What's the difference between egregious racism disguised as "data" and data relating to race that contradicts liberal priors?
The difference is contextual, as with anything. The parent obviously disagrees that the data provided rebuts the article's content (I too disagree, and think it mostly only serves to spur hatred in this particular context, the same way the title of the article does).
Lots of propaganda and hate-bait is true. Context is what matters in those cases. I agree that the parent is making an incorrect implication though, but not for the reason you give.
First, that's irrelevant. Second, all we have is your claim. We do have a citation that it's hate speech.
Is there literally a single thing which you couldn’t cite as hate speech in 2022?
While that is a common response, it doesn't address the problem or make any specfic claim. Are you saying there is no hate speech? We shouldn't do anything about hate speech? Make a claim here.
This is weak. Yes, these numbers can be (and usually are) used as emotion-targeting propaganda. However, assuming they are true in a reasonably non-cherry-picked context, the prevalence of dishonest usage then does not disqualify them from being used in a useful context, free from hatred. Your post implies otherwise, though (regardless of whether they are or are not being used that way in the particular case of the OP).
The article is just lazy journalism. There are a lot of possible alternatives variables to run a regression on that could have stronger explanatory power and they just chose the first that fit the narrative they wanted to present. Southern states and the legacy of racism looks like a viable explanation for the higher murder rates in 'Red' states that should have been explored as part of the article.
Can data actually be racist? Or just the way we use it (information we form from it)?
I’d argue that pointing at a user and calling them racist is quite egregious.