Let's be very clear that when I say "sources", I generally mean either peer-reviewed publications, or publications widely regarded for their journalistic integrity. Not some crackpot webpage on the interwebs (and I'm including sensationalist news sources in this category: the Inquirer, the Daily Mail, Fox News, etc).
The thing is you can find a source for any position on any topic on the internet that claims to be definitive, and people will just devolve to insulting other sources.
However, discussing the veracity and provenance of sources is the essence of intellectual discourse. If you have a bunch of sources supporting your position, I'm happy to dispute them on their relative merits - even crackpot sources are a sight better than having to dispute someone's half-formed opinions.
I don't know where you got the idea that my views are US-centric (I live here at present, but I'm not from here, and my views don't align, for the most part, with those of americans).
At the risk of sounding inflammatory, are you saying that viewpoints and observations that are not US-centric are "uninformed opinions" and that a user need "consult sources" on the particular ways in which sexism and racism manifest in American culture before posting on GDNet?
But no, I'm saying that if you are stating opinions, without ever bothering to go read the relevant literature (be that for your own locale, fine), then you are indeed uninformed.
I raise this very specifically, because of the extra credits racism thread. You will note that many of the respondents were posting under the implicit assumption that the US population is majority white-male. Which should be obviously bunk to anyone who stops and thinks about the math, but it wasn't until I posted a graph demonstrating this on the second to last page, that everyone stopped and thought about it...