In the context of the article and other footnotes, it seems like the implication is, “someone is always going to be offended therefore we can’t label some things legitimately offensive and others not”. It’s a form of linguistic nihilism that comes up a lot during discussions about how “PC” things have become.

The racism comment is an example and not necessarily directly targeted at the article, but more at what’s implied given the context (e.g. the comment about The NY Times article having the race changed from “white” to “black”).