The evil of inadvertent eliminationist thinking

I see a lot of this from the postmodernist, critical theory, social justice left. From Stupidity in the New York Times by Kevin D. Williams.

I disagree with Farhad Manjoo about many things, but it is rare for me to read his column and think it stupid. His column in the New York Times today is irredeemably stupid. It argues that government should simply “abolish” billionaires because — here’s the level of thinking at play — “billionaires are bad.”

[snip]

Any time your best thinking tells you that the best solution to a social problem is the elimination of a class of people, it’s time to have another cup of coffee and think a little harder.

Others have referred to it as eliminationist rhetoric.

Does Farhad Manjoo really want to eliminate people for their achievements or the ideas he holds? I doubt that very much. Almost no one who speaks in this fashion is speaking literally.

But it cannot help but convey two truths. 1) The speaker has no regard for the proposed group for elimination, and 2) the speaker has no regard for age of enlightenment values of human universalism, human rights, or rule of law.

Theoretically, the right response is to make the argument against such eliminationist thinking. But when the ideology is so totalitarian, it is unsurprising that its very extremism, eliminationism, and totalitarianism invite an eliminationist response.

Those who seek to eliminate diversity of thought, who seek to exert authoritarian control over others, who seek to deny humanity to those with whom they disagree are a perennial danger.