I would agree with the phrase 'violent-minded' individual as a neutral descriptor in that,he believes that violence is sometimes the answer to otherwise otherwise insoluble problems.

I wouldn't agree with it as a derogatory term. I think that violence has its place in the world, and that's not likely to change in any meaningful way in either of our lifetimes.

But here's really the core of it. Dangerous ideas exist. The idea that the proper role of women in society is subservient to men is one. The idea that Jews and other untermenschen are responsible for the economic situation of post WWI Germany is one. The idea that a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist Theocracy is the best way to optimize human happiness and personal agency is another.

There have been humans alive who have killed and died for ideas like these. There are humans alive today who kill and die for ideas like these. There will continue to be people like these for the foreseeable future. To categorically deny violence as a solution to the problem of ideological extremism is just baring your throat, and the throat of innocents to everybody who isn't so noble.

I don't know what your relationship with religion is. I doubt you were a devout fundamentalist. I was. I have a firsthand understanding of the power of dangerous beliefs. I don't believe you respect the power that dangerous beliefs have over believers.

That all aside, I believe that you can find Harris personally reprehensible and still recognize the value of the piece I posted. Message and messenger can be discretely evaluated. Whether or not that is desirable is a separate discussion.