Do you think extremism of one form can preclude extremism of another?
I don’t think it ever does. What is extremism? Who is an extremist? An extremist is someone who espouses morals or ideologies that deviate from the perceived center of society [Wikipedia]. It is a willingness to abandon moderation in favor of excessive measures in the context of administration, justice, militarism, religion, tradition and/or any other aspect of humanity. My question is this: if an extremist emerges, say, in the field of punitive justice, does it mean that he or she is more likely to be an extremist in religion? The answer would be: “Yes. He or she is more likely to be an extremist in another form too.”
An apparently extremist individual would be prone to contend this suggestion. The argument would be that, as the majority may choose to label them so, the individual has the right to opportunity (or, Ayn Rand‘s right to property). A malleated extension of this right could be employed to argue that while the individual may be espousing a doctrine of extremism in subject A, he or she may not yet be willing to be drawn into abundant measures in subject B. How do you argue this?
To be honest, I have met only one extremist in my life, and his opinions merited nothing more than silence – a stunned version of which I duly observed. However, that does not mean that I am disallowed from making my demands of such people who, and even if only by empirical evidence, have stalled many constructive machinations in this world. I will always assume that if you are an extremist, then I will always be biased against any stance you may take irrespective of what subject matter you are faced with. When the label of “extremist” is itself pejorative, my decision is definitely not misguided. If you want to escape that label, corroborate your claims and peacefully establish your demands. If you cannot do that, do not defend yourself against such accusations. They are justified.