Political correctness gone too far (shocking, right?)

[Dannichu]

Apologies if this is a double-post, but my previous comment didn't seem to be showing up.

Also, ... postninja'd me, but her response pretty much highlights the offensiveness of your comment (offensiveness which I don't think you intended, but like so much else in this thread, it was offensive whether you intended it to be or not).

Also, if you live this, isn't it possible that perhaps you might not have the best clarity on the issue? Someone caught in the eye of the storm can't really tell you how strong the storm was or how much damaged it caused. All they can give you is personal opinion.

It's late and I have an early start, so I'm not going to reply to all your post (I'll try and do so tomorrow unless someone beats me to it), but I have to respond to this.

It's precisely because someone lives this kind of discrimination every day that they're the perfect person to say whether or not it's damaging and hurtful.

You're not Hispanic, and as such you have absolutely no idea what it's like to live as a Hispanic person in the US (nor can you ever), and you have no idea of what it's like to have to put up with all kinds of racism that go along with that, from blatant name-calling and discrimination, to people coming up to you while you're trying to do your shopping and asking you where things are because they assume you're an employee, to people thinking your name is "funny-sounding".

Who, if not the people who are going to be damaged by offensive statements, should be the ones to say how much damage was caused?

"All they can give you is personal opinion" - people's opinion is all that matters. Issues surrounding race, dis/ability, sex, gender and so on aren't quantative statistics that you can make graphs out of - they're important aspects of people's lives, and you can't reduce that down to "Use of the word "nigger" is 76% offensive." or "You're 58% politically incorrect if you talk to the person pushing the wheelchair and completely disregard the person sitting in it".

So, how about when someone does say "hey, this is kinda hurtful", you don't assume (from your position as someone who can have no idea what it's like to be a racial minority) that they're making stuff up to be offended about?

Moreover, what on earth gives you the right to decide what Hispanic people should and shouldn't get offended by?

I have a suggestion for you: Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Or, put another way, shut up and listen to someone's life experiences that are a little different from yours and maybe you'll learn something.

 

[Colton O'Weekly]

Next thing you know, we'll lose freedom of speech.

I can't stand political correctness. I mean, it's a joke more of just hard-to-pronounce names. I haven't heard any of the Mexicans I know complain about it - they LIKE the Orbitz comercials.

The people who think this is "racist" just want to sue Orbitz to get money, or they want attention if you ask me.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

It's late and I have an early start, so I'm not going to reply to all your post (I'll try and do so tomorrow unless someone beats me to it), but I have to respond to this.

It's precisely because someone lives this kind of discrimination every day that they're the perfect person to say whether or not it's damaging and hurtful.

So she gets discriminated against, it means that her personal opinion gets codified as the definitive text on the emotional and sociological effects of a guy in an Orbitz ad having trouble pluralising a Hispanic name? It means her opinion on whether or not it's okay to involve the name "Hernandez" in a joke at the expense of a guy who can't pluralise the name "Hernandez" is automatically the correct one?

You're not Hispanic, and as such you have absolutely no idea what it's like to live as a Hispanic person in the US (nor can you ever), and you have no idea of what it's like to have to put up with all kinds of racism that go along with that, from blatant name-calling and discrimination, to people coming up to you while you're trying to do your shopping and asking you where things are because they assume you're an employee, to people thinking your name is "funny-sounding".

Who, if not the people who are going to be damaged by offensive statements, should be the ones to say how much damage was caused?

How about an unbiased third party who compiles the personal opinions of others and analyses them? A psychiatrist, a sociologist? Someone who's opinion of the matter isn't clouded by the years of emotional damage done?

"All they can give you is personal opinion" - people's opinion is all that matters. Issues surrounding race, dis/ability, sex, gender and so on aren't quantative statistics that you can make graphs out of - they're important aspects of people's lives, and you can't reduce that down to "Use of the word "nigger" is 76% offensive." or "You're 58% politically incorrect if you talk to the person pushing the wheelchair and completely disregard the person sitting in it".

So, how about when someone does say "hey, this is kinda hurtful", you don't assume (from your position as someone who can have no idea what it's like to be a racial minority) that they're making stuff up to be offended about?

Personal opinion on its own is unreliable. The persecuted demonise the persecutor. They're a biased source. And I never said that they were making stuff up to be offended about.

