Janitors being referred to as sanitation engineers and persons with handicaps being called handicapable are just a couple of examples of the silly side of this.
The progressive arm of the political spectrum uses PC any time it can. Any time someone disagrees with the president they are called "racist". Any time people want to reform the welfare system they are called "racist". Any time people want viable voter ID laws they are called "racist". It seems to be a broken record with progressives. They truly need to become more creative.
However, when it comes to ethnicity PC goes "off the rails". The use of derogatory terms when referring to a person's race, belief system, genetic heritage, gender, sexual preference, etc., are at best rude and at worst hurtful.
But, to ascribe malicious intent to someone using such derogatory terms usually is not as accurate as many would like to believe.
For example, using the "N-word" to describe a Negro (the correct term, by the way - not "black", not "African-American", etc.) often is not interpreted as the "sayer" meant. I know of no one who actually meant something negative against ALL Negroes when using such a term. Rather, I have found that such a negative reference is meant to express displeasure at the specific actions of an individual or group - not an entire race . The same may be said of negative terms used to express displeasure at Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Hispanics, Asians, Women, Homosexuals, or other such delineation.
Some would argue that there is no such derogatory term for "whites" (Caucasians, technically). Well, actually there are. "Whitey", "White Trash", "Red Neck", and "Cracker" are but four. These just don't seem to have the social impact as such terms used for other groups. Why? I don't know; but they don't. Negative terms for Caucasians seem to be centered on national heritages. For example, there are plenty of negative terms applied to Italians, Irish, Polish, etc.
I have found that the use of such negative terms is most often the result of anger and frustration at the inability to cause a change in societial behavior of individuals doing "bad" stuff. But, utterances of such negative terms seem to be perceived as being against an entire group as opposed to the specific indivual(s) involved - or be made to appear so.
For example, in April of 2013 some 30,000 to 40,000 "black" students arrived at Virginia beach, VA for a sort of "college spring break". Shootings, stabbings, robberies, assaults, property destruction, and other violence ensued. This left the local population shaken and fearful of large groups of blacks visiting again - and, understandably so. Such actions by these perpetrators are not indicative of the Negro race as a whole, however. But, any utterance of a negative term to describe them, incorrectly, would seem to indicate feelings otherwise - or be made to appear so, again.
So, I have an alternative. Rather then use a negative term that would apply to an entire group of people or peoples, we can use a term that allows the expression of anger and frustration without the inappropriate generalities of current terms used.
That term is Non-Acceptable Life Form (NALF). It is to be used to describe individual(s) perpetrating any and all forms of dispicable and/or uncivilized behavior. The term is race, gender, etc., neutral - it applies to whomever participates in uncivilized and/or displicable actions - independent of race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual preference or any other "grouping" that can be made.
Basically, the term means "the world would be a better place if the NALF were not on it".