At the risk of setting up a strawman, the two most widely used arguments against "offensive" jokes are 1) they are intolerant and 2) they trivialize the experience of the referenced minority. Let's start with the second criticism first. The very point of a joke is to "trivialize" something, half the time that's what makes it funny. Jokes belittle, stereotype and apply unfair poetic justice. We find them funny because they are a relief, they take a tense or troubling situation (e.g. gender identity discrimination) and allow us to view it through the lens of hyperbole. Of course not everyone shares the same sense of humor and telling an offensive joke to a person who has been made emotionally vulnerable through past experience or otherwise is and should be considered insulting. These should not be concerns in public forums, especially places like changstar where we make fun of everything and everyone. If someone takes a statement from here that is not directed to them and becomes offended, that's on them. Being offended is part of life, it does not bestow you with the power to censor others or otherwise punish them - at best you can politely ask for an apology or try to instill some measure of contrition. Again it should be pointed out that taking a general statement made on a public forum personally and then making a general statement on another public forum which demands contrition and apology from the person who made the original statement (especially if that person doesn't even frequent this other forum) is nothing more than cowardly bullshit which deserves neither respect nor response.

And as for tolerance, I'm all for it. Tolerance means you tolerate people regardless of their beliefs - I can share a bus ride with a neonazi without arguing with them or picking a fight. Even though they are rather more than just intolerant of my existence I can still tolerate theirs. Tolerance does not imply respect and it isn't always easy to be tolerant of people whose views or sense of humor are so far removed from your own.

... a restatement of Sam Huntington (& Francis Fukuyama's) "Clash of Civilizations" thesis.

Having been forced to read his work I must now follow up any mention of his name with 'fuck Fukuyama'. Even if saying that after having typed the last couple of paragraphs makes me a hypocrite

Oh you were screwed at Kwai Chang Caine...

Irony upon irony. Using the backdrop of Hollywood's subtle racism to illustrate better methods on how to actually make the world a better place. Also a parallel hidden point. I could choose to or pretend to be outraged at such a racist show, but by doing so, I would have missed a good lesson on how to handle bigots.

Kung Fu was awesome. It certainly perpetuated stupid Chinese stereotypes, but overall it was a net positive. At least the writers explained that Caine was a half-breed. For a monk, he certainly got fucked by a lot by lonely widows. And he kicked the asses of rednecks of the bigoted type, without using guns!

Also who would they cast instead?  To this day the only Asians in Hollywood I know are the new Sulu from Star trek and he's just barely known, and the gay guy from entourage.

Oh you were screwed at Kwai Chang Caine...

LOL

Gawd I loved Kung Fu as a kid.  One of my chores was to take out the trash, and I always picked up the kitchen trash container with my forearms ala the "branding" scene in the opening credits. Only as an adult did I learn that Bruce Lee got snubbed for the role, which seemed sad.  And David Carradine started to seem a bit of a self absorbed, sanctimonious tool. But dang, I still love that show. I've been planning to get those dragons tattooed on my forearms for about forever.

I've been planning to get those dragons tattooed on my forearms for about forever.

Umm...it's a dragon and a tiger and they aren't tattoos!! See @ 2min.