That logic can be applied to any large group.
Essentially the point I was making.
White supremacy lost popularity a long time ago, so if anyone wants to embrace it has to be willing to take all the baggage that comes attached.
I'm not sure what the popularity of an idea has to do with someone's willingness to accept its requisite baggage. Are you suggesting that it was ever anything other than morally repugnant to be a white supremacist? Sure, I can see how it is less of an indictment of someone's moral integrity if they were a white supremacist in 1860 vs today, but that makes the underlying ideology no less repugnant.
Of course the media will focus its attention on white supremacists a lot more than on liberals who want to see your dog and your neighbor as equal. I like that approach because peaceful white supremacists can easily convert into followers of Hitler-like leaders, and that Joe we need to prevent.
Of course people concerned for their security will focus its attention on muslims a lot more than on crazy lone-gunman/unibomber types. I like that approach because peaceful muslims can easily convert into followers of bin laden like leaders, and that is something we need to prevent.
Maybe you didn't pick up that I was making this argument simply to illustrate the logical inconsistency of those who are simultaneously defending islam in the face of islamic terrorism while attacking all white supremacists because of the recent events at protests. Or maybe I'm missing something entirely, in which case I would greatly appreciate it if you'd point it out to me.