This is the syllogism they are using.

A) Black people use this social program
B) Republicans want to cut this social program

Therefore, Republicans want to cut social programs because Black people use them.

So if you want to cut welfare you hate black people. If you point out that the large majority of people who use welfare in America are not black, so why you hear, "DIBRPORITONALLHY BLACK." These people have no idea what a proportion is or what it should mean. Ask someone, "What is the proper proportion that something should be of another thing?" They have no idea and can't unpack it.

Recommended reading.

Bonus points, if instead of talking about disproportionate black people they instead say "people of color" you can ask them how they got so racist that they would use an old-timey racist phrase like "colored people" AND lump in all races into one group as if Cubans, and Italians, and Arabs and Indians and African Americans and Koreans are all the same, have no special identity that matters to them and their only feature is not being white. Sounds like a white supremacist talking point, doesn't it?

Edit: People should actually just read this book instead of launching misinformed and unrelated arguments against what I said. It turns out the professional academic goes into a little more detail and cites extensive sources, unlike my exceedingly brief reddit comment. Literally, go read a book. It's very short, because half of it is citations.

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1541645634

Discrimination and Disparities https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541645634/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_VzjRDbH2X5YQB

The logical flaw is that it automatically assumes that intolerance will occur societal wide, there is no evidence for it. Especially not when societal discrimination is more often required by government force than it is by free markets.

NAZIs had to force anti-Jewish measures on the German population, the South had to use the government to require segregation. Same with South African and Jews and Christians in many ME countries.

EDIT:
I also forgot to show the logical flaw. Popper’s argument is that we must be intolerant of the intolerant.

The logical flaw is that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

A!=non-A

So you can’t be intolerant of the intolerant without at the same time being intolerant.

Discrimination and Disparities

Feel free to check out any of his books which cite his work.
https://www.tsowell.com/
https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1541645634


Although, the more I do my own electronics technical research, the less weight I put on the peer-reviewed system. Most papers I find lack enough information to duplicate the work, or typos are so abundant, making it impossible to do so.