This assumes the 'outrage community' is a thing that exists and is a bunch of angry people, frothing at the mouth, waiting to attack anyone who isn't toeing their line. Maybe they even have meetings. If they do I haven't been invited. That might be because they don't exist. I believe my responses have been well measured, and the idea of an 'outrage community' is something that has been propped up to point to as a defense against criticism, no matter how deserved.
"People don't like that I'm racist? No, that's the outrage community"
"I feel attacked on all sides. Could it be that the majority of people find my ideals abhorrent? No, that's the outrage community"
In short, it's a way to pretend you are part of a silent majority, attacked by a vocal minority in the absence of actual evidence.
I don't think it matters whether the silent majority agrees with the vocal minority or not, as far as this discussion goes (and of course it is a vocal minority that is going after these youtubers -- the media is a small subset of the population). Whether their ideas are popular or not, they are in competition with these youtubers for influence over impressionable, insecure minds. So please spare me the "impressionable mind" stuff. If you get mad at someone else for using your tactics, you have no leg to stand on.
"People don't like that I'm racist? No, that's the outrage community"
"I feel attacked on all sides. Could it be that the majority of people find my ideals abhorrent? No, that's the outrage community"
In short, it's a way to pretend you are part of a silent majority, attacked by a vocal minority in the absence of actual evidence.