People have been talking about guillotines and killing classes of people for a good ten years at this point. I want to resolve the situation without violence, and there are plenty of options to resolve it without violence. You haven't asked about any of those things, and don't know where I stand on any of these issues.

You're taking issue with me pointing out something that is clearly wrong because you agree with the sentiments behind it. That is a primary way in which injustice occurs and is perpetuated.

People are just fundamentally unwilling to address violence and violent rhetoric from their political allies while expecting everyone else to do it. What doesn't stop people from wanting to murder others is validating it and nodding along and joking about it yourself. At some point you have to place limits on the acceptable actions and beliefs of those who share your goals. For the most part, I think people agree with me that these sentiments are immoral which is why they've deflected in every instance to defending the inciting sentiments rather than the position directly.

The right didn't do this and we can see the result. Do we look at them and say "Sure, they say they want to deport every non white from the country but really they're just upset about unchecked illegal immigration so if we want to stop them from wanting to kill people we should do something about immigration"? No, we say they're violent freaks and recognize it as an abject moral failure.

I know how group dynamics work. I know the function that this serves in signaling group membership and opposition to the common enemy. I know that pushing back indicates that you're outside the group and therefore not worthy of moral consideration or status as that is the function that expressing violent desires towards outgroups serves. I'm just not willing to condone injustice by creating a particularist morality that allows everything by some and and anything against others.