>It's not that I don't want ANYONE to enact change, I just don't want people with extreme views enacting change.
This position sounds fine until you realize all it has done is shift discussion away from the effectiveness and correctness of a given policy, to a pre-discussion of the reasonableness of that policy. The heuristic replaces the thing itself. "Is this an extreme position?" replaces "Is this good policy?"
This is fine when public discourse is a never-ending deluge of extreme ideas: 'should we commit genocide?' - let's not even bother working through that one.
However, in practice this position is often used to prevent or shut down discussion of social legislation aimed at fixing publicly broken but privately lucrative policy positions.
Is single-payer healthcare too extreme an idea for the states? Regardless of your answer you've likely seen this exact form of argument. It adds nothing to the discussion and creates a presumption that the status quo is correct.
The inverse position isn't 'Is single-payer healthcare good?', it's 'Is remaining on employer funded healthcare too extreme an idea for the states?' Note how the existence of the status quo makes this an uphill battle - how can what already exists be too extreme?
Everyone wants the policies they want. Being able to define the policies they do not want as 'extreme' is just an extra tool to ossify and slow legislative change. Which, again, is itself a position to take.