Punk-Dhamma: Being intolerant to perceived intolerance - wrong view according to Dhamma?

In reference to [this](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/extremist-views-are-banned-on-this-forum/13312) : Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"? Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism? Their usual advertisement: In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself? Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma? or the usual approach of them: Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate? If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma? Occupying not only Dhamma and destructing peace... what does not make the simply a "folks army"? Lack of weapons? And if having, don't they banner and execute? ---- That so far on the question fighting aversion with aversion. Now how is it when fighting non-aversion with aversion? (of which the case linked is about) Simply killing not desired any base to justify in Dhamma? *(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)*