Moreover, what on earth gives you the right to decide what Hispanic people should and shouldn't get offended by?

I never said I had the right to decide anything for people. And just to make sure, I read over all my posts again. Because that sure doesn't sound like anything I would say. All I said, as someone who's opinion on the matter hasn't been biased by emotional baggage, is that the joke wasn't at the expense of Hispanic people, it was at the expense of the delivery guy and I don't see why Hispanic people should be offended. Clearly they are. But I don't see any reason.

I have a suggestion for you: Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Or, put another way, shut up and listen to someone's life experiences that are a little different from yours and maybe you'll learn something.

I get bullied and excluded and discriminated against for being fat, I have all my life. When I was younger, I had my face stamped on until I went unconscious, because I was the fat kid. Last year, a guy threw a rock at my face that would have blinded me if it had hit an inch and a half lower. Then a couple of weeks later, the guy's brother attacked me on the way home. I always get picked last in P.E., even after the girl who's muscles are so underdeveloped that she can't even effectively bitchslap someone. Because I'm Dean, the fat kid. My parents have been neglecting me emotionally and constantly playing favourites with my sisters for years, to the extent that I have owned exactly four pairs of jeans for the past six years and my sisters go clothes-shopping at least once a month. Because I'm the fat child. One day, on the way home from school, I got attacked, beaten to a pulp and hit over the head with a hurley. Then the people who did it left me unconscious behind a bush. I wasn't found for six hours. Six hours, just left there in the dirt. Brusied, swollen, bleeding, concussed. Because I'm Dean, the fat kid. From the ages of 8-12, everyday, I went to school, I was mocked, physically, verbally and, on one occasion, sexually abused, I went home, got ignored by my parents, went to my room and spent all the time between arriving home and going downstairs for dinner thinking about killing myself. Then after dinner, I'd go back up to my room and think about killing myself until I cried myself to sleep. Because I'm Dean, the fucking fat kid. But if I saw an ad where a fat guy gets stuck in a doorway, or where a fat guy asks a girl out and the girl laughs in his face, or where the fat guy who can't even walk properly he's so fat falls flat on his face trying to do excercise, I wouldn't get offended. I'd laugh at the joke; because that's all it is.

People should be able to laugh at a joke about fat people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about thin people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about gay people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about straight people without being called discrininatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about women without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about men without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about intersex people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about disabled people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about people with speech impediments without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about atheists without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about theists without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about Jews without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about Christians without being called discriminatory for it.
[.......]
People should be able to laught at a joke about anyone without being called discriminatory for it.

I care more about personal liberty than I care about all the shit that has happened to me because of my weight and appearance. I care more about equality than I care about my emotional baggage. When you say that it is not okay to laugh at the name "Hernandez" or that you can't have some guy in an ad have difficulty pronouncing it, that's being discriminatory.

 

[Adriane]

People should be able to laugh at a joke about single parents without being called discriminatory for it.

That is not funny ever, in any context.

 

[Espeon]

People should be able to laugh at a joke about fat people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about thin people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about gay people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about straight people without being called discrininatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about women without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about men without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about intersex people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about disabled people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about people with speech impediments without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about atheists without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about theists without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about Jews without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about Christians without being called discriminatory for it.
[.......]
People should be able to laught at a joke about anyone without being called discriminatory for it.

It's difficult to be able to joke and laugh at such things when there will always be people who will have the intention of being discriminatory. Such people tend to hide behind the guise of "oh, it was only joke", and as such, it will always be difficult to distinguish between joke and insult unless you're having fun with close, personal friends.

 

[Zhorken]

I care more about personal liberty

Liberty: sure, you can make fun of people. People can call you out on it! Nobody's tying you down by telling you not to make annoying jokes about minorities.

 

[opaltiger]

People should be able to laught at a joke about anyone without being called discriminatory for it.

Of course people should be able to. But they can't, because discrimination exists. You seem to assume we live in a world where everyone is equal and it is understood that any view to the contrary is a joke or otherwise not serious. This simply isn't true.

 

[Tarvos]

which means we should eradicate discrimination which is not done by being all pussy when someone cracks a joke

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

That is not funny ever, in any context.

I have to disgree, I just got a few chuckles here.

It's difficult to be able to joke and laugh at such things when there will always be people who will have the intention of being discriminatory. Such people tend to hide behind the guise of "oh, it was only joke", and as such, it will always be difficult to distinguish between joke and insult unless you're having fun with close, personal friends.

