Read the excerpt from "A Case for Restricting Hate Speech," by Laura Beth Nielsen. These negative physical and mental health outcomes—which embody the historical roots of race and gender oppression—mean that hate speech is not "just speech." Hate speech is doing something. It results in tangible harms that are serious in and of themselves and that collectively amount to the harm of subordination. The harm of perpetuating discrimination. The harm of creating inequality. What is the purpose of Nielsen’s repetition of the word harm? to emphasize the very real damage hate speech inflicts to show how many people repeatedly use hate speech against others to detail the negative physical health outcomes that arise from hate speech to demonstrate that inequality hurts those suffering from gender and race oppression

To emphasize the very real damage hate speech inflicts.

Explanation:

Prof. Laura Beth Nielsen wrote about the issue of hate speech in an op-ed and details the physical as well as mental 'illness' it can give a person. The issue of hate speech is much more than what meets the eye, and that it is something that is still plaguing the world.

In the given excerpt from the article, Nielsen uses the word "harm" continuously. This repetition is mostly used to lay great emphasis on the very word, and also to 'highlight' the effect on others. She remarks how hate speeches "collectively amount to the harm of subordination. The harm of perpetuating discrimination. The harm of creating inequality." And it is not just physical torment that it causes, but even has "mental health outcomes". She uses "harm" repetitively to emphasize the real damage that hate speeches inflict on the receivers.

Thus, the correct answer is the first option.

the answer is b i think

man vs. nature - first choice