You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about.
Someone: Extremism is bad.
You: What is extreme is subjective.
The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.
You're just fishing for a nice and spicy example. Here is a bland one. I have a big cup of coffee on my desk right now. There are very nice people right here in the USA, some of whom have been my neighbors and about whom I will say nothing derogatory, who think I am endangering my immortal soul by drinking from it. Some might consider taking one or the other stance extreme. I think weighing in publicly on whether such behavior is "redeemable" as if it is for you to decide is wholly inappropriate.
You're looking for some pure, objective reality that will never exist. You have to take a stand at some point; you cannot sit and say "who am I to say?"
"Who am I to say if it's wrong to believe people should be killed and enslaved for their skin color? Next thing you know, someone may think I'm extreme for what coffee I drink!"
If "extremism" gets banned, then individuals are incentivized to get things they don't like labeled as extremism.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if the things labeled extremism and thus banned from platforms was limited to ISIS and literal Nazis. It's been far more far-reaching than that. That's probably due to the incentives, not due to actual extremism.
So if extremism is subjective, it will be leveraged in that manner and you can't stop that behavior without removing the incentive. That's the point, not what is or isn't labeled as extremism today, that's just dragging the conversation back into the political gutter.
> The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.
I don't think that's the next step. I think the point is that what is extreme will always be subjective, and there is danger in allowing some group of people to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not.
> You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about.
That's true, but it also seems to effectively hold for the originals, only with conformity rather than contrarianism:
Also "remorse", which is quite popular among SJW tribunals when they silence someone on unverified testimony of the popular clique members while refusing to hear the "accused" even once.