I totally agree but that doesn't mean we should assume insult every time someone cracks an ethnic joke.

Of course people should be able to. But they can't, because discrimination exists. You seem to assume we live in a world where everyone is equal and it is understood that any view to the contrary is a joke or otherwise not serious. This simply isn't true.

I don't assume we live in a world where everyone is equal and it is understood that any view to the contrary is a joke or otherwise not serious. I know that it's not true. But it never will be if people keep saying that their names are off-limit because of their race.

 

[Tarvos]

That is not funny ever, in any context.

it is now that you've reacted like that ;)

 

[Adriane]

It's funny the same way rape is funny.

(it's really not)

 

[Dannichu]

Next thing you know, we'll lose freedom of speech.

This ties in very much with a comment above and its list of minorites we should be able to make jokes about, and Zhorken already said it right - nobody is out to say you can't make jokes about minorities. However -and this is very important, so listen carefully because you don't seem to be getting it - if you do so, you should be expected to be called out on it.
You say something idiotic that makes you sound like an ass ("Hispanic names are funny!" "Minorites don't know what's offensive to minorities!"), people will (or at least they should) say "Hey, you're making idiotic statements and being an ass!"

How about an unbiased third party who compiles the personal opinions of others and analyses them? A psychiatrist, a sociologist? Someone who's opinion of the matter isn't clouded by the years of emotional damage done?

Funny you should say this. I'm a white person who has never suffered any kind of racism and am currently writing a 20,000-word dissertation on racism in the media (specifically in the print media immediately following Hurricane Katrina, but obviously I've done a lot of reading around the subject) for my degree in sociology. I'm telling you that making fun of a Hispanic name can be both hurtful and damaging and why aren't you getting this?

Personal opinion on its own is unreliable.

Okay, wrong again. I'm going to assume you've never had a lesson in sociology in your life (if so, please find yourself a new teacher). Given you cited a sociologist as a person who can objectively look at examples of alleged racism, I'm going to assume you see sociology as an adequate tool with which to examine society?

Despite its status as a social science, sociology is far from what I imagine most people on these forums would call "science". Sociologists practice hundreds of different forms of research methods when gathering data, all with their own strengths and weaknesses, but do you know the methods that are most respected by experts at British universities? Focus groups. Getting a group of people in a target population (in this case, a group of minorities) and asking them open questions about their experiences and emotions, or as the article I linked you to puts it, "a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research"

You know what else is a valuable research tool in sociology and is by far the most used and respected method of gaining knowledge in the field of social anthropology (the study of cultures outside our own - very relevant here)? Ethnographies. Ethnographies focus entirely on purely qualitative research; sitting back, observing other cultures and asking "why?". An ethnography is almost always written in the first-person, and if the researcher has any strong personal feelings while conducting their research, they write them down. This is one person writing entirely about their own experiences, and it's an invaluable tool in regards to understanding both how our society functions, and how we should understand others.

is that the joke wasn't at the expense of Hispanic people, it was at the expense of the delivery guy and I don't see why Hispanic people should be offended. Clearly they are. But I don't see any reason.

The joke might not have been aimed at Hispanic people, but Hispanic people could still find it offensive. And as for "I don't see any reason", ...'s outlined a whole mass of reasons why turning a "funny-sounding, hard-to-say" Hispanic name into a punchline is offensive; Hispanic people are denied jobs because they have such names. They are asked by their employers to change their names. They're discriminated against by society on the basis of their names. Pick whichever reason you like most.

But if I saw an ad where a fat guy gets stuck in a doorway, or where a fat guy asks a girl out and the girl laughs in his face, or where the fat guy who can't even walk properly he's so fat falls flat on his face trying to do excercise, I wouldn't get offended. I'd laugh at the joke; because that's all it is.

Your inability to get that this is not "all this is" is why we're having so much trouble here. A joke, as with everything else, does not exist on its own. It exists within a society that hates, as you've experienced first-hand, fat people. Laughing at a joke in which the fat kid is the punchline is, whether you like it or not, the same as laughing at the fat kid. Stonewall's done a whole ton of research on usage of the word "gay" as a derogatory term. Describing negative things as "gay" is politically incorrect, but also has a huge impact on LGBT kids, especially when teachers and other authority figures use it, and when one considers that half of kids who have suffered homophobic bullying have contemplated suicide, and gay kids are four times more likely to attempt suicide, it shows that people need to think more about what they say and the effect it might have on other people because it's often more than "just a word" or "just a joke".

