Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society. (2)

I disagree with your premise that individuals with "heightened racial/gender/etc." are dangerous to society. Conversely, I would argue that a complete lack of sensitivity to the myriad inequities in our society that bear out by race and gender is dangerous as it undermines and even reverses the progress we've made as a nation toward erasing those inequities. 1) Based on your definition of oppression ("to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority"), the argument you're trying to make is essentially impossible. Being sensitive to issues of race and gender does not automatically prescribe action. Furthermore, while there have been isolated examples of people overreaching with respect to policy decisions (all of which end up being overturned or criticized) the vast majority of people who have heightened sensitivity to issues of race/gender do not engage in anything even remotely approaching "[keeping] down by severe and unjust use of force or authority." With respect to your claims about "hate mongering" and "stirring fear and hatred" – you'll need to document some examples to not only validate the claims you're making, but also to define what you consider those sorts of activities to be. 2) With respect to your claims that free speech is censored, your examples do not validate your claims. Further, I find it curious that you would argue that private institutions do not have the right to run themselves as they see fit given your positions on other issues. Lawrence H. Summers, former president of Harvard resigned. He was not dismissed – so your claim is utterly false. Furthermore, his resignation was not based solely on the comments he made about sex and innate scholastic abilities in January 2005 – he had a long track record of poor relations with the faculty of Harvard (which included a spat with high-profile professor Cornel West who subsequently left Harvard to teach at Princeton) and that incident was the straw that broke the camel's back. Had he been dismissed, however, as a private institution – my position would be that Harvard is a private institution and is free to govern however it sees fit; it relies on donors for a large portion of its operating budget, and if respecting their wishes meant dismissing an unpopular figure like Summers – I don't see it as legitimate to hold that against them. I'm not sure who you're referring to with the Fox analyst, but I suspect it is Steve Lyons. If that's the case – your claim about minorities and women raising a fuss and getting him fired (a position that hypocritically removes their free speech right to object) doesn't work because Lyons was fired immediately following the game before any outcry could happen. Furthermore, Lyons was fired not because it was an isolated incident but because Lyons had a long track record of making insensitive racial and religious remarks. Once again, Fox is a private institution dependant on ad sales revenues for its operating budget: I fail to see why it's unfair that they cater to their customers in the product they provide given that it will affect their bottom line if they don't. Your claim about public figures making comments on race (or gender) are false. Public figures are free to make any comment they like without prior restraint. What you seem to have a problem with is people reacting to their comments accordingly. You seem to be arguing that, for example, a legislator should be able to make racially or sexually offensive comments and not have voters figure that into consideration at the ballot or that a radio host like Rush Limbaugh should be able to make racist remarks and people should have to leave their radios on and continue listening even if it offends them. 3) The premise of your argument seems to be that women and minorities should just remain quiet and allow our predominantly white, male-dominated society to come around and correct inequities in its own sweet time. Apart from my ideological disagreement to the idea that minorities and women shouldn't be allowed to advocate on their own behalf – the practical fact is that pursuing that course of action is what has kept women and minorities as second-class citizens for over two and a half centuries. It's only been since the civil rights movement and the women's liberation movement that the pendulum has begun to significantly move toward equity – so as a practical matter the results dictate that those who are sensitive to racial and sex issues should continue to be vocal advocates because their advocacy is working. Your examples of acknowledging truths are poor examples that do not accurately reflect the sorts of characterizations that are controversial. Height and body hair are not what people are debating. The sorts of "truths" that the "sensitive" crowd objects to are those more along the lines of the claims that minorities are inherently predisposed to being criminals or poor parents or poor students, or that women are inherently incapable of holding high-profile/high-pressure positions in society or that women are inherently less intelligent than men. While there are some innate differences between races/sexes – many of the things considered to be innate are not; and that is the sticking point. As the saying goes; correlation does not equal causation. It's not racist to observe that blacks comprise a higher percentage of the incarcerated population per capita. What is racist is making the leap from that observable fact that blacks are inherently predisposed to crime, OR that blacks should be targeted for surveillance disproportionately by police based purely on their race and no other factors. 4) You seem to be downplaying the power of humor – but as the Daily Show and Colbert Report (not to mention the millions of dollars of negative campaign ads) illustrate, humor can be an utterly devastating and powerful tool to convey a particular viewpoint and to undermine other viewpoints. Stereotypical humor can be funny. When it ceases to be funny is when it's in a context where it reinforces or exacerbates inequity. The problem is that not everyone has the same approach when hearing such humor; some people do not believe in treating others fairly and to them, humor reinforces and validates their bigoted positions which can manifest in discrimination or even violence. Given the very real consequences of violence against various minority groups – it cannot be understated how important it is to be careful in how humor is used. From my own personal experience, I can remember people who were physically attacked purely because humor about their assumed sexual orientation encouraged some of my classmates to take action against them. I'm not saying that humor always leads to discrimination – but it can reinforce a dangerous mob mentality with real consequences. Furthermore, there has been a ton of academic research done on the disempowering effects of humor – ESPECIALLY sex-based humor like the type you're praising. The empirical evidence shows that sex-based humor reinforces gender roles that put women in a subordinate position and do literally undermine people's perceptions of women (which is one of the causes of wage inequity among the sexes and the lack of women in leadership roles in spite of the fact that they make up over half the population). I can cite some of these studies if you like.