Does this constitute an Ad hominem?

The ideologically purist people are the whitest and most untouched people on the internet - That's the problem... Politics is about gaining power so that you can enact certain things that you believe in… but for a lot of these people it’s more just like a, like a hobby/game. That’s why you see like a lot of people online, they’re like: “Oh well, I don’t care if Trump or whoever wins. Like, at this point, if Bernie’s not going to make it, I don’t give a fuck” and it’s like, damn dude you must be pretty wealthy and pretty straight and pretty white to say that I guess, if you don’t give a fuck about like Roe v. Wade, you don’t give a fuck about trans-people in the military, you don’t give a fuck about children and the border…

- Steven "Destiny" Bonnell (May 22, 2020 - Twitch)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsay3idSffc  ~ 43:25

As a spelling Nazi in good standing, my first impression of this rant was to note "purist" as a misspelling of "purest", since "purist" is not an adjective ordinarily.  Ah well, it's just a rant...

It continues as a rant, with a definition of politics that suits Destiny's (hereinafter, "D" or "D's") purpose and allows his opinion of the meaning to be Equivocation .

Throughout, the whole of the rant is intended to be insulting, deprecatory and demeaning to whoever it concerns so is clearly intended to be Ad Hominem (Abusive) and Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) as well as hoping to imply that anyone not agreeing with the rant is some sort of lesser person along with all his ilk Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association) :"purist", "ideologically purest".

Since he does not even pretend it's rain, D is thus pissing on anyone disagreeing using an overgeneralization/shaming tone far too common in social media.  Hasty Generalization was not a major choice, here, since there's no evidence it was "hasty".

His last line is just more rant, but not to be outdone by his earlier "tour-de-force" foray into fallacy, he adds Appeal to Normality 

The hardest part of arguing with such as D, is that the discourse becomes dilatory.  When you or D realize it, the conversation must end.

It doesn't appear to be a response to an argument, in which case it wouldn't be.

This appears to be making an initial argument rather than a response to an argument. An Ad Hominem is a response to an argument. 

Person 1: "The ideologically purist people are the whitest and most untouched people on the internet."

Person 2: "If you think that then you are a moron, and therefore we should not listen to you."

In this case, person 2 is committing an Ad Hominem (Abusive) Fallacy.