Not to be a weasel, but I think you have to really screw down how you'd define toxic maximalism before you can answer. My sense is that most debates about abstractions are both undecidable and useless, so I'll make a loose definition before responding.

I think that's a reasonable definition that most people would recognize and even endorse.

So, conditioned on that definition, my opinion is that 85% of the behavior people describe as TM has a simpler pedigree: it's dickheads being dickheads online.

The nice thing about being a dickhead under the TM banner is that they can write off their behavior as being in service to some larger moral good; and they can even occupy relatively high-status positions within a very localized community. If you're naturally a dickhead, it's actually a pretty sweet deal.

That's not to say that some of these TM dickheads don't like btc and want it to succeed -- I'm sure they do. But I would bet most of my net worth that, had btc never existed, they would be directing similar dickheaded behavior against other online targets. In theory this hypothesis could be empirically validated, but I doubt anyone will bother.

As to whether it's effective, I'd say: no, it's counterproductive. For evidence supporting this claim, I'd say: cast your memory back for examples from your life where being a giant dick to someone caused them to come around to your way of thinking, or proved persuasive; then search your memory for examples of where such behavior caused people to dig in harder, for spite, if for no other reason. Better yet, imagine the ways you yourself have reacted to such an approach.