I think a conversation about this question would be very interesting, particularly with the author, because the key words are used in unusual ways and beg for definition.
What is weaponized language? Is it utterances that are unavoidably going to harm someone? Is it weaponized because it is crafted with the intent to harm? Is it weaponized because someone has taken an innocuous phrase and turned it into a weapon? Is it not designed as harmful by anyone in particular, but evolves through societal use into something noxious (like "retarded" becoming a slur)? Is it merely said to have been weaponized once it has harmed someone, empirically, so to speak?
What is manipulative language? Advertising, or propaganda, as taught in Bernays' seminal book? Political euphemisms and other doublespeak? Is it speech that is intended to make people act a certain way, or is it speech that has successfully made people change their behavior? Can it be explicit direction, or only sneaky and subliminal?
Is there any way to avoid being harmed by weaponized language or manipulated by manipulative language, or are we helpless against them? Can we protect ourselves by responding with language, or do we have to take to the streets, disrupt things, commit violence?
That may sound extreme, and it should. This kind of scary, over-the-top vocabulary in an academic context tends to create anxiety, conditioned rather than considered responses, hyperfocus on victimhood, and groupthink. Groupthink makes for inflexible politics and easily manipulated students...ironically.
Particularly telling is the choice of the preposition "for" in "transform societal values for independence...." This sound like a usage that has a clear, recognized meaning only in certain classrooms. The usual choice might be "transform...values having to do with independence." This compression of syntax is a trademark of the ivory tower. It begins, perhaps, by trying not to be wordy, and ends with language that only other academics dare pretend to understand.