The followers of QAnon presumably don't see any major contradictions between its claims and their {experience, assumptions about how the world works}. If they did, then they wouldn't be followers.

What's unsettling about QAnon is: substantial numbers of otherwise sane, high-functioning followers, probably a bit less intelligent on average than you or me, but not that much less intelligent, find it to be a compelling theory. And that's a rather pessimistic data point that we should bear in mind when calibrating our own degrees of epistemic certainty.

"There, but for the grace of God go I"

We've drifted a fair bit into high abstraction and high-minded quotes but I'm still perplexed about a methodology that is looking for 'peace' and avoidance of 'partisan media' which when fed a very vanilla issue (US supreme court nomination) spits out on one side tweets of the editor of an actual online political tabloid and on the other a dude who used to tweet ((( ))) around people's names. Doesn't that make you go 'huh, maybe this methodology needs tweaking'. Or is it working as intended? Then what exactly is intended?

> Qanon is bullshit.

Can you describe the meaning of this phrase in some detail? I think I probably know your approximate meaning, but I'm interested to know a more detailed articulation of the idea.

If it helps, substitute "flat earthers" for "QAnon".

Do they share the same attributes and values of those attributes? To me, they seem quite different.