No one would disagree with that definition. Your comment's parent made the point that exclusionary language is used in many in-groups, not just bigoted ones.
Your contribution was to say that the parent is talking about left-leaning people like they are - in your words - genocide advocates. I don't know that this is a quality contribution.
> You seem to be assuming that most people are mindless, and further that I'm talking about the broad mass of people.
Are you saying that people generally have control over their opinions and predispositions? I know I can't change my views at will, Lord knows if I could I'd become a bit more woke to fit in better.
Of course, extremism is by no means limited to one particular ideology. I'm not a fan of Maoists, for example.
I believe one can certainly change their views, although it's hard work.
Because that is my area of expertise and I wish to contribute to the discussion. While not all bigots are extremists, all extremists are bigots.
"Warning" and "complaining" is one thing, but advocating for the complete social and professional ostracization of people for increasingly arbitrary reasons
I'm not making an argument for cancel culture, which has flaws of its own. When I talk about extremists I have narrow and specific criteria for inclusion in that category, most importantly the advocacy of genocide.
Assuming constant bad faith on the part of people, _most_ of whom don't have any control over the views they hold
You seem to be assuming that most people are mindless, and further that I'm talking about the broad mass of people.