A few thoughts.
There are some excellent points being made here, especially for such a diverse group.
Regarding "political correctness", I feel that at times it's closer to censorship by prohibiting people to freely speak their minds. On the other hand, in a civilized society, communication and the expression of thoughts and ideas would be made frankly, sincerely, and with consideration towards others. There's a fine line that is ever-varying between open, courteous discourse and what others consider to be divisive, stereotyping, slander, and racist. I think I would rather see erring slightly more on the side of open discourse, if only for clarification of thoughts and ideas. If an idea or thought is based on incorrect assumptions, misinformation, or is simply wrong, then a courteous correction can be made.
Another forum I frequent, with ~20,000 members, erupted upon discussing profiling relative to 9/11. The remark that started it dealt with the idea that if there is a suspect or suspects for a crime that has a specific description, then people of that description should be looked at and scrutinized more closely.
Some considered it profiling because certain characteristics are often racial or regional in nature, which singles out everyone within that segment unfairly.
Others thought it only prudent to be more wary of people sharing certain characteristics or descriptive traits or features if a person or people possessing those traits is suspected of a crime.
One man's effective police work is another man's profiling.
This is another very fine line that's being tread on. Alot depends on the situation or circumstances surrounding a particular event. However, alot of common sense (which isn't very common anymore) is needed in order to recognize the appropriate circumstances and act accordingly without becoming too invasive.