[singulasar]

or maybe let's not?

their actions are clearly not extremist, absolutely not perfect and not always equally democratic, but not extremist or violent like the actual extremists...

[raxxorraxor]

I do think the ambition to spy on all private communication to be quite extremist.

Especially Germany should know better. If you build two autocratic dictatorships on average per century, maybe start to take care that state powers are restricted.

The US is fully correct in its criticism of Germany regarding freedom of speech and house searches. Sure, on surveillance their arguments would be very weak...

Absolutely nothing positive will be gained by this surveillance, so there isn't even the smallest security benefit. On the contrary.

[singulasar]

Again, I disagree, I wouldn't call it extremist. It's vile and wrong, but people all over the political spectrum are in favour of this. there's a difference between something being bad or self-serving, and something being extremist. Labelling everything as extremist does not help anyone, especially today when everyone is already highly divided.

No way I'm getting into the restrict state powers discussion as that is highly complex and not something that can properly be discussed on an internet forum.

[AAAAaccountAAAA]

Politics are an inherently violent affair. The government is simply a monopoly on legitimate violence. Politicians decide the laws, which result in people breaking them getting beaten up & dragged to a cell. Not to say this is always a bad thing: some people cannot be stopped from misbehaving just by talking, but it definitely is violent.

[spit2wind]

I see this a lot and am not convinced. It appears reductionist in a way that feels like it's pushing an agenda.

Democratic governments clearly are about addressing community needs and coordinating efforts that require pooled resources (at least). I'm not denying there may be a monopoly on violence. However, in a democratic system, such a monopoly would be voted on, giving the monopoly some legitimacy (not saying it's necessarily moral).

Yet in reality, the US, for example, has the Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms and form militias. That doesn't sound like the government has a monopoly on violence.

I guess the weasel word is "legitimate"? But is that legal or moral legitimacy (or something else)? By whose definition and arrived at how?

It feels like such a pithy comment, "a monopoly on legitimate violence", like it's expressing something deep. Yet I get the sense that supporting it requires some contortion of logic and language. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't seem self-evident to me at all.

[Gud]

Define "extremist". Many people would argue mass immigration is an extremist position but was the normal accepted position for the people in power within the European Union but was never a popular position with the populations of Europe.

So these so called <<right wing extremists>> represent the normal position.