I disagree. Without proof any and all claims are fundamentally meaningless.

Also, it's "case in point".

Appreciate it. There are a lot of haters in here lately so it just rolls of my back.

You certainly cannot believe that proof is never required. So, when do believe it is appropriate to back up assertions with proof?

That's not really answering my question. You're answering "when do you find it worthwhile to bother to provide proof?" while I'm asking what type of claims require proof.

...at which threshold do claims become common knowledge? How do you determine such a threshold?

In the realm of theory, the onus is on the theorist to provide supporting evidence (be it circumstantial or real) to their claims, not to provide proof.

This is what happens when you allow unchecked conjecture to run rampant, people get sick of it and develop an irrationally high expectation of proof.

As for asking only if you are truly interested, that's nonsense. I think it is anyone's right to challenge any assertion that is made, when it is unsupported with anything but an opinion.

We are all to blame for this happening by not enforcing more robust 'fact checking'.

I don’t know specific example OP is taking about, but I think there’s also a difference between claiming something as undeniable fact and clearly stating is conjecture or opinion (and everything between). Some users get hostile when you point out evidence against their hypotheses because they are confusing their own strong feeling with facts. Some users get defensive for them.

What’s interesting is that there are several users who will shit on others hypotheses/evidence/“subtly”break rule 10 but will state their beliefs as fact, with absolutely no proof, then call others shills for making an effort to show evidence.

I think it’s important to note these hypocrises and inconsistencies.

People treat this place like it should be askhistorians or science. If this stuff had fantastic evidence it wouldn't be here. This sub is where the wild speculation belongs.

People take this shit way too seriously. Have fun and use your imagination.

Rule 95. NO FUN!

Rule 62: don't take yourself so goddamn seriously.

That'll be the day.

Let me recap: you're going to make what you feel are reasonable claims, often without proof or evidence, and when asked by someone why they should believe you without proof, you're gong to decide if they are worthy of you providing it? Do I have that right?

Fine, but I usually ignore that kind of person.

Right, there is a group of people asking for citations! No one needs to cite sources for stating opinions online. Besides, citing sources is peer review. It is not science. Even if people did cite sources, it doesn't mean that the source is credible. They are usually not.

I really believe there is something behind this. Normal people don't demand a bibliography to substantiate an opinion posted on the internet.

What's the conspiracy?

Isn't it obvious that some questions should have answers that can be proven, and other questions are so resilient to easy proof that you have to spin out multiple theories about them?

We really should become good at calling the difference between the two situations, and not bicker about it.

Here's an example of a provable situation: Either Podesta is in jail under the legal system that has open public record-keeping or he isn't.

Now, he may be in any number of conditions that range from free and happy, to on the way to the station - that we can theorize about.

I had a jack-off ask me to prove that I wasn't a 250lbs troll by stepping on a scale and taking a picture. He also demanded pictures of my diplomas to prove I wasn't as uneducated as he was trying to claim. There's something nefarious going on out there in cyber land. People are up to something...

Lol, there are some real assholes online. And some of them aren’t trolls. They are just truly that narcissitic and poor at social interaction.

I have a morbid curiosity to better understand what they are.

Some of them I think are paid distractors. The objective seems to be to muddy the waters and derail any kind of serious discussion. They seem to have a pretty simple formula that they use to try and trigger people into discrediting themselves. I'm extremely difficult to trigger, so I just lead them around in circles. It is interesting to see how far they will take it...sometimes it will go on for DAYS.

There are a few taboo topics where they always seem to appear.

Some of them I think are paid distractors.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. I bet there are people playing both sides too. And some of them, of course, are just obsessive bullies.

I have also noticed, I think, an uptick in mean-spirited, low-hanging bait posts (Like choosing an unpopular comment and holding that up as an example of the community as a whole). I think its dumb because they could probably find plenty of popular examples and common circlejerks that would be cringey to a lot of casual uses.

In my opinion that makes for a low quality content in a meta sub, but TopMinds seems to have a bit of /r/Drama flavor where some of them want to bait the more unhinged and sensitive users.

Oops im sorry. i thought I was responding to a comment about TopMinds people from another thread I was in. Of course, there is probably some overlap.

There are some really hostile people on here but I like to talk to them at times because I don't really have a dog in the political fight, but they do and I like being able to politely talk to them as they devolve into ad hominem. My only real goal, other than observing all political intrigue, is showing with proof that there are actual shills here. I don't know what political affiliation or their true motivations, but they are here copying comments and cross posting from other subs, using alts to avoid bans, trying to lure people into bans, and sock puppeting to support their alt accounts. I have a few posts the admins asked me to send them to see if there is vote manipulation but I have yet to collect the links.

Exactly, anything can be photoshopped. But, it stuck me as odd that they anyone would demand that kind of proof. No one asks for something like that from someone on the internet. It is a distraction.

If I want to know something, I seek the proof for myself. I don't expect someone to spoon-feed me the truth. I've noticed what seems to be an orchestrated demand for "proof," and if you don't give it, somehow you are discredited and your opinion is invalid. But, that is not how that works.

People don't question their entitlement these days. Like PROOF of an international conspiracy or an ongoing investigation is going to be a click away.

Some of these proof demands are guaranteed paid topic-detractors. They are being paid to scour the Internet for claims against entities.

Wholeheartedly agree with OP that over-saturation of information (real or fake) can and will dilute the content, in it of itself.

To your comment, " Also, it's so damn stupid I'm not wasting my time." ---- This 'time' that you are a part of, at this very moment is more important than ever. Don't be taken by surprise to find that many folks want you to waste your time.

Me and my brother bet heads with this. He's always asking for "proof" and it makes my eyes glaze over. We all have the internet. We have similar tools to aquire the info. To ask ME for proof is excusing themselves to actually work at there own investigations. I don't have the time let alone the patience to hold someone's hand and step by step administrate the red pill. Also hurts that he's in a college bubble being an all mighty scientist and I work my insurance job killing time by spending half my day googling what I want. But fuck me right. I'm not in college atm so apparently my opinions mean dick. He's a great example of the college bubble. My advice to those who need to silence a doubter? Hunt for patents. The best defense I have. Patents are some great evidence that designs and functions are being designed and in the works

Agreed. The irony is him being seen as the educated child. Educated but unwilling to be open. As I've said to him. "Don't be so smart that your dumb".

Agreed. The irony is him being seen as the educated child. Educated but unwilling to be open. As I've said to him. "Don't be so smart that your dumb".