Let us first begin by explaining what the PC Culture is (rather than what it aims to be). Proponents of the culture give differing opinions as to what the culture is and how it is lived out, but the uniting principle is the same. One of the principal aspect of the PC Culture is to actively inject social taboos into methods of expression, most commonly targeted being words or phrases. The tabooing of words such as the N-word and the PC Culture is different in that the taboo against the N-word came about in isolation, meaning the taboo did not come to be instituted as a part of a larger culture. The PC Culture, on the other hand, is a recent movement which actively seeks out vocabulary that the culture deems inadequate. For this reason we see college campuses debating as to which words or phrases are PC, ranging from "Are you deaf?" to "politically correct." The effect of the culture, the tabooing of methods of expression, is tantamount to censorship, an act of intentional suppression of contents, lacking only the assistance of governmental coercion (something is up when even a liberal POTUS comments against this culture... but I digress).
Another principal aspect of the PC Culture is that it seeks to taboo methods of expression that may be offensive to people. A biased view from a proponent would say that the culture seeks to taboo methods of expression that are offensive to people. But let's set this conflict aside for a moment and assume the culture's choice to use "are."
This aspect is where the discrepancy springs forth when the proponents of the culture gives support to Kaepernick's case. Standing down during the anthem is offensive. Many people have found Kaepernick's actions to be offensive, so it is offensive. Why ought not this method of expression labelled politically incorrect? To ground the PC Culture's validity upon mere offensiveness of methods thus runs into a problem. It becomes apparent, then, as to why "may" is a more accurate description. Words are offensive insofar as they are construed as offensive; offensiveness of a topic depends entirely upon interpretation. For example, if someone cracks a stereotypical Asian joke, it is entirely up to me to find offense or to laugh with others.
To avoid this discrepancy, a proponent would focus down the scope of the qualification of validity. To do so, one would focus the culture down to tabooing of methods of expressions offensive to the disadvantaged (the disabled, the poor, the historically oppressed minorities, etc). To justify this new grounding, a proponent would then have to characterize tabooing methods of expression that offends the disadvantaged as a display of virtue of kindness and respecting others.
First, focusing down the grounding still does not overcome the objection that offensiveness of methods of expression depends entirely upon personal interpretation. It is still entirely up to the disadvantaged to interpret something as offensive. I digress here to mention a point relevant to the topic of being offended: Someone who has grown up in a poor, crime-heavy neighborhood or been in a support group for disabled people would quickly find that the disadvantaged the PC Culture attempts to embrace have learned to not be offended; through their experiences, they learn not to take the imperfections of the world too seriously lest they fall to constant anger and unhappiness. One will also find that the vast majority of the proponents of the culture come from a advantaged (or privileged) background.
Second, I object that virtue ethics shows no partiality. Rich or poor, White or colored, disadvantaged or advantaged, all human beings are bound to ethics. Being kind to someone should have no bearing whether someone is disadvantaged or advantaged. In showing zero partiality, the society should put the burden of kindness on both sides of a dialogue rather than treating the disadvantaged in a special manner. In embracing the epistemic limits of the human mind, one would quickly notice that it is impossible to count for every methods of expression that could be offensive to someone. To combat this, one would find that it is far easier - and far less utopian - to learn cognitive skills to interpret someone else's expressions without offense, insofar as those expressions made could be reasonably perceived as arising from ignorance (burning of the flag would be an expression that cannot be reasonably perceived as arising from ignorance due to the global acknowledgement of the act as inherently aggressive).
From what has been said, the contradictions within the PC Culture can be seen.
