Yes, there is one mention of microaggressions in the paper

> Not only repeated exposure but also a lack of resistance within the chan communities reinforces such microaggressions.

What is your comment supposed to mean? Is it mentioned too often/too little so the rest of the paper to loose legitimacy, or what is your point?

Since I've never heard the term before, I looked it up

> Microaggression is a term used for commonplace daily verbal, behavioral or environmental slights, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups.

Seems highly relevant to a paper about extremists use of humor.

It's bullshit concept used as weapon by proponents of victimhood culture to bash anyone they deem "privileged". Don't you find peculiar that this "little aggression" can be unintentional? And of course deciding what are "hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes" depends solely on "offended" party.

Some examples of "microagressions": avoiding eye contact when speaking to someone, telling someone they are articulate, denying that you are racist, color (race) blindness, assuming someone's gender, asking a girl whether she has a boyfriend (she might be lesbian, you bigot), calling undocumented migrants illegals, saying that someone's name is difficult to pronounce, calling your boss crazy...