There were similar objections to Michael Harriot's editorial in The Root calling Pete Buttigieg a lucky mf. In the comments section, some of the liberal WP readers upbraided Harriot and called for a more civil discourse.

When you're describing something that's deeply offensive, you take a risk if you limit yourself to polite, decorous language to describe that outrage. In Harriot's case, Buttigieg had previously implied (probably not consciously) that Black families were to blame for racial inequities in schools. Even though Buttigieg was on the surface trying to solve a racial problem, by ignoring the roots of systemic racism he was actually compounding the problem.

Harriot's language might have been offensive to some (and most readers of The Root are not white--at least those who comment on and write articles), but Buttigieg's original statement, though couched in polite terms, was, in Harriot's view (and mine), not just offensive but dangerous.

Before criticizing someone for using harsh language, it would be a good idea to ask WHY the speaker is doing so. If the speaker is in fact responding to an injustice, then working to eliminate the injustice would be a far more productive response than expressing shock at someone's diction.