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

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.)
DN 31 says:

On what four grounds do they not do bad deeds? One does bad deeds
prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice. When a
noble disciple is not prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity,
and cowardice, they don’t do bad deeds on these four grounds.
That is what the Buddha said. Then the Holy One, the Teacher, went on
to say:
“If you act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, or stupidity,  your fame shrinks,  like the moon in the
waning fortnight.
If you don’t act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, and stupidity,  your fame swells,  like the moon in the
waxing fortnight.”

The quote below is mostly an example of prejudice and thus non-Buddhist:

Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic,
misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.

The Buddha taught to examine anything in terms of wholesome &amp;
unwholesome, benefit &amp; danger, as follows:

And what fuels the arising
of the awakening factor of investigation of principles, or, when it
has arisen, fully develops it? There are qualities that are skillful
and unskillful, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, and
those on the side of dark and bright. Frequent proper attention to
them fuels the arising of the awakening factor of investigation of
principles, or, when it has arisen, fully develops it.
SN 46.2



The Buddha said that to really know any object, we must know five
things about it, namely: (1) What are the characteristics or
properties of the object? (2) From what does the object arise? (3)
What is its assāda, its enticing quality, its appeal, its allurement?
(4) What is the ādīnava, the hidden danger, the sinister power to harm
that lies concealed in it? (5) What is the nissaraṇa, the trick by
means of which we can get the better of it? What is the device, the
skillful means of escaping from the grip of this object?
Ajahn Buddhadasa

In other words, there is nothing exclusively or totally unwholesome about the underlying origin of anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas. For example, some people have valid grievances against Zionism (which is why the United Nations has disapproved of certain Israel actions), not all homosexual behaviours are wholesome (which is why some people have concerns about homosexuality), the Pali suttas contain criticisms of certain characteristics of women (from the viewpoint of liberation) and not all (100%) of the doctrines of Nazism were evil (which is why Nazism improved many aspects of German society during the 1930s, until the disastrous war occurred). Therefore, it appears only &quot;racism&quot; is a form a prejudice condemned by the Buddha.
The link in the OP is obviously not Buddhist but is characteristic of a certain political bent prevalent in the West today.
If you are a Buddhist with real metta and meet a person with anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas; you should have a discussion with them and ask them about their grievances and help them identify what is valid (wholesome), invalid (unwholesome) and a generalisation (prejudiced) about their ideas. For example, there are Jewish Rabbis and individuals that asked themselves the question about why Nazis were anti-semitic, such as here: Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat explains Why Hitler Hated Jews.
If we engage the type of prejudice exhibited at the link in the OP, we will only increase rather than reduce evil.