"It's good to have a civilized discussion" - absolutely.

"It is not foe Chris Rock or the Academy to decide whether someone should get hurt or not by their joke" - I hear you, and I understand the emotional charge here, you feel that it's perhaps unjust to inflict pain in someone, whether physicall or emotional one. But you see Agnes, the invalidity of such a premise lays in the lack of intentionality. Chris only decided to make a joke, but without intention for the subject of the joke to get hurt. The distinction is crucial.

Here is the rationale behind this principle from a classical philosophy, by Epictetus:

Remember, it is not enough to be hit or insulted to be harmed, you must believe that you are being harmed. If someone suceeds in provoking you, realize that your mind is complicit in the provokation.

There is a trap in adopting the point of view that we should censor word against a potential subjective interpretation and emotional reception of it. You see, taking a risk of offending and of being offended is a prerequisite of a rational thought and an honest and constructive discussion.

On another note there is a fascinating book by Yuval Noah Harari titled Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. It was published in 2015, and predicted/observed humanism and individualism becoming a new dominating religion, before AI does.

We are observing this now, because never in history have public discourse been so dominated by subjective and personal. Opinions and feelings become of more concern than facts and rationalism.

That said, it's a pleasure to be able to have this discussion with you Agnes. I hear you, and I can understand some of where you're coming from.