I do wonder how much hate speech, especially in the early 4chan years, was a deliberate shield against those _not_ targeted by such speech but still cannot ignore it. Think of white people who would post a "how dare you" rant when they see the n-word or male feminists. It's a way to keep out the moral guardians and cut down on behavior I like to call "dogshitting." Unlike sea-lioning and its "per our previous conversation…" off-topic nature, dogshitters nominally address the parent post… with nitpicks irrelevant to the thread's larger topic.
Really? Would you not think that being anonymous, performative moral actions would be fewer than a social network which was tied to an actual identity?
I don't understand why in your example, the point couldn't be made without specifically using crude language. It doesn't seem like that racial slurs would contribute to the threads topic.
