Not really. "Political correctness" encompasses a set of values that aren't the only good values. There are other positive values that are incompatible with it in one way or another. Saying "it's just about not being an asshole" is just a way of claiming everyone with different values than you is an asshole.
Translated into a values, I'd say it'd be something like "focus on helping your long-term community members," meaning you'd try to preserve your local tree-trimmer's standard of living.
The conflicting PC value is something like "focus on helping newcomers, regardless of any negative effects on your community's existing members," meaning you'd support the immigrants and immigration, even if it pushes your local tree-trimmer into poverty.
[1] I'm starting to get annoyed with how economics seems to be used as a substitute for so many ways of thinking that it's totally unsuited to replace. Not just here, but all kinds of discussions. It has too firm a hold on people's minds.
If you really think that "being PC" just means not being a jerk to other people, you should consider talking to people with differing views more often.
You were sitting around with your friends at the dinner table and suddenly you said I think everyone should be treated equally regardless of race? Or maybe you were in a discussion regarding reparations or the equal opportunity act and you suggested everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, meaning that you didn't think abuses of the past should be fixed (on edit: fixed in that particular way at least)?
I mean it just seems a weird statement for you to make and censured for without some context.
It is, in fact, quite politically correct to make a case for giving minorities perceived as disadvantaged a "leg up" in getting in the door, whether through admissions quotas or advantageous interviewing policies. Regardless of context, even. You can walk into work tomorrow, say that, and there will be no repercussions.
Responding that you think the best candidate should be chosen regardless of race (even in context) can be called racist. I think you know this, though.
The way that any time political correctness is brought up, there's a case being made that, "Well, maybe that's a dog-whistle and you're actually just a racist," contributes to the problem, too. One side gets the benefit of the doubt regardless of context. The other is presumed to be racist until proven otherwise.
As the former pride themselves in being rude, the latter excuse (or justify) their behavior on the need to go against the status quo/not perpetuate inequalities, etc.
It's much like how the "feminism = equality" slogan is inaccurate; not being accurate does not mean it's the opposite, but that it's an oversimplifying definition for the masses that actually ignores all the theory, politics, history and movements of it.
Some people seem like they need it, or maybe even a carer to let them know. They’re not as bad as people who think that being abrasive and lacking social skills is some secret sauce on their “brilliance,” which you get too much in medicine, tech, and STEM in general.
It isn’t the secret sauce, it’s what some people are willing to tolerate during your productive years, sometimes.
Your statement is more an attempt to establish a new norm and less an articulation of a well-established one. It's not unlikely that you'll encounter someone for which it's unknown as such.
Other replies have already hit the main points of why this position doesn't really make sense. Mostly it comes down to "jerk" being a subjective term.
However, I'd take thing a step further even. Why is it a problem if someone is a jerk? As adults shouldn't we be trivially able to disregard the aspects of someones communication we deem "jerky"? Why do we consider it reasonable to escalate hostility when someone is being (what we perceive as) a jerk? "Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me", is an objectively true statement. Any harm done by words is self inflicted. If we use the basic, nearly automatic, capacity we have to filter communication, "jerks" aren't really a problem.
Why is it a problem for that jerk to simply not be a jerk?
""Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me", is an objectively true statement."
It's not.
"Any harm done by words is self inflicted."
It's not, and this "blame the victim" mentality you're displaying is, well, quite frankly, rather jerk-ish.
There will always be in this world obnoxious, boorish, impolite people. We should all try not to be such. But their existence doesn't mean the world is in a state of crisis, nor should we compromise time-tested principle of freedom to deal with the (non) crisis.
This view is very popular but it is completely counterfactual and ahistorical. Firstly, it completely ignores the issue that it is possible to hurt other people without intending to do so. This is something that is basically impossible to not do as an ordinary flawed human being. You will hurt other people, period. You will do it, I will do it, everyone will do it. The question is how do you respond. If your response to being called out on hurting other people is to say "no, that didn't happen, you weren't hurt, your hurts are imaginary, because I didn't intend any hurt, I will not change my behavior and you can go fuck yourself for hurting my feelings" well, you had a moment of opportunity to not hurt someone intentionally and you lost it. You can no longer claim the mantle of "not intentionally hurting other people" after that point. On the other hand if you take the time to engage with being called out, educate yourself, and understand why someone has been hurt by what you said then maybe you have a chance of not being seen as a jerk.
Secondly, we do not live in a utopia. We live in a civilization where the most apt metaphor is a city built on top of a hill of skulls. There are a lot of skeletons in our civilizational closet, and we have not yet expunged the taint of all those crimes and misdeeds from our society. There are still long lasting impacts and there are still enormous instances of institutionalized sexism, racism, nativism, and so forth in our society, culture, and systems of government. Pretending those don't exist, pretending that simply adopting a stance of neutrality is tantamount to "being a good guy" is giving those institutionalized forms of injustice legitimacy.
Not everyone can simply go around day to day pretending glibly that these problems don't exist. For some the actions of even a small minority dramatically impact their lives (how safe they are day to day, for example), for many more the institutionalized injustices that still exist in society affect every day of their entire lives in profound ways. And when they see people like you who try to tell them that it's not a big problem, they are going to speak up and they're going to be right to do so.
These things might not be a crisis to you but you should consider yourself fortunate you have that advantage.
That's particularly important in a thread that's likely to flare up at any moment. Flames have a lot of energy but intellectually interesting they are not.
> Treat others with respect.
I guess you're implying that you disagree and that you should be a dick to everyone else?
>> Treat others with respect.
No, the OP's comment was much longer than four words, and part of it implied that if you're not PC then you're a jerk.
It's a lot easier to see the problem with the OPs comment if you think about what it means to be good, and how the definition of "being good" can vary so much between people.
If you want to talk with people about what being PC really is, you have to use fewer vague, high-level abstractions like "jerk" and "respect" and more concrete examples.
And that's what PC is: we're the nice guys; anyone who disagrees with us is engaging in hate speech; so let's just gag them and send them to Antarctica.
PC is essentially totalitarian. One point of view, no arguments.