You know, while there are people who are truly problematic, using extreme means to fight against these people are just as bad, if not, worse than what they’re fighting against. For instance, let’s say that someone supports the death penalty for hate crimes, whether or not the victim’s life is taken. If the death penalty supporter believes in stoning the hate criminal to death, refuses to let the hate criminal appeal to their death sentence, and accuses people who oppose the death sentence of being complicit in bigotry, then that person is an extremist, and they’re just as bad as the hate criminal they’re trying to execute. This is true, even if the person knows that a violent crime or property crime is only a hate crime if the crime was motivated based on the victim’s demographic. While I would respect their belief that the death penalty should apply to hate crimes (especially in an age where there’s an increasing rate of hate crimes), stoning the criminal and defaming opponents as bigots is too extreme.
And yes, I do support the death penalty for hate crimes. I wouldn’t go as far as bullying the opponents or using crueler methods of execution, but there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards hate crimes, regardless of degree. My support isn’t based on the ethics of executing the criminal, but rather the handling of the crimes.