When you say that it is not okay to laugh at the name "Hernandez" or that you can't have some guy in an ad have difficulty pronouncing it, that's being discriminatory.

Okay, one quick look at Wikipedia following a search for "racial discrimination" and I get the following (academically cited) sociological (I'm arguing a case for the sociological impact of laughing at "racist" jokes, so I'm going to use sociological sources) definitions:

"culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.

“...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy

Racial discrimination is a form of racism that is socially reinforced. I'll admit that you can be unfair to white people and treat them unequally, but you cannot be racist towards them because anti-white sentiments do not exist at every level of society and white people are not and never have been subordinated within society.

which means we should eradicate discrimination which is not done by being all pussy when someone cracks a joke

Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, thousands of people who had lost their homes and/or families took refuge in the New Orleans Astrodome, and in reference to this, a highly amusing email was circulated asking "And then God had all those [black people] in one place and doesn't take a second hit?".
Hilarious, no?

I totally agree but that doesn't mean we should assume insult every time someone cracks an ethnic joke.

Nobody is assuming insult. People take offense if the joke is offensive. Minorities don't look for things to get offended about. I'll redirect you here and ask that you read "feminism" as "forces for racial equality" and "sexism" for "racism" because it's pretty much exactly the same argument.

 

[1. Luftballon]

It's funny the same way rape is funny.

(it's really not)

it's funny the same way anything someone says isn't funny without backing up their statement is. it isn't finding it funny in and of itself; it's you that's making it funny.

 

[Dannichu]

it's funny the same way anything someone says isn't funny without backing up their statement is. it isn't finding it funny in and of itself; it's you that's making it funny.

Wait. The unfunniness of rape requires an explanation?

 

[#1 bro]

jokes about rape are sometimes pretty funny whether you want them to be or not.

edit: dannichu just to clarify do you think this ad is racist and should have been censored?

 

[Zhorken]

As far as I can tell, the ad wasn't censored; Orbitz decided themselves to rerecord it.

EDIT: I don't see anything particularly bad about the original, either, but if actual Hernandezes say it's irritating and that they'd like it to stop, then, y'know, maybe they have a point. Nothing wrong with not poking fun at people when they ask you not to, whether or not you were poking maliciously.

 

[Butterfree]

I don't think this ad sounds very racist from how it's been described in this thread (I haven't actually watched it, since I tend to be in public places when I view this thread where I can't really watch videos) and would generally be inclined to think that, as pointed out before, it seems to be making fun of delivery boys who can't pluralize names, not of the actual name; I don't think it would ever occur to me to be offended or to consider it to be making fun of the name even if it were my name. I can't help feeling kind of torn between, on the one hand, my personal feeling that there is no need for anyone to take offense to that, and on the other hand, the fact offensive things are obviously not magically okay just because I don't find them offensive.

Thing is, there's a continuum here; there definitely are things that it makes no sense for people to be offended over. To me, that includes this ad and the "Yellow Line", but even assuming that's just my inability to understand it, we can move further along the continuum and eventually we'll come to things you will all agree are just not offensive and to take them that way is an overreaction. Is Pokémon Yellow Version racist? Yellow crayons? Is there actually some fundamental quality the "Yellow Line" has that they don't that makes it offensive and not them? What if somebody did come along and claim to be offended by them? Is there no point at which you'd decide that, well, they're entitled to be offended by it, but they're just no longer entitled to have the world go out of its way not to offend them?

So in summary: I personally don't get why this is supposedly offensive, but eh, people who actually do have that name and live in that society can judge it much better than I can. On the other hand, I have to disagree with the statement that there is no such thing as political correctness gone too far. :/ You can always go too far.

 

[Tarvos]

Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, thousands of people who had lost their homes and/or families took refuge in the New Orleans Astrodome, and in reference to this, a highly amusing email was circulated asking "And then God had all those [black people] in one place and doesn't take a second hit?".
Hilarious, no?

yes it's quite funny because New Orleans is God Central

 

[1. Luftballon]

Wait. The unfunniness of rape requires an explanation?

rape? not particularly funny. vixie just saying it isn't funny? that is funny, and it does need an explanation. if it's so obvious it doesn't need an explanation, it probably doesn't need to be called out on either. (exceptions exist, but they're kind of rare and usually it has to do with cultural differences and such.)

