Just my viewpoint, but I hope and informed one. My problem with the use of the fascism" (not withstanding that some of those using it are borrowing propaganda from actual fascists, unknowingly of course) is not one of it being "offensive"* but that not only is it an appeal to emotion (something anti-PC people should dislike I should imagine as that is the crux of PC dogma) as most of us know "fascism" is a bad thing and so calling something "fascist" gives something an emotional resonance. My main problem with such uses is that fascism is, like Marxism, Thatcherism et al a bona fide political ideology that stems from the political thought of the Italian Fascist Party under Mussolini and is far right-wing nationalist, militarist and totalitarian, capitalistic and corporatist and features a palingenesis or rebirth of the golden age from decadence.
I don't think "PC" for its faults fits this definition; it isn't necessarily "far right", it certainly isn't openly nationalistic or militarist, has nothing whatsoever to do with palingenesis so that leaves totalitarian (which some would argue it may be though if anything it would be closer, but not quite authoritarian) and capitalist/corporatist which though it is compatible with isn't really connected to.
*As I have lost various members of my family to real-life, card-carrying fascists (in France, Poland and Italy), who I think were more into extremely non-PC acts than PC ones but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and though I can understand why some may get offended.
Personally if you have met enough Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, Libertarians or Trotskyists you get used to the term being used for almost anything.
I'll continue to say "fascists". The term is used widely these days and the vast majority of people don't communicate using whatever narrow definition academics have ascribed to the term.
You can say what you like, but that doesn't mean others *can't* criticise you for it. And it isn't a "narrow definition academics have ascribed to the term" but the actual, correct, provable definition. It was only when some parts of the far left got hold of the term to use as an epithet for anyone and anything they disagreed with did it start being applied to things that aren't at all fascist. It was the Soviet Union specifically that started the "that is so fascist" shtick in their political discourse, so people here are ironically borrowing from the Nazis and Soviets; poor old PC must feel like Bulgaria for those few days in '44 when it was in war with both the Axis and Allies!
Entirely agree with the above. The problem to me is not what people are saying but those who seek for whatever reason to dictate what others can and cannot say.
I am not merely being argumentative but I am generally curious. What reasons do you think the arbiters of PC are seeking to dictate what people can and cannot say? Do you think everyone should be able to say anything they want? If it is, as I suspect more nuanced, what should we be able to say and what should we not be able to say?
I assume you've never used twitter...
I used to use it occasionally but I found it irritating to be honest. But how is twitter PC? If I recall people of a certain political ideology that for PC reasons I shall not name were allowed to get away with saying a lot of offensive things about Palestinians constantly. Likewise Gypsies were often attacked by Sun writers on there (rather than criticised which is valid). Or is it PC to slander them? I legitimately don't know anymore!
But I was more implying no one here is pro-PC unless of course we mean that being anti-racist or generally tolerant are PC in which case I would gladly and proudly come under that banner.
As far as multiculturism is concerned, in general I'm in favour of it but it's never going to work where one of the 'cultures' is underpinned by a religion that has no interest in co-existence with any other culture or religion but merely wishes to subjugate all others and whose values and attitudes are largely medieval.
You'll get no argument from me on this point.
I have liked many Christians that I have met over the years but I do agree that we should be a fully secular country rather than having the "one true faith" as an official one. We aren't in the medieval period (my main area) anymore or the far more religiously inclined early modern period. This is the 21st Century and we should really move on from such feudal vestiges.