[potato3732842]

>If I do post sources, then what? Do you take your words back and admit that stuff documented by the press it is real?

If you post sources he will nitpick them to all hell. It's a classic bad faith argument move since it moves the discussion from one of the subject to one of source validity.

You usually see HN's resident handful of chronically linkposting jerks do it in the other direction (i.e. they make some insane statement and shit out cherry picked sources to back it up and it's up to everyone else to disprove them) but I suppose it could be used in this way too.

[ethbr1]

It's not bad faith when it's a legitimate request, which depends on the assertion.

If I say the sky is blue because of plane chemtrails, and you ask me for a source, that seems valid.

As with any large procurement system, there is moderate government waste in proportional terms, but one of the primary drivers of that waste is... anti-corruption systems operating as intended.

If you require 4 more forms than private sector, in order to be more sure there isn't corruption, then you've just imposed a cost that creates no value.

[FirmwareBurner]

>It's not bad faith when it's a legitimate request, which depends on the assertion.

No offence, but comparing asking for proof of corruption with proof of sky being blue of petrochemicals is a biased bad faith argument.

Asking for sources on corruption is more like asking for proof that the earth is round, which is definitely not a legitimate request, but more trolling masquerading like an innocent request and dodge scrutiny ("It's just a question bro, why r u mad lol").

Nothing wrong with asking such a question per-se, but that's something you can also google yourself due to countless occurrences from legitimate sources, hence why it's in bad faith to ask such a thing from others, and should be more strictly moderated as many here abuse this "sauce or gtfo" attitude in bad faith to discredit a pov without providing any arguments.

[ethbr1]

> Asking for sources on corruption

Existence of corruption isn't what you asserted.

>> how much taxpayer money governments loose via waste and corruption

That's the assertion you made -- waste and corruption at scale.

It's very much a reasonable question to ask for sources of how much there actually is.

Otherwise, people just post things on the internet insinuating that there's a huge (unspecified) amount.

Is it 1% of the budget? 5%? 25%? (Hint: it should be trivial for you, the claimant, to dig up a source. And it's close to one of those)