>Q seems like a harmless movement. Q-anon is dangerous and baseless libel that undermines democratic institutions. One person has already been murdered: https

>Q seems like a harmless movement. Q-anon is dangerous and baseless libel that undermines democratic institutions. One person has already been murdered: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744244166/shooters-lawyer-he-wasn-t-trying-to-kill-a-mob-boss-he-was-under-qanon-delusion https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744244166/shooters-lawyer-he-... Many others have been threatened with violence. >It would be a red flag if Q denounced a group of people without justification Which they have. Only well-known Democratic-party-affiliated personalities are implicated. The blatantly partisan narrative creates great potential for political violence. And like many other conspiracy theories, the narrative is full of antisemitic tropes: https://www.adl.org/qanon https://www.adl.org/qanon Finally, there's the obvious logical difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. The latter has actual evidence supporting it. And the probability of this menagerie of preposterous claims actually turning out to be true would be close to zero due to the vast number of participants who would have to keep silent. The more people who participate in any given conspiracy, the less time it can be kept secret on average: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...