Acknowledged: the semantic softening for enhanced access to message. However, "so much the narrower and bleak," should never be confused with "narrow and bleak." It is the "so much the..." modifier which renders the statement one of degree -- possibly even negligible. But also too, I would assume someone willing to boycott a Baldwin might be inclined to draw boundaries on a good deal of our fertile cultural product, entertainment and otherwise, which might then at a point be rather more indicative of narrow and bleak.
As to publicly calling for the death of someone of merely opposing persuasion, I think generally the humorous value of that is limited enough to be the kind of thing one should avoid. It probably does coarsen the debate on some level and certainly leaves a little bad taste in my mouth. If Baldwin said such a thing, then the context is known to be for pointed humorous effect, therefore we may be amused or unamused, or disappointed, but anything beyond that I think would just be so much faux umbrage.
I think the reason a good O'Rielly rant seems more threatening is that he purports to be serious. Now you and I and others of refined sensibilities may easily recognize the schtick O'Rielly is performing nightly, and it does have its certain charms, but when he intimates that children are in imminent peril if a certain judge were to sit on the bench one day longer, he can be very shrill and seeming to appeal to a mob mentality to rise up.
Of course religious groups do in fact even up the ante on that and call people murderers. The political left has its radicals as well of course, who may call animal experiments torture performed by the most abominable sadists who must be stopped by ANY means.
That type of thing does not echo or reflect the type of off-handed type pseudo-nasty jest attributed to Baldwin, it is of another genus altogether. And to answer how I react to racism, sexism, misogyny -- I'm all for 'em! -- in a humorous context of course.
The operative element here is intention and effect -- I, for the most part, might applaud those who JOKE of such things -- always happy to see those issues shed taboo status through the elucidation of humor -- humor would be the active ingredient missing from the examples adduced above. But when Limbaugh mocks FemiNazis for instance, I find that perfectly fun.
Grant it is a sensitive tightrope to walk, I'm not likely I suppose to find alot of it funny, maybe because it seems kindof obvious, possibly a little juvenile, probably a one-note approach, like Lisa Lampenelli's act, but I appreciate that it is cast out into the light of day. Sometimes I'm sure it is done crudely or even seems to represent the actual sentiments of the presenter, and sometimes we are uneasy if we are unsure, as with Sarah Silverman (is that her name?)
There is a noted conservative commentator who has shone the spotlight on a seemingly growing phenomenon of feigned outrage. I would call the overreaction to Baldwin of that variety, and I agree, overblown bogus offense-taking is occupying an increasingly prominent place in our body politic, and I generally abhor grandstanding insincere pronouncements done for effect or to inflame -- not particularly helpful.