So, prnouncing the bleeding-hearted as "do-gooders" implies that you are not one. You therefore fall somewhere else on the spectrum: a do-bad, or a do-as-little-as-possibler.

Which do you claim as your own position?

Although I know you don't want an answer, the answer is simple. Criticisms of a whole class, race, nation or genus of people is very different from criticism of a social practice, and it would be dunderheaded to conflate the two things; so the two positions are not as contradictory as you would like to rhetorically paint them, you see.

It is perfectly possible to want to grant tolerance to, for example, people of Muslim faith, or Arab lineage, while condemning any brutality they might have preserved in their cultural agreements as less than humane.

Furthermore, condemning "Muslims" because some Muslims practice capital punishment is painting the entire class with the sins of a subset thereof, which is practically the definition of racism.

A