Many times people get caught up on this proof thing. They say show the proof, even when the proof is sitting right in front of them. They will say that they want a scholar or someone with some credentials but they miss a few things with that scenario. For instance, do I need to be a black scholar to be able to define racism, and tell you that what happened at work was racist and discriminatory?
Plus how many prosecutors have we heard say that they have overwhelming proof that a defendant is guilty, only to find out years later that the defendant was actually innocent. People argue about conspiracy theories, saying that they hold no validity. I say that some do and some don’t. Bottom line is that we don’t need those with degrees to verify and validate what is already in front of us.