I understand where you're coming from but this isn't a good argument.
First, you're again jumping to conclusions about what people believe in order to straw man them - I've never heard anyone call for Hillary's murder, only her imprisonment. I still don't see that kind of thing as representative.
Second, by this kind of logic, the Muslim ban was a great idea. While only an incredibly small percentage of them actually committed terrorist acts, what's the acceptable percentage of those who think that radical Shari'a is a good idea, even if they don't engage in violence? 25%? 10%? Look, here's another random unverified poll that says half of all British Muslims support illegalization of homosexuality: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... Guess we should systematically discriminate against them!
In both cases you are using stereotypes to hurt people. This is not to say Qanon people should be given a free pass, call them out on their bullshit. But I think the percentage would have to be nearly 100 in order to justify any extreme actions against Qanon. And it clearly isn't.
What are you talking about? Are you in the right thread? None of this makes sense in regards to my parent comments. Yikes. And I'm not engaging in your "Muslims are bad" whataboutism deflection. What extreme actions do you see me advocating for here? What stereotypes am I propagating?
Qanon supporters represent a small fraction of Republicans. Muslim extremists represent a small fraction of Muslims.
Your comment talks about the "acceptable percentage" of Republicans who believe in Qanon. Travel bans for Muslims were justified based on the rise in Islamic terrorism - e.g. "An unacceptable percentage of Muslims are engaged in terrorism, we must ban ALL of them."
In both cases the majority is misrepresented by the minority. In both cases criticism against the minority is misapplied to the majority. In the first case you argue that this is justified, whereas I argue in both cases it is not.
It is wrong because Muslims and Muslim Terrorists are two different groups. It is wrong because Republicans and Qanon Crazies are two different groups.
First, you're again jumping to conclusions about what people believe in order to straw man them - I've never heard anyone call for Hillary's murder, only her imprisonment. I still don't see that kind of thing as representative.
Second, by this kind of logic, the Muslim ban was a great idea. While only an incredibly small percentage of them actually committed terrorist acts, what's the acceptable percentage of those who think that radical Shari'a is a good idea, even if they don't engage in violence? 25%? 10%? Look, here's another random unverified poll that says half of all British Muslims support illegalization of homosexuality: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... Guess we should systematically discriminate against them!
In both cases you are using stereotypes to hurt people. This is not to say Qanon people should be given a free pass, call them out on their bullshit. But I think the percentage would have to be nearly 100 in order to justify any extreme actions against Qanon. And it clearly isn't.