> So we can see that in the context of the article, and the call to action mentioned, "extremism" is not vague, nor meaningless, The fact you had to provide co

> So we can see that in the context of the article, and the call to action mentioned, "extremism" is not vague, nor meaningless, The fact you had to provide context for this one case makes your whole point moot, and you don't even realize it. Sure it makes sense in this case. But a law that just says extremism (without context) is bad, can and will be abused down the line to fit the narrative of the powers that be.