To go further, PC incorporates the wonderful double-think of equity and diversity -which are contradictory. It insists that we celebrate the acheivements of black culture or female pioneers (but not white culture or male pioneers) but then warns us not to indentify people by their sex or the colour of their skin because that's misogynist and racist. A questionnaire about ethnicity will list “White British” and “White other”, these terms mix biology and politics and therefore express nothing. Plenty of words that are not derogatory at all like mulatto or swarthy could nevertheless be deemed offensive by anyone, and the complaint would be treated seriously -and ciminalised- because neither the actual meaning of the word, nor the context in which it is used, matter. All that counts is whether the complaint applies to a privileged PC group.
PC terms are an imposition of a particular brand of politics in everyday life and are a flat statement that some things are verboten. New atheism, feminism, multiculturalism or environmentalism are not really about believing anything in particular; they are ideologies that are entirely confrontational, they exist merely to oppose those they see as enemies (Christianity, men, Western culture etc). They celebrate nothing, they just repudiate. It's an ideology currently supported by the state (PC, environmentalism, internationalism, relativism and so on). This vision has been inculcated on the people through all possible means. No sphere of life has been allowed to deviate from the official dogma. Schools indoctrinate blatantly, businesses are being made to comply with social engineering policies, Christian bakers are bullied to bankruptcy, committing a PC faux pas in the public eye is social suicide, scientists who challenge climate change are ostracised, sport is politicised, “feminist economics” is treated seriously in academia. The same people who claim to apply the highest standards of rigour to any discussion have been for years destroying any possibility of serious debate by refusing to make distinctions and allowing any fool a voice -as long as they subscribe to the LWR dogma. The media has been giving a platform to celebrities to speak on any issue they happen to be obsessed about. Meryl Streep’s opinions on pesticides were enough to ban some chemicals. Bono, Geldof and Clooney lecture world leaders, Jamie Oliver makes government policy, Anita Sarkeesian 'informs' the UN. It all falls under the nebulous cloud of PC.
Terms like “Islammophobe” “racist”, “homophobe”, “sexist” or “climate denier” have no specific meaning, they're just labels for anyone who does not conform with PC dogma. There is no intellectual substance behind the words and they are not meant to be disputed. They act like insults rather than nouns. Like yellow stars on Jews, they are signifiers of moral inferiority and warnings to the populace that such people are undesirables. If there's one thing LWRs love it's labels. But don't label anyone because that's racist. Confused?