Should anyone wonder why we characterize political correctness as evil, consider the following from Karl Popper, one of the architects of what we now call political correctness. By calling itself “tolerant,” the only thing political correctness won’t “tolerate” is “intolerance” which, of course, it defines. In political correctness we have all the close mindedness of the worst kind of theocracy dressed in moralistic clothes and pretending that, in practicing labeling of The Other as devoid of basic human rights it is upholding all that is greatest in humankind. The formula of “no tolerance for intolerance” renders the politically correct concept of tolerance meaningless…and dangerous.
From The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945):
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. Hence the constant desire to link politically incorrect ideas with “violence.” Ed.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
All these paradoxes can easily be avoided if we frame our political demands in… some such manner as this. We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism; that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate, i.e. who are tolerant; that is controlled by, and is accountable to, the public.