> You had just got done critiquing the article in a clear and cogent way, then you go off and assert something for which you have no evidence. You don't necess

> You had just got done critiquing the article in a clear and cogent way, then you go off and assert something for which you have no evidence. You don't necessarily need, nor does one necessarily exist, a scientific study or formal citation for something fairly subjective/opinionated that you can give a justifiable explanation for. If somebody is blaming some group, say the French, for controlling everything from the media, taxis, the money supply, politics, pharmaceuticals, real-estate, Hollywood, the Fast Food Industry, and Silicon Valley and suddenly get removed from all of polite society, it doesn't take a peer-reviewed scientific study to suspect that they're likely going to be having even darker thoughts about the French and feeling that this confirms their theories that the Frenchies are out to get them. > The existence of these online groups, they get people, they turn good people into bad people. We have friends and family we have seen it happen to. So perhaps they are not ONLY causing resentment among those already converted, but perhaps also preventing further conversion. 1) You just got done critiquing me for trying to assert something with no evidence, but then did quite a bit of that here. Should I demand a citation and scientific study for every opinion here? 2) You use the phrase "bad people", and maybe many of them are, but there's a wide range of views out there that are labelled hate that might not be so.