[obj-g]

I never said a lack of proof necessitated falsity. It simply seems to me that when it's nearly impossible to disprove such claims (it's just someone saying something on the internet), we shouldn't lend them too much credence unless we actually know the person or have a good reason. So, whereas you think we shouldn't doubt them without good reason, I think the opposite. It's like religious people saying, prove that God doesn't exist -- well, I can't do that, but it shouldn't be my burden, it's the believer who should present evidence for belief. We believe people are innocent until proven guilty, these people are making claims against others and it's simply their word against, well, nothing. Also, I never said most or all are fake. But there definitely are claims which proved false.

[dao-]

> I never said a lack of proof necessitated falsity.

You did call them hoaxes, which is pretty much the same thing.

Maybe the problem is that you think everyday racism is as unlikely as the existence of God?

[obj-g]

Also, I would add, these are not claims about "everyday racism" -- these are extraordinary claims about Trump supporters suddenly feeling emboldened and harassing people in all manner of public places in terrible ways.

[obj-g]

It wasn't me who said hoax.

No matter how likely I believe everyday racism to be doesn't change who should carry the burden of proof for claims about it.

[dao-]

> It wasn't me who said hoax.

My mistake. You defended that claim by saying it doesn't carry its own burden of proof.

There can be different claims carrying their own burden of proof without taking away the other side's burden. I think it's reasonable to ask for evidence for incidences, while acknowledging that presenting evidence may often not be viable. At the same time I think it's reasonable to ask for evidence for the claim the reports are "a hoax." This is not the same as disproving God. You can actually go through the list of incidences and try to do research about every single one of them, although you won't necessarily come to a conclusive answer. (FWIW, you'd likely see that some of the reports actually come with credible evidence, pretty much already falsifying the blanket claim that they're a hoax.)

[obj-g]

If you assert that something is a hoax, not merely that you think it's a hoax, you should absolutely be able to prove it.

I wasn't ever trying to defend his claim that it's all a giant hoax, I was just jumping into the conversation and asking why do we even believe these claims in the first place without a good reason to do so.