Who actually uses "Political Correctness"?

I know what steel manning is, and again, euphemisms are definitionally deceptive. Furthermore, no, religious people do not have a right to curb other people's civil liberties because it suits their fancy, that's not how civil liberties work. Again, you are ignoring the bulk of the talk about euphamisums. 

I will give you a list of euphemisms please explain how they are deceptive. Usually they merely take the sting off of something.

My wife has passed away instead of died.

Johnny is special instead of stupid.

I drained the snake instead of I pissed

I lost my job instead of I was fired. 

I gave you a link to about 75 examples earlier. How were any of those examples deceptive?

You are using the word euphemism wrong. All it takes is following the link I gave you earlier and reading through it to know that. 

I don't think there is any point in arguing further about this. You'll apparently continue to use the word euphemism incorrectly instead of clicking my link or googling what it is yourself. You'll continue to conflate euphemism with political correctness and confuse and conflate pc with dog whistles. I gave you a list of euphemisms above. Pet me show you a dog whistle.

"Illegals are taking our jobs"

Racist dog whistle (possibly not always)

Same statement now with a euphemism for illegals

"Undocumented workers are taking our jobs"

Same statement below but said in a politically correct way.

"We need to punish business owners who violate labor laws" (aka that hire illegals)

Saying the following is not a euphism no matter what the intent.

" As a preacher who does not support gay marriage, I would appreciate if I am not threatened with legal actions by refusing to participate". 

The left has its own share of euphemisms, if that is your preference to define PC as such. "Woke" is a great example. Hell, "PC," itself, is a creation of the left by former NYT journalist Richard Bernstein. "Gender" hides behind the label of "choice" rather than birth designation. "Choice" itself, in terms of abortion, hides behind itself rather than "pro abortion," which is the typical choice of "pro choice."

So, you cannot say with impunity that the right always, as if exclusively, hides things behind PC. All are culpable.

Um... couple things, gender and sex are different... that's what psychologist and gender specialist (you know, they get degrees in this sort of thing) say about it. You can refuse to accept modern science, but that's your issue, not a euphemism. Um... most leftists actually don't like abortion, but they prefer it over the woman bodily autonomy being ripped from them.soo..... it literally is all of those things, I'm an exception in that regard. Its about women choosing if they want their fetus or not.... sure bud.

Euphemism: "a word or phrase used to avoid saying an unpleasant or offensive word:"

Please stop with your arrogance without actually providing a definition. To replace a word to avoid saying it inherently deceptive, whether that deceptiveness is bad or good is up to debate. 

Yes you have the dictionary definition in front of you, with an example below it. You have went on the website I provided that has examples of it and you still do not understand it.  You did go on the website I provided with 75 examples of it in Use right? 

You should now know saying something like

"We should have state rights because decentralization of power is more democratic" is not a euphemism for something racist. Even if  you think it is a dog whistle for that. 

You are using the word wrong. It's not debatable. 

You are confusing a descriptive definition for a prescriptive one as well. 

I mean... in your opinion I'm using it wrong, but... you see I trust my political science teachers over you here. Those were some classical historic euphemisms, one used by long ago Goldwater (a contender for president), they used a shield of "States rights" to stop immigration, a racist "dog whistle" which isn't really one... that's more of a call to action, this is saying one thing in order to avoid saying something else, does that sound familiar?

You should probably trust your English teacher on whether you are using the word correctly or not, but since most people know what euphemism means your political science teachers if you take them to this can probably help you as well. 

I don't understand you. If you showed me a word I was using wrong, I would not pervert the definition of the word to say I was using it right the whole time.  I would say "thank you, for teaching me something new". You on the other hand just make yourself look silly and apply the definition of euphemism more liberally than was ever intended. 

I literally... I gave you an exact definition, and then I provided an example of how it was being used... do you... I feel you're being stubborn at this point, like, does that example not satisfy your super-specific term radar? Lets say I was using these incredibly similar phrases incorrectly?... so what? They can be and have been used interchangeably. I really don't get all of your rants here...

also you are just... wrong.. so have fun with that.

I'll just stay with my dictionaries over here

Also gold water was a libertarian. You can argue libertarian values were harmful towards the civil rights movement in some respects, but it is silly to claim he was a racist because he believes in a decentralized form of government. 

Your dictionary agrees with me though

So... how? 

A person said one thing... to avoid saying something else.... so.... what else would you call that? Oh, the literal definition of euphemism? I don't even know where you're going at this point, did you ignore the other half of my post? Why am I even asking, you apparently didn't read the OP either, first, you weren't correct, second, let's say you were, why does it matter? Explain it to me.

If I said a dress looked nice on my wife to avoid calling her fat, that would not be a euphemism, despite the definition you just provided. 

Well... yes it would be. You're assuming they're bad, I'm simply pointing out that it can be bad. Do you disagree with the Cambridge dictionary? I mean you can, but... I'm good.

