But the smack of colonialism eventually rendered even these taboo. Within the public PC regime there is a burgeoning lexicon of bigotry. 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.