[teekert]

Let me answer you with 2 other questions:

Is this line of thinking going to make things better for future generations or is it not?

How important is it to work on defining this boundary, compared to working towards a less polarized society?

[direwolf20]

How can society become less polarised if we normalise an extremely wide spectrum of different moral axioms? To reduce polarisation, people with extremist moral axioms must stop having them, which can't happen if extremist moral axioms are accepted.

[teekert]

For one, I think that the people you have put the "extreme" label on, are not as extreme as you think they are, and indeed could be quite agreeable when you'd seek them out and sit down with them over tea and try to communicate with them with more nuance than a 160 char message can deliver.

Yes, you will be able to find examples that confirm your statement, but they are an exceedingly small minority, probably despised (almost) as much by their "own group" (as far as people actually feel part of a group) as they are by you.

I believe it is the (incentives of) the (social)media and the bots that have made you believe otherwise, over time and in small steps.

[direwolf20]

The people I put the "extreme" label on believe that it's okay to kill millions of people in order to increase your own strength.

[teekert]

I'd love to have a beer with you, we could be at this all night haha.

[teekert]

.. And we know MS is used as a political tool (ie see their past with the NSA, and the whole business with the International Criminal Court), ie Linux is not, at least not "willingly".