I'm not saying murdering everyone is the right alternative, but if you think trying to balance political power by "winning debates" or something seems reasonable, that ship has long sailed.
I know everyone hates it when people “both sides” things these days, but one thing I do see both sides having in common is a refusal to honestly engage with and comprehend the other position. This doesn’t mean agreeing. It means understanding what someone believes and how they might have gotten there.
Where the echo chambers and other things that you mention do come in is in reinforcing that dynamic, in reinforcing each side seeing only a straw man version of the other.
You're equivocating between reasons as in causes and reason as in rationality.
To justify the vigilante killing? Some exceptional amount far beyond anything he could have possibly caused with his rhetoric.
If he had broken some law with his speech, the police could handle that.
Charles Manson was convicted for murders he didn't do himself, so there is obviously a limit in how much damage you're allowed to do with words.
Many dictators didn't kill anyone themselves, they just talked others into it.
Or think of the Hamas leaders who talked their people into the actrocity of the October 7 attacks.
I just want to know where people draw the line.
BTW the whole MAGA thing is based on the assumption of damage that is caused by words. You know the whole LGBTQIA2S+, DEI and climate change stuff our kids get indoctrinated with by schools, universities and the liberal media.
But I wouldn't bet any money on us, given what I've seen in the last 10 years.