I was under the impression that it was an acceptable short-hand for distinguishing which culture/ethnicity is being referenced when either is equally likely. Do the PC-police now disagree?
It's (basically) acceptable, but most likely not if used by you. It's not that sensitivities to the phrase have changed; it's that you're not a "safe" speaker in this regard.
To briefly recap the positive aspect of "PC" norms: speech which disparages or generalizes about racial/sex groups communicates to others a willingness to disrespect the members of those groups categorically. This creates a sense of acceptability[1] for outright oppression. Oppression continues to happen, routinely, though generally it is secret.
Compare PC-norms to the Byzantine Generals' Problem[2]: racial minorities and those who seek racial harmony are in the middle. The attacking generals are attempting to coordinate with each other to attack the harmonists. But if the generals are inhibited from coordinating attacks using public speech forums, the harmonists stand a better chance of success. So even "coded" or minor messages should be stamped out, because they are the foundation of coordination.
Now, if you're a member of the minority in question, your use of offensive generalizations does not usually suggest an attack, which potentially changes the acceptability and meaning[3]. "Feather-not-dot" is a particularly interesting example, since it symmetrically stereotypes two groups. I've heard it many times and it generally gives me pause. When spoken by a Native American or East Indian, it's generally fine, but really only when a high level of mutual regard is quite clear.
It's (basically) acceptable, but most likely not if used by you. It's not that sensitivities to the phrase have changed; it's that you're not a "safe" speaker in this regard.
To briefly recap the positive aspect of "PC" norms: speech which disparages or generalizes about racial/sex groups communicates to others a willingness to disrespect the members of those groups categorically. This creates a sense of acceptability[1] for outright oppression. Oppression continues to happen, routinely, though generally it is secret.
Compare PC-norms to the Byzantine Generals' Problem[2]: racial minorities and those who seek racial harmony are in the middle. The attacking generals are attempting to coordinate with each other to attack the harmonists. But if the generals are inhibited from coordinating attacks using public speech forums, the harmonists stand a better chance of success. So even "coded" or minor messages should be stamped out, because they are the foundation of coordination.
Now, if you're a member of the minority in question, your use of offensive generalizations does not usually suggest an attack, which potentially changes the acceptability and meaning[3]. "Feather-not-dot" is a particularly interesting example, since it symmetrically stereotypes two groups. I've heard it many times and it generally gives me pause. When spoken by a Native American or East Indian, it's generally fine, but really only when a high level of mutual regard is quite clear.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation