How do you even begin to "meet in the middle" or have reasonable conversations with people who believe in that stuff?
edit: Don't really understand why this was de-nested from the original parent comment down to the third-fourth page :/
How do you even begin to "meet in the middle" or have reasonable conversations with people who believe in that stuff?
edit: Don't really understand why this was de-nested from the original parent comment down to the third-fourth page :/
Recently, Glenn Greenwald wrote about the reluctance of large news organizations to even mention the Hunter Biden laptop story.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int...
As someone who sees this story as hard to believe for a number of reasons, the broad resolve among large news organization to avoid that story raises some serious questions in my mind.
This is not how the press is supposed to work. And it's definitely not how the press reacted to the Steele Dossier, which has similar problems with provenance of information and motivation.
That kind of environment in which the press seems to take sides makes fertile ground for conspiracy theories. If you can't trust the press to be unbiased, then how can you believe anything they say? Along comes someone who claims to have all the answers and away you go, full speed to QAnon Station.
A lot of people believe the Russia investigation was in fact its own form of conspiracy theory, cooked up by a party outraged that it lost an election it thought it had in the bag.
In my opinion everyone needs to cool down. America is polarized over being correct, not being happy.
I seriously doubt anyone from Trump's orbit is involved. Qanon was a huge thorn in their side.
So we have one side saying "You're caught up in conspiracy theories!" and the other saying "You're censoring the truth!"
How do you solve that?
You encourage empathy for those you disagree with.
You tolerate intolerant people (but not their intolerant views)
Verification takes time, when someone dumps a ton of information publicly and exclaims it is true there is no avoiding some people believing it no matter what happens.
If we are afraid about censoring that being transparent about what is censored and verifying it afterwards can help with that.
However I don't think there is a true solve to misinformation. Lies are catchier than the truth after all.
I wonder whether reverting to more neutral labelling would held create a less heated dialogue? Founded and unfounded, for example.
QAnon is obviously garbage, but it’s a symptom of a broken system that can’t effectively represent the entire population, and not just one half.
It's real-world verifiable that Hunter Biden made 600k/yr for several years for a foreign gas company while his dad was VP and involved in pressuring domestic politics in that country.
And so we come back to GP's point: If mainstream media is calling everything that's not politically advantageous for the dems a "conspiracy theory", then they lose credibility. If everything's a conspiracy theory, nothing is.
The news organizations were sitting on the document and afterward they said they were verifying its claims.
The only serious question about it would be that who in their right mind would believe a story that Hunter flew across the US from CA to NY to use some shifty $35 hole in the wall laptop repair place, drop off a pile of laptops, fly home, completely forget about them, the owner then decided to dive through personal data and found "bad things", instead of taking them to the FBI or police, decided that Rudy Giuliani needed them, which then Rudy sat on them for a few months before letting anyone know. Oh, and the mere possession and non-reporting of the "bad things" on the laptop are a felony in and of itself. Wow... interesting that actual journalists wouldn't even give the story the time of day.
Do you expect CNN to do daily breaking news segments on how Sandy Hook wasn't fiction because some right wing radio opinionist is still spouting off daily that the dead kids were actors?
The Steele dossier came from an information agent with a background of competent and viable information and journalists worked on vetting the information before sending any out.
And frankly, possession of a single legitimate email's source text, for an intermediate-profile individual from a corporate account, doesn't somehow prove anything else (which again: is zilch - nothing else about this story is verifiable - it reeks of an intelligence op, especially since Rudy Giuliani is known by the FBI to be routinely in contact with known Russian intelligence operatives).
There are certainly some issues with the story. But later on there were photos of Hunter Biden released that certainly depicted what I would describe as "bad things" (those things being drugs).
So pictures do exist that you can lookup yourself. Unless you are going to go conspiracy theory about it, and say that the photos, that you can see yourself, are faked.
So... In retrospect, even if not everything related to the story is accurate, or there were some problems with it, we can now all but confirm that at least something was released that is not "fake news", and that came from this story.
And this is yet another comment made by what I would describe as a "bad person".
But regardless, it is uncontroversial that a large amount of people would describe pictures of someone doing hard drugs as "bad things".
The Biden laptop "scandal" is probably also opposition research and probably also baseless. The response to it is rather contrasting though.
For example, Hunter Biden has invested a China company called Face++, which later to be a core technology to surveillance on Uygur.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/business/cefc-biden-china...
Patrick Ho, a former Hong Kong official being charged for corruption in US, being accuse of bribing Africa leader for allowing China's Energy company to exploit natural resource in Africa, which is part of the One Belt and One Road grand plan in China. Basically a form of colonialism from China.
The interesting part is right here. When Patrick Ho is on charged, who he called for a help? It is Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden's business partner in China is Ye Jianming, who is the boss of Patrick Ho. Ye Jianming is now "disappeared" or under investigation in CCP because Patrick Ho's arrested and Ye Jianming's operation has failed.
You can seach the keyword here. Those story are in CNN, New York Times etc.
It is pretty strange for the mainstream media to completely ignore the story when they have the same doubt on two years ago.
Tha laptop? It could be a cover-up for a whist-blower. The information could be true or fake. But even without the laptop, there are many evidence that Hunter Biden using his father's name involving in many corruption. And no one asked a question about his father's involvement on that? In fact, Joe Biden has seen Hunter Biden's China customer during the diplomatic visit to China.
If the mainstream media cannot be trusted, then it would be the best catalyst for conspiracy theory. In fact, the bias in the media has strengthened the polarization in the country even more.
The news as a whole shrugging off a story about Hunter Biden makes perfect sense, it wasn't about Joe except in so far and Hunter might have name dropped him.
This is how you get people like Alex Jones. People see the lie, start looking for the truth and here is guy saying "I'll tell you what is really going on!" and if they weave a coherent soundings story (which the media fails to do... they just move on to the next talking point) people take it as reality.
No matter how you feel politically the media is a big part of the divide issues in the U.S today. They have behaved horribly irresponsibly.
No, that's not what media has been doing. And these are the results we get.
This isn't a partisan statement but a simple statement of cause and effect.
Did you not read the post you respond to or are you just engaged in shallow partisan trolling? I can't decide.
If you'd like to ignore my point it's fine. But it's how it is. It's reality.
We now see maybe reporting people blatantly lying can be dangerous to democracy itself. There's no question which side is most manipulative, cynical and lying. It is classic psychopathic behaviour to blame others for own failings with baseless accusations. Fortunately we don't exist to serve the ego of one, and there's no basic right to provide a platform for lying and division.
If we fail to address lies, any side can turn on its own population without those checks and balances. It is never enough to tolerate abuse and lies, as humanity witnessed before.
If this was your point to, explaining in your own words may help.
It really is. As a former journalist, I can tell you a lot of crackpot stories come across our desks. We look at them, will see if the evidence can ‘stand up’ the story - if not, it gets spiked.
Very little of "the press" or "journalism" that reaches the true majority of people can be considered much more than entertainment television. Not only that, they have very clear goals, partisan alignments, and deals to own up to.
My point being, this picture of "the press" is not new nor is it simple to unravel, especially because a lot of the coverage we see, and how it's done, depends on a multitude of factors.
Let's take, for example, your point about the Hunter Biden story and let's allow ourselves to conjecture for a moment.
In a "press" state such as the one I described above, a big part of the "news media" is running amok with the story regardless of having little to no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, the world is still spinning and news that are noteworthy are still coming out. One might even say people should know about these things.
What's one to do in face of such situation? Do we expect that the "news media" devote all focus to arguing the conspiracy theory, which will most likely boost the conversation around it, or should we expect the "news media" to focus on things that can actually be proven, assessed, researched?
Of course, this is one narrow example that only scratches the surface of something that, like I said, is very complex. But I do believe that, considering the current environment, it's more harmful to debate the conspiracy stories than to ignore them. Consider any other conspiracy theory that you ever heard of. Would it be beneficial for anyone to have constant debate on television about whether or not the Earth is round, or if men have been to the Moon, etc.
But in Europe, America have always been bigger and crazier, so it’s not a big surprise to hear about the conspiracy theories.
Hopefully the US can now move forward in a positive and constructive way, but the two-party system does seem to get in the way of improving things. Either you’re for or against, without any real middle ground.
If Biden can overcome that he is already on his way to become a great president.
The reason it hasn't been covered is because there is nothing a news organization can publish about it. Fox News passed on it. It is most likely simply bullshit.
I can kind of see his point, since everybody in Washington seems to regard Hunter Biden as a completely unexceptional person of no particular merit who makes huge amounts of money because of who his father is, and that should be a scandal, though more a general scandal about the system than about the Bidens specifically.
On the other hand, that's no excuse to make a huge news story out of an unsubstantiated story fed to the media by partisan operatives a few weeks before an election. If they did that, these stories would arise before every election, and part of the political contest between the parties would be competing to come up with the best juicy lies. Considering what a free buffet that would be for the media, I'm honestly surprised that they managed to refrain.
What is going on with him? I started following him in ~1997 when Salon.com was a burgeoning news site. He's taken some pretty extreme views since (essentially) expatriating.
For some reason I just can't get the thought out of my head that if this were a kooky story about a rando laptop repair shop in San Francisco that claimed it had Ivanka's laptops with proof she was doing something nefarious you wouldn't have any of these same qualms about the news media treating it skeptically.
But Germany faces a very big problem with the Turkish-nationalist population. Probably more of a threat than France, given that the Turkish population in Germany is upwards of 9%. Even Turkish-German politicians are now calling for a ban on the Gray Wolves and other such extreme organizations (see https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/other/german-lawmakers-urge-b...).
While this ban may go through, the problem of radical Islam will remain a persistent threat in Europe.
I don't know that there's any clear-cut way to avoid extremism while also preserving freedom.
Social media ravaged the local news industry and exposed every hick town to the insanity of conspiracy theories. Better regulation of social media, investing in local news and journalism may be one way to allow towns to get back sources of information that they trust and believe.
In fact instead of the stupid “everyone learn to code” pipe dreams, more investments in local journalism may help revitalize smaller towns to a certain extent. Local journalists focus and investigate local issues; they improve the quality of state services.
She was obviously shocked about it.
Rumours spread on the local Facebook group and was picked up by the local paper who ran a story two week later.
My Nan then read about how lots of things had been stolen from her house and now believes the paper, not the reality she had lived.
If people are willing to believe what they are told third hand rather than what they know themselves, what hope is there?
"Masks are bad" was the official government policy in Nordic countries up until August. And still is in Sweden.
Someone who was e.g. raised as a Christian, and then concluded that some of the stories they were told in Sunday School were lies, is likely to treat an appeal to religious authority as evidence against a claim. Even in domains where Christian groups have been effective in practice.
The same can be said about mainstream media or science.
In the short term, it's practically impossible to reach such people without identifying somewhere they're actually right in their rejection of the mainstream narrative, and gaining their trust by recognizing that. Only with that trust do you have a shot of being listened to when you point out where they overcorrected against the mainstream narrative.
In the longer term, it would really help if some key mainstream narratives became more accurate. Without that, "getting out of the country" may actually become the best option for an increasing number of people.
I know of very few people that are terrified of satanists any longer.
I think with the advent of the internet, things are shifting away from ritual murder to sexual exploitation of minors as the big fear, but “that group of people you don’t like is out to get your children” is quite the enduring narrative.
Again, if we found out that some Democrat staffer had stuffed a ballot for their guy it wouldn't mean that the vicotry for Biden was fraudulent. It would mean that one single operative committed fraud and probably had no wider impact.
I'd even go as far as saying that it would be far more dangerous than the fsb posting memes.
> Mueller concluded that Russian interference was "sweeping and systematic" and "violated U.S. criminal law", and he indicted twenty-six Russian citizens and three Russian organizations. The investigation also led to indictments and convictions of Trump campaign officials and associated Americans
> The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first in their five-volume 1,313-page report in July 2019 in which they concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed".
