The DOJ/FBI table is explicit: 2023 had 2,699 religion-based hate crime incidents; 1,832 were anti-Jewish. That’s 67.9%. https://www.justice.gov/crs/news/2023-hate-crime-statistics

If you want to change the denominator to “all hate crimes,” say so up front. That gives 15.4% of all incidents, still massively disproportionate.

It's common to use angle quotes on HN, but either way, you accusing me of "AI slop" because you don't like the way I quote things doesn't change the arithmetic and is not a rebuttal.

Still, restricting it to “religious-based” hate crimes is transparently misleading. Using a statistic from a narrow category to imply a claim about the whole is a classic substitution error. Either you are lacking in statistical literacy, or you are being intentionally misleading.

And let’s not forget the massive, undeniable asymmetry here that makes the entire point meaningless. None of this is sufficient to assume that a crime against a Jew is automatically a hate crime until proven otherwise.

But the rest is just another goalpost move. Quoting a clearly labeled subset is not “transparently misleading,” as you put it It’s how statistics work. I said “religious-based hate crimes” explicitly, because we were discussing hostility toward Jews. The DOJ/FBI table is explicit: 2023 had 2,699 religion-based hate crime incidents; 1,832 were anti‑Jewish.

And I already gave the “whole” denominator too: those same 1,832 incidents are 15.4% of all 11,862 hate crime incidents in 2023. For a 2% population, that is still ~7–8x disproportionate, as I've mentioned. So the “substitution error” accusation doesn’t apply here, because I didn’t imply 69% of all hate crimes. I stated the subset and then did the math for the broader denominator as well.

On the “asymmetry makes it meaningless” claim: I see you're asserting that, but you haven’t demonstrated it. FBI hate crime data is not “crime against a Jew = hate crime until proven otherwise.” It’s incidents agencies specifically classify as bias-motivated based on evidence. The well-known problem in this space is underreporting and incomplete reporting, not some magical inflation that conveniently zeros out anti‑Jewish bias. I can attest to the underreporting having not reported an assault where I was beat up on the NYC subway and told "they should have burned you all" while minding my own business on an NYC subway.

Finally, none of this was me calling any specific crime a hate crime. I explicitly said we don’t know the motive in the professor’s case. This thread started because you challenged a statistical claim. The numbers stand. Given you opened with "liar" and "AI slop," you might want to recalibrate before accusing others of ‘statistical illiteracy'.

I did not use a “religion-specific metric to argue about hate crimes in general.” I said, explicitly, “69% of religious-based hate crimes.” Then, when you insisted on the “general” denominator, I gave that too: anti‑Jewish incidents are 15.4% of all hate crime incidents in 2023, still ~7–8x disproportionate for a ~2% population. Both numbers come from the same DOJ/FBI table. https://www.justice.gov/crs/news/2023-hate-crime-statistics

So the “category substitution / base-rate neglect” lecture is just a rhetorical reset button. You keep pretending I implied “69% of all hate crimes” because that’s the only way your critique has a target.

At this point the pattern is clear: 1) miss what I actually wrote, 2) accuse me of lying/AI, 3) admit you missed it, 4) reframe anyway by inventing a broader claim I never made, 5) argue against your invention.

I’m not doing more laps of that. If you want to dispute the DOJ/FBI numbers or show actual evidence of systematic inflation, present a dataset and method. Otherwise we’re done here.