Actually Mao claimed his great leap forward was "Anti-Racism" (and also Anti-Classism and whatever) because he forcefully removed all differences by murdering pretty much any one standing out. Pol Pot never claimed that but technically speaking he was doing the same: Forcefully removing everything making people different. Yes, there is "Extremist Anti-Racism".

Being different is as much a basic right as being treated equally.

An interesting excursus: The Woke movement labelled it "racist" when Non-Rasta-People wore Rasta curls. I on the other hand call it racist to deny people the right to freely chose or reject traditions based on their origin. Because one side is Extremist and the other is liberal. Now tell me where the truth lies.

There is a Bavarian Pro-Verb: Cats enjoy mice, but not me. Again, tell me where the truth lies.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're confusing "extremism" with "violence." Pacifism is extremist.

[–] Crass_Spektakel@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, Pacificm is not always Extremist.

The Green party of Germany is Pacifist.

But they also have been the loudest about rearming the German Bundeswehr in face of Russian Aggression since 2008. I cite their defence speaker from 2010: "Peace is worth fighting for".

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago

Pacifism is an extremist position. Everyone wants to avoid violence, but pacifism is extremist.

You're combining radical, extreme views with violence for no reason other than to lie about having a point. Enlightened Centrism at its peak.