> The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin
> Several individuals connected to Russia contacted various Trump campaign associates, offering business opportunities to the Trump Organization and proferring damaging information on Clinton.
Here's the thing, I don't even know what to make of it. Sure, Trump didn't seek.out Russian help actively or ask them to do any of this, but Russia still interfered in a way to promote his election. Now hard to say how much that helped him win, but it's hard to standby and think... Ya I guess this is fine? Shouldn't we do something to stop this from happening again? And why didn't Trump do anything about it? Shouldn't he say something like ... Well I believe I would have won even without their help, but this is unacceptable and we need to put in place measures to make sure Russia and other foreign powers can no longer meddle in US elections?
> QAnon's adherents, while seeing Trump as a flawed Christian, also view him as a messiah sent by God.
> there is a worldwide cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who rule the world, essentially, and they control everything
> Followers of QAnon also believe that there is an imminent event known as "The Storm", when thousands of members of the cabal will be arrested and possibly sent to Guantanamo Bay prison or to face military tribunals, and the U.S. military will brutally take over the country.[3] The result will be salvation and utopia on earth.
In comparison to believing that a business man with multiple accusations of corruptions and financial crime, might be collaborating with Russia for his personal gain?
- It's unambiguously true that Russia helped Trump get elected in 2016. Even the Republican Senate acknowledges this.
- Trump's campaign had various (documented) unsavoury links with Russia.
- Mueller didn't clear Trump of collusion with Russia, and indeed stated that the (clear) obstruction prevented a full investigation of the topic.
- Trump himself has been extraordinarily soft on Russia, while burning relationships with traditional allies.
- Trump is also pretty effusive in his praise of Putin - dictator of a geopolitical enemy and all-round bad dude.
None of this is speculative - it's all backed up by the facts. This is not to say that Trump is a KGB asset, but it's not hard to see why people might see indications in that direction and take it a step too far. Honestly my personal view is it's highly unlikely - if he was a Russian asset it's likely our intelligence agencies would have known in advance and done something about it. Personally my view is simply that Trump wishes to be an autocrat, and admires other autocrats.
The Q stuff, the Bill Gates microchip stuff, on the other hand, is just completely out of left field.
One is the fact that every country interferes with the elections of every other country. The other is that the fsb was so wildly successful at it they changed the result of the 2016 election.
The two have nothing to do with each other and mentioning the first when I'm talking about the second is deeply disingenuous.
You can argue about how effective you think those campaigns were in their influence but you're just trying to muddy the conversation if you are trying to make them out to be equivalently valid or equivalently ridiculous.
Thank you.
Conversely, we know that the russians ran bot farms and did various other unscrupulous activities during the election. Yet nobody involved with Trump was implicated in what the Russians did. The evidence was well vetted and there was a through investigation on the subject matter, further, the Steele Dossier was proven to be a hit piece. This has been extracted to Trump is a KGB agent or under the influence and direct control of the Kremlin. Yet both are not on the equivalent on the conspiracy theory scale?
Please don't try to construe that as somehow me proclaiming my admiration for Trump. Sure Donald was friends with him, and most certainly he lied about his affiliation with him and distanced himself from him, but that is not the focus of my post.
My focus was to highlight the rabid denialism that is rampant on both sides and both sides thinking they are the norm and the other guys are the extremist.
I do think the rise of social media has opened up the ability for foreign countries to influence people's beliefs regarding an election, much more than they could in the past (although it's not a new phenomenon and the US is guilty of it as well).
But I also think the 2020 election also helped prove that it's not just foreign influence that can make people vote for someone like Trump, they're perfectly capable of coming to that conclusion on their own. There wasn't just social media influencing this time, they could see with their own eyes what Trump was doing the past four years, not just speculation, and still decided they wanted to support him.
That Russia interfered in US elections has nothing to do with how successful Russia was in interfering with US elections, huh? Amazing logic there.
Those two things aren't equivalent, but the former is a component of the latter. Pretending that they're unrelated is bizarre.
> The other is that the fsb was so wildly successful at it they changes the result of the 2016 election.
I mean, we know that Russia pushed Trump hard. Probably it wasn't enough to sway the election, but it's more than a little disingenuous to pretend that this is equivalent to "Hillary has a satanic pedophile ring" or "Bill Gates is injecting tracker 5G vaccines into people", where they're completely fabricated.
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee characterized this as "The Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014 and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure at the state and local level."
That was unusual. "Every country interferes with the elections of every other country" is disingenuous. And thinking maybe that there's more that might have happened there that went undiscovered is not even close to the same level as thinking that Wayfair is facilitating child trafficking.
For me, (B) is significant regardless of whether the interference was impactful — and bringing up (B) in response to (A) does not seem disingenuous.
> The other is that the fsb was so wildly successful at it they changes the result of the 2016 election.
Do you have examples of people believing this?
I'm inclined to believe Trump is simply stupid and admires Putin as the kind of strongman he desperately wanted to be, but he certainly stoked the theories with his own behavior.
I think the primary distinction is that democratic politicians and "thought-leaders" (or wtv term is better suited for influential partisans) quickly dismissed the fact that the actual democratic institutions were compromised (that is to say, the integrity of the vote was compromised, or that ballots didn't represent vote intention), but rather the claim quite quickly became that an influence campaign was supported by foreign powers, and the Trump campaign was happy to profit from it, if not colluding with said nation-state actors.
So, you're entirely correct that we have a tendency to seek out the narrative that best affirms our priors, but whether that tendency is legitimised depends on our institutions and the people we put in places of authority.
And yet, this didn't stop the Clinton campaign demanding the FBI investigate it from her official Twitter account, and that demand going viral. Not only that, when the New York Times pushed back against this nuttery in the weakest way possible by reporting that the FBI had looked at the claims and concluded all the evidence pointed to it being the result of ordinary junk emails, their reader's editor pushed back, there was a boycott, and they eventually admitted it was a mistake and they wouldn't do it again. People are probably still holding this against the New York Times even now, and the theory got resurrected later by publications which should know better.
The FBI, CIA, and republican-led Senate Committee on Intelligence have all produced extensive volumes of documentation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
If you're referring specifically to accusations of collusion between Trump and Russia, the core accusation was that he and his administration were playing the role of the useful idiot, being plied and influenced by Russia to the detriment of American interests.
The idea that he was intentionally working with Russia in a direct manner may has always been a misleading straw man.
If we're in the Information Age, why is information literacy not as important as literacy itself?
My dad is an old guard conservative, and he's flabbergasted at the embrace of Trump and all these conspiracy theories and people going, "MY FREEEEDOM!!" instead of wearing a mask.
I don't know if education is enough. People seem to decide at some point what they believe, and then back all evidence into either it supports their beliefs, or the evidence is fake.
Or are you agreeing with my underlying point that education doesn't matter and won't help here?
For a more concrete example, I have never gone to graduate school; my education ended after finishing my undergrad. By any reasonable measure, I received "less" education than a doctor, who presumably completed an undergrad like me but also medical school afterwards. However, I almost certainly learned certain things that most doctors didn't in my computer science education, like how a compiler or operating system is written. If instead of those computer science courses I took courses dealing with media literacy and how to recognize bias, I still would have "less" education than a doctor.
It doesn't matter the level of education someone has in that scenario - they've already decided on an "us vs them" mentality and will believe what they want to justify their actions.
There are very well-educated, well-informed, and critically-minded white supremacists - they use that knowledge and intelligence to further their racism. No amount of education will help them.
They've already decided they want to hurt other people, and just take all evidence and back it into either "supports my stance of hurting others" or "this is fake."
I think we're spending too much time on the pity party of the uneducated. That if they just had the chance of the college dream, they'd open their eyes and want to help others. I think the vast majority have already decided on their tribe, and we as a society need to be aware of this and structure accordingly rather than insult these groups by saying they're just stupid or misinformed. They know exactly what they're doing and are more than happy to achieve their goals because the ends justify the means.
