Sorry, your anecdotal evidence is not valuable, nor are the generalizations derived thereof, and not deserving of serious consideration. If you had some actual evidence that we could consider here, that would be helpful. If your notes had any value then you should type them up, or at least don't expect anyone to take them seriously -- they're not a legitimate basis to get up and object to people claiming to be hurt.
For someone to say "my observations drove my opinions of anti-racists" is ill-conceived on so many levels. To use only your own observations as a meaningful source of knowledge about an entire group of people is the quintessential definition of prejudice. What are your controls? How are you countering for known psychological biases when making these determinations? That you expect other people to accept these conclusions simply because you claim to have had certain observations (not even presenting what those observations are), without qualification, is astounding.
On the other hand, people are presenting claims of taking offense at certain statements. They are only making claims about their own internal state. It's you who claims to have some special knowledge about the interior emotional states of other people. What you're presenting, without any kind of evidence, is essentially "I know when people are and aren't offended, and therefore I have a right to say XYZ because I know who is genuinely hurt."
I would guess, with a standard like this, that nobody can be genuinely, unjustly hurt by anything you say. They're all crying wolf. Or, perhaps most stupidly, people who claim to be hurt by Achmed stereotypes are faking, unless you personally observe them holding signs at next weekend's rally against some cause that you think is "actual" racism.
> Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?
Because I have been a victim of racism.