In other words, mind your own business and concern yourselves with your own backyard.
The point is. No matter what people say and do, someone is able to take offense to just about anything you care to mention. Big deal. Who cares? Should we care? Conversation on this board happens because people don't agree to everything and anything. Otherwise posts would consist of "yep yep", "that's right", and "I agree".
Political correctness, as a concept, is pre-ordained to fail. Equality is a noble cause, but until we become genetically engineered hermaphrodites, or even more than that, it's never going to happen. On the surface, maybe, in the public eye, but behind closed doors and in our minds we'll know it to be a sham.
When there is intent to offend, then there may be cause to take offense. These skits and fashion shoots don't fit that bill. Controversial, perhaps. Offensive, I think that's taking it too far.
I understand and respect your opinion, but I do not agree.
First, on the issue of is it OK to criticize something happening beyond your borders where cultural differences affect behavior. As I've said before, I think it is fair game. Just as the U.S. has the right to be criticized for the crap that we sometimes do (our populace, our politicians, our wacky media pundits), so does anyone else. To take your argument to an extreme--what of female genital mutilation in parts of Africa? In some places, this is acceptable behavior following societal norms. Does that make it OK? What of public beheadings in Saudi Arabia, and people having their hands cut off for stealing? I believe it is in Uzbekistan where abductions and rape are socially acceptable in some more rural areas. Was the Tienanmen Square incident something we should have turned a blind eye to?
Again, these are extreme cases, but the same logic applies. If what people do in their "own backyard" is their business, then oppression and even genocide would be acceptable, which they aren't of course, because there are generally "universal" norms of accepted behavior that these actions violate.
Secondly, regarding motivation, I don't believe these guys were intentionally trying to offend or hurt people. However, they were motivated by an intention to ridicule and mock, and offense is the unintended consequence. Is it OK to ridicule if you don't mean to harm those you are ridiculing?
Third, you are making sensitivity out to be a straw man when you say that all opinions will be "neutered" if people aren't allowed to say whatever outrageous or offensive thing that they want to. People can still have colorful opinions and heated debates without resorting to base, offensive actions targeting race or ethnicity.
Finally, I don't think that it is hypocritical to make a nuanced distinction between comedic satire and purely offensive behavior. There is a fine line here, but I personally think that I know satire (i.e. South Park) when I see it, versus pure, unacceptable prejudice (i.e. Michael Richards' rant).
Let me note that I'm by no means advocating equality in a broad sense. Equal freedom from scorn and ridicule? Sure. But part of life is understanding that some people are more gifted, or work harder than others, and get "more" because of it. Your comment about knowing that equality is a sham is fair in this context, but not in the context of suggesting that people do not deserve to be treated equally because of their race.