Isn't it reasonably likely that the people citing, e.g., the FBI's murder statistics by race of perpetrator and victim, are asserting their own sort "ideologica

Isn't it reasonably likely that the people citing, e.g., the FBI's murder statistics by race of perpetrator and victim, are asserting their own sort "ideological hygiene", and hence the down-modding? That is: aren't some proportion, if not a preponderance of the people citing that operating from a narrative that people of that race are "bad" — ignoring the centuries of social and economic context around the statistic as if it has no bearing on why the statistic is what it is, little details like the disconnect between correlation and causation, &c — and that it's their operating from that narrative, and neither the citation nor the fact, itself, that's being down-modded? Aren't those people just as — if not more — insulated from "actual reality" than the ones using the forum's moderation mechanisms to "punish" their holding that narrative? Yes, it's still toxic to discourse, but do you really think discourse is very likely in the first place, when you're dealing with someone who's probably only citing the statistic because it confirms their biases? EDIT: phrasing