[pron]

I don't have an issue with what the Trump world doesn't believe. A system that says, "we believe nothing" or even, "we believe nothing said by someone's who's ever lied" is fine. What I don't understand is how easily they do believe in stuff that is, at the very least, not more credible than the stuff they don't. It's not their skepticism that perplexes me, but their credulity. They clearly have an epistemology that's very different from the mainstream Western tradition (or any other, for that matter), and I'm curious to understand what it is.

[mbergal]

1. I cannot speak for "them" of "Trump world".

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

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

[pron]

> 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!"

[mbergal]

> 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.