> It is not about skepticism, it is about assigning weights - stories and opinions coming from more trusted sources warrant more attention.

Sure, but how is Q more trusted than, say, the FBI, even if the FBI is hardly to be trusted at all?

> I think that "believing in stuff" is not a problem affecting only the "Trump world".

I agree, but they're unique in not just being credulous -- if not more than others then certainly no less -- but also in self-identifying as skeptics while doing so. "I don't believe scientists and historians and law enforcement because I'm a skeptic, but I do believe the unsubstantiated ramblings of strangers online, some of whom are anonymous!"

> Sure, but how is Q more trusted than, say, the FBI, even if the FBI is hardly to be trusted at all?

Yep, it is all screwed up - we need to work on establishing new sources of information because many old ones pretty much discredited themselves (maybe they can be cleaned up but I doubt it). Political journalism is hard to find these days - but there are some brave people like GG and MT that are trying to do that outside of media corporations and I think it is a way to go for now.