No education is perfect. Even if those things are taught (which I'm pretty sure they are already at some level), there will still be loads of people that:
1) didn't pay attention in school, or didn't absorb the lessons;
2) don't have the ability to apply the lessons;
3) forgot the lessons (esp. if they previously spent a lot of time in a sane media environment where the lessons were less necessary);
4) found it too much trouble to apply the lessons consistently, and let their guard down;
5) found the emotional content of the conspiracy was just too tempting; or
6) encountered a evolved conspiracy theory that found a way around their (years old) lessons.
People who believe Obama was born in Kenya, who believe George Soros funds every leftist cause on the planet, or... you know the stuff... are believing things that are both nutty and really obviously false. Is that stuff really any less nutty than the QAnon stuff?
I guess I feel like that maximum level of craziness isn't really new.
the best counter to fake news IMO is to not consume any news in a narrated form unless its from a really trusted source & I mean invite-home-and-fireside-chat trusted. I prefer reading news to this. the other benefit is that you can read at your own pace instead of the narrators pace so you have better chance of not missing crucial detail. Second is free is bad, my take away after last election cycle was we need to pay for the news. I got NYT & wapo sub and have not cancelled it since. Just these two things, paying for the news and reading it helps me keep this conspiracy BS at bay.
It seems truth has become subjective. I tried to talk to a QAnon-spouting girl and posted links to Snopes or The Guardian. She said, "Well, MSM is owned by the Rottschilds so you can't rely on them to tell the truth.". I never asked where she read this, but she probably would've replied she figured this out by reading some random Wordpress blog or watching some nutter on YouTube.
I thought "So, you believe those sources and think my sources are lying?!?". But wait, from her point of view, this sentence is also true! One could try asking them to check the reputation of their sources or dig deeper, but it seems this is an exercise in futility. When there are actual doctors arguing against Covid restrictions or publishing flawed studies on hydroxychloroquine, how do we trust who is reputable? (I'm talking about Didier Raoult, who now also has conspiracy theorists championing him as someone the French government "ousted" because he wasn't towing the party line).
Then again, there are utterly stupid conspiracy theories like the Wayfair one: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-53416247 ; the idea that secret cabals would use publicly accessible online shops to traffic children is laughable, but the people who believe this sort of thing doesn't get that the real human traffickers (is a sad fact that they're out there) probably knows how to communicate in secret.
You don't need to be "covid-skeptic" to say that, I say the same thing simply because I'm strongly libertarian. It also highly depends on the value system, e.g. if you're young and healthy you might think the marginally increased chance of complications because of this virus isn't worth delaying your life for months or years.
Also, Snopes and the Guardian (along with most other MSM and fact-checking sites) have pushed enough biases, falsehoods and conspiracy theories to be completely untrustworthy.
Ah, labels, I don't find them helpful because everyone seems to understand political labels differently. What does this label mean to you? To me it means someone who would be quite dead after he gets the systen he wants, because he would end up eating tainted meat and drinking poisoned water, because, in my imagination the libertarian mindset is "Geez, government controlling my food? how dare they?".
So I end up rolling my eyes at anyone calling themselves this label...
People should be mostly free, including to eat poison (as long as they actually want to and are not mislead into it).
Conspiracy theorists have always existed and are practically harmless.
Sure there are incidents that occur, but likewise, 1000 people a month die from falling down the stairs. It's just not a problem in the grand scheme of things.
The best way to meet in the middle would be to do the opposite to those triggers and then talk to them.
This is the Overton Window on steroids. I've struggled to put aside my partisanship in discussions with different opinions, I have trouble even when the other person is being rational and informed, but to go against flat-out-batshit-insanity?
How did that happen? Did we just assume people always want to be smarter, and that was wrong?
I am sure there are conspiracy theories everywhere but it feels like even some of the crazier ones are becoming mainstream in the US. I worry that staying here too long is playing chicken against the possibility of a crazy+competent person taking advantage of the conspiracy theories in ways Trump couldn't fully do.
People worrying about Qanon might just be suffering from selection and recency biases. If you don't quantify it and compare it to other conspiracy theories that you already tolerate, it might be an illusion. So much of this culture war stuff seems to be driven by those biases and complete failure to understand the scale of anything. Using instead, the frequency of news report and social media posts to estimate how popular an idea is.
