This doesn't seem anything like Schadenfreude, which is deriving pleasure/amusement from someone else's misfortune.
As usual with these types of requests, I don't understand why people expect that there will be, or want there to be, a single word to describe things like this. They don't occur commonly enough that they need a dedicated word. Even if they did, you'd still need to write an explanation because not everyone has the same background presumptions about culture and/or what is ugly/horrific that you do.
You could use the phrase "sign of the times", or you could refer to these words/phrases/sentences as "epitomizing" or "illustrating" the aspects of culture that you find to be so deplorable.
But, fundamentally, if you can't describe clearly what you think/mean when you have nearly unlimited words in which to do it, then you aren't going to make it any clearer by finding a specific word.
I cannot even follow your logic for why, "What if I don't want to listen?", is "violent". It's certainly individualist, placing the desires and pleasure of the individual over that of others, but that doesn't make it violent or inherently bad. There's nothing in it that refuses to take responsibility—if anything, I perceive the opposite as being true. The hierarchy of power that you attempt to draw out in your fourth criticism isn't in the original phrase at all. "What if I don't want to listen?" could be asked equally by the oppressor and the oppressed. If anything negative can be said about it, it's that it glorifies ignorance: rather than making a substantive argument about why what's being said is bad or not worth listening to, it focuses merely on an individual preference not to listen. Egoism and anti-intellectualism might be ugly, but I don't think this single phrase really epitomizes it all that well.
Nor, importantly, do I see the same themes at work in the use of the word "pussy". This has a more complex etymology than you seem to imagine. It started out, as you probably know from this meaning continuing to persist, as a term for a pet cat; it has cognates in other Germanic languages. At some point in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, the term expanded to refer to women (and it was a term of endearment, not of disrespect!), but its meaning to refer to a cat was not completely replaced. By the eighteenth century, as a form of synecdoche, it was commonly used to refer to female genitalia, rather than the woman herself. Again, it retained both of its earlier meanings. (It is, of course, not difficult to draw parallels between two things that are warm, furry, soft, and often rubbed. Then again, there's some argument to be made that this meaning has a completely different etymology and didn't emerge as a metonym. Old Norse had the word puss, which meant a pocket or a pouch.) However, there is no "wonder of cultural engineering" here. It wasn't engineered at all, and, to the extent that its meaning did evolve, it evolved in cultures very different from our own. If it's a perfect anything, it's a perfect mess, ripe for word-play but little else. (There is an offensive application of the word, and that's when the meaning of the word to mean "woman" is applied to belittle men who are perceived as effeminate. But this seems to be distinct from the context in which you're criticizing the word's usage.)
