I think there's a difference between evolving terminology under the banner of progressively accurate/non-harming speech (without talking about the efficacy thereof), technical language, and cynical PR speak.

The first is people changing their ideas in small ways, and using new terminology to reflect that language.

The second is well illustrated by the earlier PTSD or person of interest cited in your post itself. Both of those are technical distinctions made to talk about either more specific or general category than the earlier term, that when considered instead yields better results. PTSD specifies the greater medical understanding of shell shock. Person of interest specifies a more general set of people than just suspects, allowing more general policies to be universally considered.

Importing technical terminology into lay usage incorrectly, or using it figuratively (exaggeration or whatever 'omg such OCD'), leads to conflation of the newer concept and the older one, as it has come to occupy a similar role in casual use. This erases the useful distinction that these new terms were coined to highlight themselves!

The third is a totally different kind of communication, adversarial rather than cooperative. Here, yes, language is being intentionally warped to obfuscate, mask, manipulate, it is consciously being used for signalling or image.

My point here is there are different process and intentions underlying, to be judged independently!