I think he makes the good point that the moderates are the ones who allow the extremists to exist.
Those 'extremists' would include you and POLAND, however
Does that mean you only exist because I allow you to
edit: I think there's a difference with religion here because the question of religion actually has a null hypothesis (H0 - there is no god) and we can test that hypothesis. Because H0 has yet to be refuted with evidence against that notion, accepting H1, the alternative hypothesis, is a leap of faith that is not backed up by science. Thus, moderates are required to establish the acceptance of H1 without sufficient evidence as a normal thing to do and without these moderates the extremists would be huge outliers that look like nut jobs to everyone else. Furthermore, there isn't an opposite end of the spectrum as the acceptance of H0 can't really be 'moderate' or 'extreme' by definition (like agnostic atheism), you either accept H0 as the null or you reject it (i.e. binomial) but the degree of 'faith' can vary due to the lack of evidence.
With feminism, there really isn't a null hypothesis; the closest you can get would be the middle ground where you're not really prepared to fully accept the arguments from each ends of the spectrum. You could make the question binomial by rephrasing it but it would work both ways depending on which stance you took as the H0. So I think it is possible for either end of the spectrum to exist without the middle ground and I think it is also possible that the distribution could be bimodal like a form of
disruptive selection.
Would you say that an actor appearing in an anti smoking ad yet who makes smoking look cool in a movie to be hypocritical?
What about a non-vegan appearing in a PETA ad?
I don't see any issue with the smoking one. I'd rather have actors portray characters accurately than worry if their personal beliefs conflict with that character. Some actors will decline roles because of the character conflicts with their beliefs but unless the point is specifically that they are against, say, 'smoking advertised through mass media' or 'extreme gun violence in film and TV' then I don't see any conflict. For me, it boils down to killing on screen. If you wont smoke because you're against smoking, you should forget about playing a role that kills on screen or commits any illegal activity (including speeding). Some atheists have played religious roles and vice versa and while I would cringe at having to do the same I don't think that actor has some sort of cognitive dissonance about their stance on the supernatural.
Surely we'd get to a point where actors end up having to play themselves but with different names
Are all PETA advocates vegan by the way? I'm not really familiar with the organisation but I think it would be possible to not be a vegan and still be an animal rights advocate. I can justify eating meat but probably not the way we go about it (slaughter houses, etc).
edit:
Here's a fairly well-rounded article by Sam Harris on gun control:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
I'm sure there are points here and there that either side of the debate will take exception to but on the whole it's not bad and presents a pretty rational case.
It can't be wrong to recognise the factual fallacies and the hypocrisy of the female position. 
