The point the comic is trying to make (from the satirist's perspective, not the fictional Kelly's perspective) is that both of the depicted scenarios only exist in the flawed perspective of highly-priviledged people who don't have to think about racial issues on a regular basis. When interpreting this comic, keep in mind that it is being told from the perspective of the fictional character of Kelly who is very white, very middle-aged[1], and moderately conservative (in the sense that Kelly is vaguely patriotic and doesn't like changes to the status quo that do not directly benefit him -- as far as I can tell Kelly has no coherent politics beyond this).

The first panel depicts Kelly's perception of race in America in his everyday life: people of different races exist (as horrific outdated stereotypes) but there is absolutely no tensions between them. The second panel depicts Kelly's perception of what it feels like to him when racial tensions are discussed. Kelly, like most white people in America, experiences "white fragility"[2] when race is discussed. Because white people have usually not been regularly exposed to racial issues discussions of such create mental stress which can feel like a personal attack on them which Kelly depicts as a general riot. To white people, the easiest way to alleviate this stress is to shut down the discussion altogether and return themselves to the ignorance depicted in the first panel.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/vIHrvlg.jpg

[2] https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-ex...