Euphemisms can be bad or good. I am not assuming that. Cambridge dictionary is not wrong, it is your liberal interpretation of it's definition. It doesn't give the full definition of the word though. If you look up golf in the dictionary, many say a game played with a stick and a ball, but as you know the definition would also apply to baseball and cricket if taken as prescriptive instead of descriptive. 

The definition is not wrong, just incomplete. Dictionaries are meant to give you a quick ideal of what a word means not be am in depth analysis. 

Okay.. well, dictionaries give you the definition of a word, you can add in stuff... but that would take something to support your interpretation or it would just be you... inserting things. So, what did it not include, because as I've seen I applied the definition perfectly fine, please explain exactly where I messed up oh great interpreter.

It is for obvious alternative language to mean the same thing. Not just obvious but intentionally obvious. 

Telling my wife she looks nice in a dress to avoid calling her fat is not intentionally obvious so it is not a euphemism. 

Calling a toilet the john is obvious and intentionally so, it would be considered a euphemism.

Saying states rights are important to avoid saying let's mandate integration, would not be a euphemism because it is intentionally deceptive. 

What.... there is no difference between them, they are all deceptive...if you are hiding or omitting the truth you are being deceptive... that's how that works. It doesn't matter how obvious that seems to you, IF you use a different phrase or word for another word, to avoid saying something else, THEN it is a euphemism, such as the definition says. You can disagree with the dictionary, but... I see no reason to take your word for it.

No, like saying mentally disabled instead of retard would not necessarily be deceptive. They both describe the same exact medical condition, but one feels nicer so we call it a euphemism. 

The examples I gave above in my last post are accurate. I suggest you look at how educated people use the word. Use google scholar to find studies with the word in it. 100% of everyone will use it in the way I am saying, while you'll find zero using your more liberal interpretation of the definition. 

Euphemisms are not meant to be deceptive. Not sure where you get that ideal. Calling a toilet a john is not deceptive. Saying passed away instead of dead is not deceptive. 

But, as I've previously said, according to the OED [which also has degreed experts behind it; and its business is definition of words, after all], "gender" and "sex" are different words and meanings,  sociologists and psychologists, whose business is not definition of words, be damned.

you do realize that the people who define words... are the people with specialities in that thing, right? If a mechanical; engineer defined "abortion" would you trust that over a medical doctor's definition? No! OF course you wouldn't that would be stupid.

Um... they are.. also - no retard is just " a meaner way of saying the same medical condition" the term "retard" is not a medical condition, do you mean retardation? Because colloquially they mean different things, and the word was used to oppress disabled people of all stripes... so no, again don't be so arrogant if you don't get it. If you are saying something to avoid calling it something else, then it is naturally deceptive. Calling a toilet a john isn't a euphemism, because your not calling it a john to not call it a toilet, your calling it a john because that is a colloquial name for it... this is not hard to understand.

That's a fine argument for the launch of new words, but neither gender nor sex are new words. According to the OED [which happens to be better in the task of research of etymology of words than any other science discipline], 'gender,' and 'sex,' in English, have both been around in English since the 14th century; both with their current, separate meanings as nouns. 

And they used to mean similar things, and then people discovered that there was a difference (we call it science), and then they had to distinguish it, and sure they could have made a new word up, but instead, they used a word that was associated and actually didn't mean the same thing as sex... you know about gender roles? Yeah? that is what gender is more associated with, so actually.... yeah, please stop being transphobic, its bad.

I am not transphobic, but I am opposed to wordsmithing on the fly, just because someone's nose is pushed out of shape and does not want to create a new word to define what they mean. Our arbitrary reimagination of a word meaning does not fly, in my book. Again, sociologists be damned. Let them create a new word for their new definition. But, they're lazy. That doesn't fly in wordsmithing, either.

Tell me, for example, why Canada has not created new gametes for their 15 so-called official genders? Why not? None of which, by the way, include Male and Female, even though gametes currently exist only by those designated names? Why?  P.C. is behind the 8-ball.

I mean... do you think there is no science or history to the word gender being used in this context? Because there is... and again, the experts who write your precious articles and are specially qualified to do it, wrote these ones... so you're either begging the question... or you just aren't aware of that. I'm inclined to think you are the former.

I do not have to think about it. I can refer to my OED, which you likely do not have [over $1,000 minimum for its 20 volumes], and therefore cannot comment on, which offers 9 centuries [some centuries have multiple references of use] of use of the word, 13th to 21st, and in no century does it define gender as more than two types: male and female. Sorry, but that's the official etymology of the word, sociologists be damned. That there may by history of errant use, I do not dispute. I dispute the proper application of use per the English syntax word-use authority that is the OED. It is the ultimate master of the language, period. The citation of it cannot be refuted by any other pretended expert.

In other words.... ad hoc, I spent money on this thing, and I'm upset its been outdated this quickly? Mm mm, don't worry laptop users feel your pain.