To clarify, it was NOT a running joke about shooting a guy.
The remark about shooting him was an exaggeration of the post about this being the straw that breaks the camel's back, i.e. him being done. So someone took that point, and piled on exaggerating a bit, specifically invoking an expression that implied that Price was not a good pitcher anymore. This specific form of exaggeration--invoking a related idea that is absurd and everyone knows it (i.e. that Price's talent is depleted)--is a key feature of America humor. See how it works on multiple levels--it both riffs off of the "the team should be done with Price" thing (which is annoying and funny) of the camels' back cliché, but then doubles it up with the absurdity of anyone who follows Price thinking he's no longer good.
In this way, these statements of feigned confusion as to Price's situations and talents allow the poster to play the fool, pretending at dumbness. This allows the other readers to both enjoy the farce while receiving the lesson: Don't be this guy. This sort of interaction has been a feature of humor in the West at least since the Ancient Greeks and perhaps further back--sadly, my studies in this field do not allow me to say if it goes furthur back or what it's lineage in Eastern literature is.
Then, the final line about the tree had nothing to do with the alleged violent nature of the dicussion at all, but was ruminating on why location matters in a cliché. This form of word play allows people to play with concepts and learn more about how they work--many people enjoy this activity in the form of humor. Why ARE the animals always dragged out back to be shot, anyway? (The joke here is that it should be obvious--people don't want to see us shooting animals. Again, the humor lies in someone saying something dumb about an obvious truth.)
Race relations, as evidenced in the very term--like all politics--happens between people. I agree that people often misunderstand or misidentify or even fail to identify serious structural race issues all the time (A significant number who know the term continue to misapprehend what institutional racism really is, for that matter.) and it sucks.
But by the same token, if you do violence to the language of others in your vigilance, you actually impede communication, which is a death knell for your project. Indeed, people in general--many of those being those you wish to reach--will find it alienating. I mean, if you find a thing simply because you are looking for it, well, that's how cops end up jumping to conclusions too--and we know what that has meant to race relations; look hard enough to find the suspicious thing and soon you find yourself firing. And then the wrong people sometimes get hurt. And people get pissed.
Now, the purpose of all this snark is: If you can't (or refuse to) understand how people communicate, you will find your effectiveness in getting what I consider to be the terribly important purposes of your work to be severely limited. Frankly, you are currently making it that much harder for the rest of us on this board who care about this stuff to get others to take it seriously to convince people from dismissing it--an implicit project/discussion that has been going on on this board literally for years.
And I'm not even a little bit kidding.