As others have implied already, he could just as easily have been referring to the words.
I think his intention was to explain that these are the same words (mostly from academia and taken up with reckless abandon via language architectures like Java) that may be thrown around by some to create the code mess (anti-pythonic) in the first place.
That's wrong. I like the key to his talk but the plague of large complicated systems is exactly coupling and incoherence. Classes are NOT necessarily the way to achieve these.