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

This ties in very much with a comment above and its list of minorites we should be able to make jokes about, and Zhorken already said it right - nobody is out to say you can't make jokes about minorities. However -and this is very important, so listen carefully because you don't seem to be getting it - if you do so, you should be expected to be called out on it.

I think Colton's point was that we should have the freedom to make jokes without being called discriminatory or being harassed.

You say something idiotic that makes you sound like an ass ("Hispanic names are funny!" "Minorites don't know what's offensive to minorities!"), people will (or at least they should) say "Hey, you're making idiotic statements and being an ass!"

Of course they should say that. Of course nobody is saying any of those assishness-implying things in the first place, so what you're saying is totally irrelevant.

Funny you should say this. I'm a white person who has never suffered any kind of racism and am currently writing a 20,000-word dissertation on racism in the media (specifically in the print media immediately following Hurricane Katrina, but obviously I've done a lot of reading around the subject) for my degree in sociology. I'm telling you that making fun of a Hispanic name can be both hurtful and damaging and why aren't you getting this?

You have a lot of cheek accusing me of not getting something. You actually quote the part of post where I explicitly state that clearly, the joke was offensive. Here it is again, since you obviously missed it;

I don't see why Hispanic people should be offended. Clearly they are. But I don't see any reason.

Okay, wrong again. I'm going to assume you've never had a lesson in sociology in your life (if so, please find yourself a new teacher). Given you cited a sociologist as a person who can objectively look at examples of alleged racism, I'm going to assume you see sociology as an adequate tool with which to examine society?

[Despite its status as a social science, sociology is far from what I imagine most people on these forums would call "science". Sociologists practice hundreds of different forms of research methods when gathering data, all with their own strengths and weaknesses, but do you know the methods that are most respected by experts at British universities? Focus groups. Getting a group of people in a target population (in this case, a group of minorities) and asking them open questions about their experiences and emotions, or as the article I linked you to puts it, "a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research"

You know what else is a valuable research tool in sociology and is by far the most used and respected method of gaining knowledge in the field of social anthropology (the study of cultures outside our own - very relevant here)? Ethnographies. Ethnographies focus entirely on purely qualitative research; sitting back, observing other cultures and asking "why?". An ethnography is almost always written in the first-person, and if the researcher has any strong personal feelings while conducting their research, they write them down. This is one person writing entirely about their own experiences, and it's an invaluable tool in regards to understanding both how our society functions, and how we should understand others.

That was a typo, I meant to write "Personal opinion of the victimised on its own is unreliable." Hence, also from of that paragraph, "The persecuted demonises the persecutor. They're a biased source."

Naturally, using focus groups for research works just fine; you get the total sum of opinions from Then an unbiased third party draws their own conclusions from what they have to see.

Ethnography similarly works the same way, it's an unbiased third party observing another culture and then drawing their own conclusions from that.

Also, even though it wasn't what I originally said (or at least, what I originally intended to convey), focus groups and ethnography wouldn't be the only thing that a researcher uses. Any good researcher would use a wide variety of sources, from both those directly involved in the topic and from independent, unbiased sources who have observed or done their own research on the topic.

The joke might not have been aimed at Hispanic people, but Hispanic people could still find it offensive. And as for "I don't see any reason", ...'s outlined a whole mass of reasons why turning a "funny-sounding, hard-to-say" Hispanic name into a punchline is offensive; Hispanic people are denied jobs because they have such names. They are asked by their employers to change their names. They're discriminated against by society on the basis of their names. Pick whichever reason you like most.

Again, you say that I don't see that the joke is offensive Hispanic people, while quoting the exact line in which I say that I do.

And those are all very valid reasons to be mad at somebody making a joke about your name but they're not making the joke about the name. The way you and ... are talking, it seems like the fact that the name is Hispanic automatically attaches anything that is done with the name to the entire Hispanic community. What about this joke;

Q: What do you call two Mexicans playing basketball? A: Juan-on-Juan

Or this one;

Q: What did the Puerto Rican fireman name his son? A: Jose

Are these offensive? Am I perpetuating racism towards Hispanic people by making puns on these names? If a comedian gets on stage and tells these jokes, will three Argentinian immigrants get refused service in a shop the next day because of it?