People are credulous of falsehood and don't seem able to apply critical thinking. Maybe these collective delusions help the deluded groups in some way... or serve the needs of a power structure.
The media told everyone not in the conspiracy realm about how pizzagate was false, and it likely is, but only to an extent. But wait, I can feel the recoil already, just a moment. For those of us in the conspiracy realm, who know about the real use of children for blackmail operations mostly by intelligence agencies but also by organized crime, pizzagate suddenly becomes much more plausible (note I didn't say real). It's not a popular position because most people simply don't want to know how dark the world really is. The framing of Epstein as some one off independent abuser is actually part of the coverup of just one middle manager in one of said blackmail rings. He ran girls, others run boys. Top level politicians and businessmen are targets for leverage. If you balk at even this assertion just because of the "crazy by association" to pizzagate, take the time to lookup: The Dutroux Affair, aka Belgiums X-Files, The Franklin Scandal, the Finders Scandal, Roy Cohn (Trumps mentor)... as just a start. Also note: wikipedia will not provide good information on these kinds of topics. If one were to look at the entry for the Franklin Scandal without digging further, one would probably walk away thinking it was a hoax, which isn't the truth at all.
On the topic of psyops, one of the most used techniques is called the "limited hangout". I usually use the flat earth conspiracy as an example of this. Of course it is quite assinine, and should generally just be ignored as such, an analysis will show that those who talk about it (I would posit are often not organic), also talk about much more legitimate conspiracy theories. The intent is to make the more legitimate conspiracy theories discredited as crazy by association. Qanon is such an operation. It took what could have been a movement against the blackmail networks that have infiltrated and compromised huge amounts of business and politicians on both sides of the isle, and turned it into a partisan, quasi-religious outlet that goes nowhere, but always promises something is about to happen (keeping the partipants hopeful and distracted from more meaningful action) with the added side-bonus of being one of the best honeypots for metadata on those types in existence.
The Bill Gates topic is another good example. It's easy to kneejerk dismiss those concerns as they sound quite outlandish... but again, there is at least a modicum of truth, or rather, a handful of reasons people should be much more skeptical of the intentions of Bill Gates on the topic. For example, Bill Gates had quite an extensive relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, something a cursory search on the topic from mainstream sources will give nothing more than a passing mention. He had a relatively sordid relationship with the pharma industry in India, one worth digging into. On the "microchip" thing, another great example. Gate's related foundations and companies have openly talked about the quantum dot system, which is just readable markers to identify who has had a particular vaccine, and have actively partnered with the pentagon and darpa, and the ID2020 program is being tested on newborns in Bangladesh and homelss people in Austin, TX already. Those kinds of assocation alone are enough to at least empathize and understand where those who then take that and buy into the microchips story are coming from. So while it's untrue that the Gate's linked programs intend to put microchips in, the talk of digital certificates linked to biometrics such as quantum dot scare people, and then combine that with the fact that DARPA and the pentagon have been investigating such microchips, along with a history of medically experimenting on humans without consent, it's easy to see the jump to conclusions being made.
Given the huge amount of propaganda being heaped on the American public from all sides then, I think you should reconsider judging so harshly those who have fallen victim to that propaganda, and instead should focus on the purveyors and originators of that propaganda. To be frank, I also find this disproportionate judging of people in the current day to be very unprincipled also. We can invade countries illegally, murder hundreds of thousands of people abroad... and crickets... but talk about how the same engine that did that abroad is now turning it's eye of sauron back towards us, inward, and you must be a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist. To just now be losing faith in America/it's people is myopic at best. Try to judge a bit less, and exercise a bit more empathy and even sympathy for those who have fallen for the untrue (which is literally all of us, to some degree), and understand the outlandish might not be as unplausible as you might think, and you will be on a better path to engaging genuinely with such people.
The second difference between Qanon and some of the previous conspiracy theories (on both sides) is that we have several republicans quite openly supporting some of those theories, and even the president retweeting qanon theories. That's why people are saying it seems to becoming mainstream.