Earlier quoted context omitted.
> relatively mainstream This doesn't preclude extreme. Not commenting on whether the community's is shooting themselves in the foot or not, just that the reason provided is not a good one for believing so. > If I was being disingenuous I should really encourage this schism! I do not think that you are necessarily being disingenuous but misunderstanding the difference of opinion in this way actually seems to encourage…
> This doesn't preclude extreme. Uhm yeah it literally does. Mainstream views can't be extreme by definition. You might not agree with them, but that's a different thing. > misunderstanding the difference of opinion in this way I haven't misunderstood anything.
You have misunderstood why people use the term "extremism".
> Mainstream views can't be extreme by definition.
Of course they can; mainstream views can't be uncommon by definition. Extreme doesn't strictly mean uncommon (not even in a political context), it is also used to mean "high degree", which can include distance from political centrism but can also include, e.g., frustration or flavor of cookie. To give another example, various online "challenges" like the "ice bucket challenge" are extreme but were also relatively mainstream when they were commonly performed and posted online; the term "ice bucket challenge" is still mainstream and the challenge itself is extreme (in fact, the reason it's called a "challenge" is because it is extreme).
Thinking there's too many immigrants might be mainstream (it currently is) but whether or not it's extreme depends on the degree to which it's believed. If it's believed to a high degree (such as "immigration is the worst thing about the capital city of this nation") by a large number of people then it is an extreme mainstream view by definition.