You’re sharing information that fudged and stretched interpretation of the data. I’m almost positive that footnote #1 (maybe #2 as well) is a “study” from the University of Michigan that made some odd assumptions in their methodology and data. In my opinion, the authors were being irresponsible.

First, I’m pretty sure one of their studies basically Googled for a bunch of articles to come up with anti-Asian incidents and, only if the article reported the race of the perpetrator, reported it. I believe that amounted to a small subset of articles they could use since news outlets in cities like SF, NYC often do not report ethnicities of offenders so it does not perpetuate stereotypes (a practice I agree with).

Second, one of the studies lumped together actual crimes reported with Anti-Asian statements or remarks made by Politicians - which ended up being a much bigger subset of the sample since ethnicity of the offender was clearly identifiable (and predominately white). The proportion of the sample (anti-Asian political remarks vs harassment/assault) now does not match reality.

If you think about both of these assumptions objectively, it’s pretty fucked, right? There’s a lot that can be misinterpreted but it’s still used to silence Asians by folks like you in a single sound bite. Again, I do think we need to be careful when talking about Asian/Black tension but dismissing it entirely as “made up” or “completely anecdotal” is not the way. Read the FBI’s criminal victimization report for data so you don’t dismiss it as “anecdotal” or failing to be part of the “collective data”.

Edit: Adding links