I only argue that there are (or could be) examples of scientific facts being used in racist discourse where an argument or action is racist regardless of whether it's supporting facts are true or false.

Just like libel/slander law in many (most?) places doesn't care whether a defamation is factually correct or not. (In US that's not the case though)

I'll quote an oxford writer:

> Take a simple example. Imagine there was an imaginary newspaper, let’s call it the Mail Daily, which only cited certain facts about immigration – let’s say negative facts. True facts. Facts which might have to do with crime, for example, or housing shortages, or the abuse of the welfare system. Imagine that the Mail Daily never gave any positive facts about immigration – never emphasized any of the enormous benefits that immigration brings.Would it be fair to accuse the Mail Daily of being racist in its coverage of immigration? That’s a rhetorical question.

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/can-facts-be-ra...

His point (which is counter to Dawkins - who holds your position) is that this tabloid is racist while only reporting facts - simply because of how facts are filtered in res publication and which arguments are made with them.