I think what you’re describing is people being skeptical of claims without evidence and then being convinced of those claims by evidence. I don’t think that’s

I think what you’re describing is people being skeptical of claims without evidence and then being convinced of those claims by evidence. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Edit: Just to be crystal clear given that surely there was some evidence of his misdeeds prior to the recent blow up (e.g. his Florida arrest and subsequent soft handling by Acosta etc.), what you're seeing is a rough correlation between the % of people who believe a claim and the volume/credibility of the evidence in support of that claim. So yeah, when there was little evidence few people believed it. Now that there's a lot, everyone takes it as fact. The only thing shocking here is how utterly reasonable it is.