People accusing the OP of having the definition of "respect" wrong are needlessly engaging in hair splitting.
It's usually unproductive to insist that someone is mistaken about the meaning of a word instead of addressing what they perfectly understood it to mean. It becomes a bit ridiculous when the meaning given by the OP is so common. Just google the exact phrase "treated with respect" and see for yourselves in case you're unfamiliar with that particular use (which I doubt).
On policital correctness, I'm very familiar with the expression. The Wikipedia definition and other similar ones that appeared in this thread don't come off as a surprise. That's more or less what I expected to see. It's definitely not a meaningless expression, unlike "jeopotillian", which I just made up.
I'm not on either side (is that meta-politically correct?). I go on a case by case basis mainly because this expression covers a lot of ground (probably more than it was originally meant if we go by its actual, real usage). I'm generally inclined to avoid euphemisms like the ridiculous "people of size", "people of color", etc. while I'm also aware that using expressions with derogatory connotations is generally not a good idea unless you want to offend someone. Sometimes, describing people as black can be more useful than describing their clothes, and going out of your way to avoid saying "the black guy" makes me think that a society that encourages people to act that way has still racial issues that no amount of euphemisms is going to disguise (quite the contrary). Also, the obsession with the "N word", pointed out earlier by Lorentz, baffles me. Just some examples of what I perceive of "PCness gone mad".
But there's also one thing about the use of this expression that hasn't been stressed enough so far. The expression is massively overused by conservatives who very often extend its meaning to "anything liberal". The fact that the expression is derogatory and applies mainly to liberal views was a perfect recipe for this semantic slippery slope. For example, I've been accused of being politically correct for having a skeptic approach by people who regard homosexuality as a clinical condition, people who make hasty generalizations about Muslims, blacks, etc. and other typical irrational beliefs coming from the right end of the spectrum. This use, even if it's misuse, exists, and needs to be acknowledged because it creates misunderstandings and misperceptions about the different "sides".
I'll side with Upchurch in that accusing someone of being too PC doesn't add anything useful to a debate. Even if it's true. I don't usually call people on their PCness for the same reason I don't call them on their stupidity, even if I think they're too PC or stupid. If I think someone is being too stupid or too PC, that's probably because I'm seeing flaws in their arguments. Isn't it more productive to focus on their arguments, if I want to engage them at all?
The good-mannered level-headed internet persona is just a ruse.
(I am half-tempted to try and get my forum name changed to Heretical Gadfly.)
