[kibwen]

Amusingly, upthread you and I are talking about whether encouraging more people to vote leads to better outcomes, and this is an example where the answer is yes: a candidate can be both an extremist and receive 50% of the vote if, as in is true in the US, less than half the eligible electorate actually votes. The current president was elected on the backs of 25% of eligible voters; does that make him an extremist candidate even by the standards of the US electorate? If we had more data on account of more Americans asserting their preferences, then we could actually determine that.

[nickff]

I think that's a sign that each of us has nuanced views!

'Extremist' is a bit of a slippery fish; I can't imagine calling something with even 10% support 'extremist'. If I had to draw a line, it would probably be that the sum of all 'extreme position support' would have to be less than 5% for a given subject. That is not to say that positions with >5% support are necessarily correct or conscionable.

[pessimizer]

For "extremism" to be anything but a meaningless slur, it has to at least include in its meaning "not common."

[danaris]

I don't care how common it is; anyone advocating for genocide is an extremist.

There is an absolute scale, just like there is at least some absolute morality.