My reading comprehension is fine: because you said "less than one third" in a context where you were charged with having said a number that was way too high, you were implying that it was closer to 1/3 than any other conveniently-stated number like 1/4. Even if you secretly meant some much lower number, you still made the implication, which means you're still by your words condemning those people by implication.

"Less than 1/3" is still a hundred million people. Dehumanizing them by failing to distinguish between them and the worst of that fringe (domestic white nationalist terrorists) is morally wrong.

It's more wrong than the moral flaws exhibited by most of them. (It's a lot less wrong than the domestic terrorists themselves, of course.)

("More wrong" both in the standard virtue ethic, where hatred of others is; and in a Sam Harris style "does this promote human flourishing" consequentialist ethic, where the answer is: no, this has been tried over and over throughout history and the hate-driven version fails to lead to justice almost every time, even if you're hating haters.)