I love the way people who encounter disagreement dismiss their critics as "extremists" without ever considering that perhaps it is their own ideas which are extreme.
And my understanding is that a lot of the harshest criticsm of this film was not so much over the content, but over the misleadingness (is that a word?) of the ad campaign. They really were selling this movie as a "feel good story of one woman's hard won success" and, gee, it's a bit more, or less, than that.
Eastwood obviously intended to shock and horrify his audience, and I think that's cruel and I think it's extreme, and he should take responsibility for that. Instead, he'll probably get the Oscar. Oh well, c'est la guerre.
That is probably my all time pet peeve. I've developed a somewhat *bracing* method for outlining the problem for the "I'm right by definition" crowd. I will ask them, point blank and with no hesitation, "if you were full of $hi7, how could I prove it to you?" Followed by "if you can't answer that question, even if I'm right you won't know it."
Personally, I think the greatest crime Hollywood has perpetrated against humanity is reinforcing the misguided notion that getting issues out for "public debate" solves problems.
"Debate" does NOT solve problems; "conclusions" solve problems, and the only way to reach sound conclusions is to define things tightly enough to know when you're backing a losing proposition.
I think that was what he was saying.
"Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."