So I came across this... thing about Vikings on Imgur which comes complete with a grand total of zero cited sources. Let's take a look at it. Also keep in mind this whole thing constantly says 'Vikings' when it means 'Scandinavians' but that's pretty par for the course.

Erik the Red was so violent that fellow Vikings rejected him. He was exiled from both Norway and Iceland

While it's true that Erik was banished from Iceland for murdering a guy it was actually his father, Thorvald Asvaldsson, who was banished from Norway for similar reasons. I also can't find any mention of him being super duper violent but I guess it's subjective.

<Description of brutal torture method know as the 'Blood Eagle'>

While I can't find anything definitive there is a lot of controversy around whether this was a thing that ever happened with one source saying:

Descriptions of the sacrifice start only in the late twelfth century. In the course of the next two hundred years Scandinavian authors associate the blood-eagle with four individuals. Two of the victims are historical figures from the ninth century: Ella and Halfdan; in both cases, the accounts of Saxo and the sagas are contradicted — sometimes flagrantly — by contemporary sources. The remaining two victims are from the world of legend

So at best it's not all that common, certainly not as common as the image suggests.

Disputes were settled using a system known as 'Holmgangs,' which was essentially a duel to the death. If somebody felt a fellow Viking had wronged his family he would challenge them. The event was to be held within a week of the challenge, and rules varied from region to region.

So it's true that Holmgangs were a thing but the image seems to be implying that they were the method for solving disputes when, in fact, this source presents a quote:

"The right of settling a legal dispute by ...combat was a neutralizing influence at the uncertainty of Icelandic law. It was a shield against the dominating principle of Formalism, and as a means of deliverance from the ...false oath of an opponent ...it was a ready means for ...settlement of the ...issue, and was ...a[n] ...answer to any ...legal chicanery."

which implies that the Holmgang was intended as a sort of work-around for the existing legal system. Also it's not necessarily a fight to the death (Iceland, specifically, went to first blood) nor is it specifically a resolution for a 'wronged family'.

The picture used for 'Berserkers' is of Celtic Warriors.

They filed their teeth into points to further petrify their enemies.

First of all, I can clearly see in that image that those teeth are not pointed. Come on, man. Second, this source states:

Why the Viking men had their teeth modified remains a mystery, but it's likely that the marks represented some kind of achievement.

Also it's not really strictly badhistory, it's just baffling but

Often times, their longboats were not built with bathrooms.

As opposed to all those other viking-era boats that did come with bathrooms?

Being covered in the blood of enemies must have had some sort of mental effect on Vikings as they are known throughout history to be incredibly clean.

I'm not entirely sure how those two statements are related since it's not like Vikings were covered in the blood of their enemies so constantly that it would effect their ideas of cleanliness.

When the Norse vikings sailed for America in the 11th century, they fully expected (and hoped) to find a race of monsters to fight. Instead they found the indigenous peoples. Disappointed at finding no real monsters, the Norse (known for being tall) called them Skræling, or pygmies.

Oh, so now they're Norse Vikings instead of just Vikings. I cannot find any sources to support this idea, either, it seems like they were travelling there to settle and gather valuable resources. Also it seems the Norse name for the natives was skrælingjar which could possibly mean 'coarse fellows' or 'subhumans'.