Historically, the modern sense came in the last 1980s as a pejorative term the right could use against the left.

You'll note that phrases like "I defend the right of Americans to bear arms" is never considered politically correct, even if said by a politician who utters it to get votes - a right-wing politically correct statement.

PC is a boogie-man term that the right uses whenever the left tries to complain that someone on the right is being racist, sexist, cruel, demeaning, etc.

Complaints of being PC come up when students want to put signs up describing, say, the historical context of slavery and black oppression by people otherwise considered heroes. These are students who want to add context, having their voices shut off, not students trying to limit debate.

I could go on, but what do you think that PC means, in such a way that people who are PC would agree to it? Because I'm "PC", and I agree with matt_the_bass's quote that part of being PC is to reproach people for being a 'd_ck'. I don't see how speaking up limits debate (withing the usual time/place/manner restrictions). I don't agree with Altman's summary that PC is a general "willing[ness] to make accommodations to treat others well."

Regarding "policies, administration ...", etc., I have to know which definition of PC you are using, and if you think that the freedom of speech trumps the freedom of assembly/association.

matt_the_bass quotes a definition of PC which is "don’t be a d_ck, and if you are, people will call you out on it".

These are two different views of PC. I agree with the one matt_the_bass quoted. Altman is wrong about what PC means. Much of Altman's essay depends on that wrong definition.

I read the essay. Altman is an idiot, for the reasons Gizmodo describes.

For all we know, unification of QM and GR would have happened already if a gay man hadn't left the field after dealing with one too many homophobic comments.