What about this joke;

Q: What do you call an Irishman who stays outdoors all summer and indoors all winter? A: Paddy O' Furniture

That's a play on stereotypical Irish nomenclature. If there was an ad on TV using that joke, would it increase the racism towards the Irish in America, especially those in Boston? I'm sure if Hispanic people don't get hired for having names like Sotomayor or Tajada or whatever, that there are Irish people who don't get hired for having names like O' Fhogartaigh. And what about Polish people? If there was an ad where someone had trouble pronouncing "Wójcik", would more of the Polish immigrants in America be denied jobs than normal? Will some employer see the ad then walk into a work a while later and demand his Polish employees change their names to simplify his life? If the name had used Adamicz (I went out with a girl with that surname, my first few attempts to pluralise it failed quite miserably) instead of Hernandez, would it cause more racism towards Polish people?

Your inability to get that this is not "all this is" is why we're having so much trouble here. A joke, as with everything else, does not exist on its own. It exists within a society that hates, as you've experienced first-hand, fat people. Laughing at a joke in which the fat kid is the punchline is, whether you like it or not, the same as laughing at the fat kid.

So according to you, laughing at a joke in which mispronunciation of a name by some delivery is the same as laughing at the delivery guy.

Stonewall's done a whole ton of research on usage of the word "gay" as a derogatory term. Describing negative things as "gay" is politically incorrect, but also has a huge impact on LGBT kids, especially when teachers and other authority figures use it, and when one considers that half of kids who have suffered homophobic bullying have contemplated suicide, and gay kids are four times more likely to attempt suicide, it shows that people need to think more about what they say and the effect it might have on other people because it's often more than "just a word" or "just a joke".

The problem as I see it is nothing to do with vacuums or racial context or whatever that you're equating mocking a guy who mispronounces a name as part of a joke and mocking a name as part of a joke. That doesn't make sense. By that logic, laughing at some mispronounce the word "aristocracy" is the same as laughing at the word "aristocracy". Or laughing at someone pluralising "barracks" as "barrackses" or even "barracks...es...es" is the same as openly mocking the word "barracks". What about mispronouncing Spanish in an ad? Is that an open attack on the Spanish language? If the delivery guy had announced his delivery in Spanish, should Hispanic people be offended if he pronounced "Aquí está su paquete" as "Akwee estah soo pakweet"?

Okay, one quick look at Wikipedia following a search for "racial discrimination" and I get the following (academically cited) sociological (I'm arguing a case for the sociological impact of laughing at "racist" jokes, so I'm going to use sociological sources) definitions:

Racial discrimination is a form of racism that is socially reinforced. I'll admit that you can be unfair to white people and treat them unequally, but you cannot be racist towards them because anti-white sentiments do not exist at every level of society and white people are not and never have been subordinated within society.

So if a Hispanic guy goes into a shop owned by a white guy and applies for a job but doesn't get it because he's Hispanic, it's racial discrimination, but if a white guy goes into a shop owned by a Hispanic guy and applies for a job but doesn't get it because he's white, it's not? Racial discrimination only applies if it occurs in general, but not in single isolated events? There's no such thing as racial discrimination against white people because white people were never treated as second-class citizens?

Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, thousands of people who had lost their homes and/or families took refuge in the New Orleans Astrodome, and in reference to this, a highly amusing email was circulated asking "And then God had all those [black people] in one place and doesn't take a second hit?".
Hilarious, no?

I didn't laugh at that joke but mainly because it's a bad joke. I've laugh at better jokes about Katrina though. I heard some great ones about Haiti the other day.

Nobody is assuming insult. People take offense if the joke is offensive. Minorities don't look for things to get offended about. I'll redirect you here and ask that you read "feminism" as "forces for racial equality" and "sexism" for "racism" because it's pretty much exactly the same argument.

In much the same way that you ignored me saying "The persecuted demonises the persecutor. They're a biased source", you also seem to have completely ignored me saying this;

I never said that they were making stuff up to be offended about.

EDIT:

It's funny the same way rape is funny.

(it's really not)

I have to disagree. I compared some jokes about rape to the jokes about single parents I linked to above. The jokes about single parents were way funnier.

Also, you're equating rape with single parenthood. That's quite odd.