Like some kind of dysphemistic worm in the euphemistic bud, offensive language will always thrive on social sweetness. Now, being politically motivated, PC-driven language will always attract more attention, certainly more resistance than most euphemism. We're also dealing here with euphemism that arises, or at least is perceived to arise, directly out of linguistic intervention. People dislike linguistic change, especially change which smacks of deliberate manipulation. And of course for many PC-motivated name changes are 'the thin end of the wedge' working to fragment society.
Linguistic prescriptivism has a pretty dismal track record.
It's all the more remarkable here, given that political correctness is not actually a movement that anyone appears to endorse. No, I don't think so, and here I side with economics professor Glenn Loury. The issue here is more one of voluntary limitation on speech. One of the reasons for people's hostility towards political correctness is that a violation of PC protocol quickly becomes an inquiry into their character. When people without 'natural cover' express themselves in an 'incorrect' way, there is always the danger that their audience will judge them on what is known about the character of others who have spoken in a similar way.