If I can point something out here - just the very inherent nature of someone being abusive meets these criteria of these traits, these anecdotes: caring much more about themselves than about others, believing they are entitled to control people, acting in ways that needlessly hurt others for personal gain - these things are defining features of all abuse (so yes, abuse survivors in various discussion forums will very commonly highlight having lived through this!) What they are NOT are defining features of anyone diagnosed with a personality disorder.
(So @chronicphysicalpain it's important, when we plainly name that people have abused us, to not scapegoat an entire group of disabled people, like @LossOfWill mentioned, who have only a diagnosis in common with our abusers, and don't have the trait of being-abusive in common with them.)
And as you said Kuri this view of things is spreading because of clinical psychological/psychiatric discourse spreading - so it's not like these concepts were used in "correct" and "harmless" ways by clinical psychs and then became harmful when misapplied by laypeople. RATHER, the nature of how clinical psychs use the terms, reflects clinical psych's interest in demonizing the people they diagnose - and an interest in painting abuse as particularly deviant when in fact it's part of very normal and banal structures of oppression.
