Tolerance in the social liberal/progressive sense isn’t the idea that everyone can do what they want, it’s the willingness to create a society in which all different cultures, ideas and values can coexist without conflict or discrimination. Those who promote conflict and discrimination are intolerant, and they work against the kind of society tolerant people want to build. If we followed your ideals, we could never have stopped Nazism because anything other than appeasement is ‘intolerant’ of Nazi ideas.
Ok well by your logic Churchill was an authoritarian and an extremist because he wanted to stop Nazism.
[quote=“BingoBongoLand, post:39, topic:109929”]
Despite holding extremist views, such as attacking anyone they deem a “fascist”, purposely rioting, silencing anyone who opposes then,[/quote]
They want to establish organised self-defence for threatened communities, that’s not a popular view but I don’t think it’s an extreme one. It doesn’t go against the established moral framework in which people are allowed to protect themselves when threatened.
Ok they are extreme in a political sense, but not in an authoritarian manner as you first claimed, but by the fact they argue for extreme equality, tolerance and acceptance of others. ‘Extreme’ here doesn’t need to be synonymous with ‘bad’.
They want to defend communities with violence when they are threatened. They don’t want to spread antifascism through violence, the two aims are distinct.
I think these are rare and usually done to individuals who have committed acts of violence or who has been inciting violence. That individual would constitute a dangerous threat to minorities.