| People often use “do you have sources, I'd like to read them” to imply “links, or that didn't happen”. However, sources* for all of the above are easily found, both coverage as the story is breaking and followups. For example: news campus students chant kill jews classroom locked door https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-colleges-jewish-students-seen... https://www.foxnews.com/media/chants-calling-murder-jews-sho... https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nypd-stresses-cooper-un... Or ... news fbi memo catholic extremists https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-internal-memo-warns-against-22142... https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-... https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?sto... The ease with which links surface suggests if one genuinely wanted to read sources, one could Google with no effort. * NOTE: Media made broad claims on all of these, and media made narrow “corrections”. It's easy enough to find both types of sources. Asking someone for sources doesn't prove anything. On controversial topics one really needs to “do your own research.” |
Oh, I just hadn't heard of these things. Thanks for the links!
Edit ---
However, I am now confused by the latter portion of your response
> Asking someone for sources doesn't prove anything.
I wasn't trying to prove anything, nor did I make any claims. I only wanted to be aware of current events. It does seem to me quite backward to place the burden of proof not on the party making claims, but someone asking to understand why that party made those claims.