social norms for governing interpersonal behavior. As a member of the demos, I had no say over what political culture was to be because some political or cultural party bosses elsewhere stipulated right behavior. I was merely informed and, a good drone, expected to comply without dissent. It's easy to see the similarity between that and the way the KPSS would switch politics and policies and expect conformity. The KPSS was the people; the Central Committee was the people; the chairman was the people.
I use the phrase when my speech and values are set from the top down, whether it's at work where there is a small group that sets policy and social norms or outside of work where all too often some self-appointed social and political prelates stipulate what is acceptable and call it "democracy". If I agree, then my usage of a term or phrase or idea isn't "politically correct", even though it might be. If I disagree, then it is and, as before, it's a jab in the eye to those who say, "I'm a democrat" and really just want to impose their views, without discussion or acceptance, or others.
In the '60s I was told you can't legislate morality. Peer pressure to shame pregnant girls and do some other things was wrong. That was fine when the counterculture was fighting for acceptance and a voice. As soon as it had enough votes in Congress, it was busily legislating morality, and delights in exerting top-down peer pressure. Apparently legislating morality and peer pressure were actually good, and people misspoke: It's good when it's for what I think, but bad when I disapprove.
