So, to explore many interesting themes, the works needs to be sexist / racist / otherwise offensive? Am I getting this right? Did I fall into a portal to bizarro world?

Disgusting bias justified as relevant to the time aside, I liked the humor of Whedon's intro for the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxJqdGEdsjY

And this little clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znxFrgql5dc

Maybe change the statement a little bit and it makes more sense: To explore some interesting themese, the work can be sexist/ racist / otherwise offensive.

It's because sexism... in your fantasy does not have to do much with the real thing at all. It always depends on how exactly is it done and there will always be discussions but the borderlines are often the most interesting fields. That might sound bizarre but I found it often true.

Also I have a feeling the series did enogh differentiation and put enough distance to this elements to convince me that they aren't simply supporting sexism/... .

No. You can have the characters be sexist / racist / whatever. People can still be offended if the portrayal is too sympathetic, or inaccurate, or does not make sense, or too prevalent within a genre ("It's fantasy for fuck's sake, can't we have a fantasy world that's not sexist?"). But you shouldn't have prejudices be factually true. Having a npc wizard laugh at a female PC who tried to apply to a wizard school: potentially okay. Giving female characters -2 Intelligence at chargen: not okay. The exceptions are subversions (The Iron Dream) and outright horror scenarios (Dungeons & Dragons).

Of course it's ok, for crying out loud it's up to author how he wants his universe / story to work, and it's up to people whether they want to buy it and consume it. Everything else is pointless, if creator wants his universe to be politically incorrect, and if he wants all characters to act as if it's ok and normal, so be it. It's a part of that particular work of art. It's up to us how we interpret it, but that should definitely not work as a restraint for creative work.

Is it "up to the people" or "of course ok"? Do not confuse freedom of speech and papal infallibility.

And I specifically made the distinction between politically incorrect (women are treated as subhuman and everyone in the world is okay with it) and offensive (Jews are eating Christian babies for realz).

So how do these contradict themselves in any way or form?

So let's get back to the topic at hand and tell me: What's wrong with Firefly then?

In general? It is highly pro-reconstruction era ( the worst point in American racism) and offers no counter point to the prejudicial elements ... will elaborate more when I get off work.

Well I do understand what you mean and can say that that's the point. It offers just as much counter point to the prejudicial elements as the setting it strives to achieve did: So yes, none. That kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

I mean, given the setting, it just doesn't make sense for a character to run around and contradict everything everyone does 'cause it's not politically correct :-P

Badger, the mobster in question, had a cockney accent. He was not Irish.

There was nothing in the show that distinguished him as Jewish. That's your own assumption.

I think you're bringing in your own psychological baggage. The character you're referring to, Jubal Early, was a bad dude but there was nothing race-specific about the character as written. He could have been played by anyone. It just so happens that the best actor for the job was Richard Brooks.

The Reavers served a similar narrative function that Indians often serve in westerns (or the undead in zombie films). There is no racial element to them, they're made up of people of all races.

Ahh, so he was a Dirty Cockney mobste, sry I don't keep up on the "ignorant minor European ethnicity" criminal stereotypes so they tend to blur into the categories of generic wop criminal &generic mick criminal.

You're totally right! Even though he had every single Jewish stereotype characteristic, he didn't have the star of David btanded into his forhead and if there is no star of David then it's not actually a Jew.

Why cast a black actor for the roll if nothing else in the character called for it? Because the scene was written for "now the scary black man sneaks into the ship, avoiding every single crew member (90% of who are combat trained at counter intrusion) except for "innocent white girl" whom he threatens to rape violently."

.... nothing racially charged there.

Old western movies used native Americans as "the faceless horror" praying on civilization because they were intentionally being racist, just because you are copying someone else doesn't let you off the hook for being a racist fuck.

Well, I'm glad to know that it's been scientifically proven.

Agreed. There is enough Star Trek out there for everyone. I don't know why people waste their time with shows that weren't even good enough to last on the air for 4 episodes.

I'm not agreeing with you. I'm pointing out how ridiculous your statement is.