Seems to who?
To you? How do you know that the people getting offended on other people's behalf vastly outnumber the affected people? Do you have anything other than your own gut feeling here?
People are telling you, directly, that they find this thing (whatever this thing happens to be) offensive. Instead of constantly questioning their motives and insisting on some sort of bar be set before anyone is allowed to voice their concerns, how about instead actually addressing the concerns.
And, as an added bonus, stick to the actual issue at hand. This is just textbook whataboutism. No one is talking about anything other than the SPECIFIC issue at hand. By trying to then extrapolate into all possibilities, you are not actually helping anything. There is no one standard that will always apply. That's an impossible goal. Deal with what's in front of you. Fix the problems that are here and now and stop worrying about what might be a problem in some hypothetical future.
The same gut feeling you have and there are also people who are telling you directly that it is not offensive (no, not just me)....
And no, my mind does not work that way. Its not whataboutism, its arbitrary enforcement of rules. When you feel offence on behalf of other people, or even on behalf on an entire culture, then do that for all of them. That includes people you do not like (the fundamentalists) or, because of the nebulous nature of when offence is valid, people you do not even know if they are offended (by a significant amount, especially because of the different perception people seem to have because of their nationality).
For you, focusing on one issue and ignoring the others might be the obvious solution, but to me this looks more like avoiding the hard questions in favour of arbitrary enforcement of rules (which you probably can tell by now I am not a fan of).
Also, for you the the distinction between oppressor and oppressed which people seem to use to decide for who they should feel offense does not work in my eyes because history is rather complicated, especially when you go farther back.
Why? I looked them up on linkedin and their entire employment and education history is Canadian. Its of course possible that they emigrated to Canada before they went to university, thats why I am asking.
No, no, I see where you're going with this.
But, your argument is that because 2 kids don't feel bullied, that one that does can be ignored. After all, he's not representing the majority, so, his concerns shouldn't matter right? What if 2 feel bullied but one doesn't? Does that mean that the other two aren't being bullied at all? That the core of your argument. That you found that one kid that doesn't feel bullied, then no one else has any right to step in on behalf of the two that do feel bullied because now they are ignoring that one kid.
You see how wrong that is, right?
No the behaviour towards the 1 who feels bullied should be censored. But imo the current situation resembles more that all interaction with all 3 are censored.
For example how not only the Hadozee are changed in the Errata but also the Golem is renamed and the Priest title removed.
And it gets further complicated as the perception of which culture deserves that you are offended on their behalf can change over time so that in a few years things you thought as acceptable now will be offensive to you. Which is another reason why I do not really think focusing on the specific issue is a good idea.