Fred Luntz (a polling and covert wordsmith guru who frequently appears on Fox) recently made a very interesting observation. He said if the conservatives want to distance themselves from the repercussions of the class warfare discourse of the progressives, they have to stop using the word "class" when they frame their collectives. For instance, if they want to address the middle income demographic, they should not say "middle class," but instead, "hard working Americans." Granted, this is not as precise, but it implicitly flatters the people with a designation that has good moral conduct embedded into it, and it steps outside the class struggle frame.
I find the language this young man uses is loaded with the kind of covert subconscious stickiness Luntz pointed to. It's one collective after another in his discourse--all with strongly worded emotional anchors. This dude is a pure social metaphysician in the original sense of that term, even though it is a very limited concept. He is a collectivist to the core of his soul. And he constantly calls on "Objectivists" as if this were a class of people like a tribe. There are no individuals in his world on a primary level. (I base this on what little I have read from him.) There are Objectivists, blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, filth, betrayers, and so on. His outbursts show clearly that he wants compliance from all his imaginary tribe members. He comes off as having the soul of a bully.
Oddly enough, I don't find his racism as offensive as his wallowing in negative emotions. Lots of people are going to bash his racist rants, but not many over in those murky waters will object to his focus on spite as a constant subtext.
Just as laughter is contagious, so is hatred. This is physical. It comes from the way mirror neurons work. And it is common knowledge that when you cultivate excessive emotional negativity, you literally kill yourself over time. Ulcers, cancer, strokes, heart attacks, the list goes on and on.
The problem is that, since hatred is contagious, you kill those who go along with you, too.
If someone were to characterize this dude as "toxic," they would not be using a metaphor. His behavior is literally and physically toxic to those who spend lots of time around him.
There's a matter of degree, too. Barbara Branden used to give us a constant reminder. if you use your harshest terms for the people you disagree with, what is left to designate the real bad guys like Hitler? You end up trivializing the extent of their evil by leveling it to people who are nowhere near the monsters they were.
This is one of the reasons you rarely see me use words anymore like "disgusting," "contemptible," "subhuman," "evil," "filth," and so on. I do use them, but when I do, they tend to have impact. The reason is I choose my targets based on relevance, and I don't dilute them with kindergarten antics or overuse.
I'm on a Brazilian saying kick, so here is another. It refers to the true extent of the effectiveness SLOP has in the Objectivist subcommunity (and elsewhere) due to the constant yelling and nasty emotional environment this dude helps cultivate. (And he's not the only one.)
When one donkey brays, the one beside it doesn't budge, but simply lowers its ear to tune out the noise.