5 ms·

> Also, not all cults are religious Now we're well into the map vs territory. In the attempt to define a cult (something which we intuit) we end up fixated on

> Also, not all cults are religious Now we're well into the map vs territory. In the attempt to define a cult (something which we intuit) we end up fixated on the boundary between what is a cult and what is not a cult, and try to create a taxonomic rule-based classification. The mistake is then to assume that that rule-based classification defines what a cult is (rather than attempts to describe what is a cult) and you end up saying that something (like MLMs) are a "cult" even though they are not! I mean, you can make an analogy to a cult, or show cult-like properties, but absent a religious motivation (where "religious" itself is a similarly nebulous concept) it's not a cult. If your rule-based model defines something which is not a cult (subjectively) as a cult (objectively), then your definitions are bad, period, and you should stop using them. Instead, embrace fuzziness and subjectivity and look for the interesting properties of "cult", and learn what it teaches us about language and society.

sparkie 4y ago
Some people have been saying we are a cult, but they are not using the correct definition of "cult," in our opinion.
- andrewla 4y ago
  Exactly this! The attempt to reduce "cult" to a strict rule-based definition means you can be endlessly mired in semantic debate rather than actually address the operational parameters that make an organization or association unattractive to join, which is usually what people mean when they say "that's a cult". "Cult" carries a ton of baggage. You say "hey, that MLM you want to join satisfies 4/10 properties of a cult -- it's a cult!" and the baggage is "Jonestown was a cult and they all died. Heaven's gate was a cult and they all died. Branch Davidian was a cult and they all died." It's a rhetorical sleight of hand, nothing more, and it will not convince anyone or create an interesting discussion; it'll just come down to some argument about whether Catholicism is a cult. In order to actually get anything useful, you have to show how the cult-like properties either inevitably lead to the negative consequences (which is nigh impossible; some of these definitions apply to little league teams) or talk about the specific negative or questionable behaviors of the organization itself.
  - drewbeck 4y ago
    As far as I can tell you’re the only one mired in a semantic debate. The list of signs of a cult above is a useful rubric for determining if an organizational is harmful. And as others have noted the technical term “high-demand organization” has grown specifically to leave behind the religious implications of “cult”, though language moves slow and many will still use that term day to day. Are there any organizations you’ve been involved in that have been called a cult?
    - andrewla 4y ago
      Well, I wouldn't say "mired", but I do agree that I'm the only one directly addressing the distinction between substance and semantics. I do not agree about the list. That list is there to win semantic arguments about whether something is a cult or not. Nothing to do with harm; you can argue that some of the criteria, like "shame cycles" are harmful in and of themselves, but most are harmless attributes. Apply it to a kid's soccer team to see this. I have never been involved in a cult. But sure, calling things a cult is cheap. I'm Jewish, I have been a Ron Paul supporter, card-carrying ACLU member. All of those things have been called cults.
      - drewbeck 4y ago
        No, the list is diagnostic, in the same way that lists of behaviors and experiences that may indicate depression, bpd, or any psychological state/disorder is. The list is "you may be in a cult if", not "lol it's totally a cult nerd, look at this definitive list" I agree that people use "cult" too quickly. But that doesn't mean that a list like that isn't helpful. Plus if your kids soccer team "delegitimizes former members", "is paranoid about the outside world" and "relies on shame cycles" then … big oof! These are not typical behaviors. (Part of your argument I think is that these ideas are subjective. If you're in a jewish group that has a meeting about rising anti-semitism are you "paranoid". Hell no. But could someone call you "paranoid"? Sure. Working through that subjectiveness is actually where the meat of this issue is.)
        4y ago
- cainxinth 4y ago
  https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-yall-with-the-cult https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-yall-with-the-cult
neallindsay 4y ago
Are you arguing that we should not try to define the words we use because natural language is always fuzzy? Or are you just objecting to a definition of "cult" that doesn't require religion?
- andrewla 4y ago
  No, define away! Descriptivism is a wonderful way to examine artifacts of human activity. But be wary of prescriptivism -- because you have defined a category does not mean you have provided a test for membership, especially if there are connotations associated with the original category. Definitions when applied prescriptively have to be looked at from an operational perspective -- _why_ does it matter that this instance belongs to that category?
alasdair_ 4y ago
>absent a religious motivation (where "religious" itself is a similarly nebulous concept) it's not a cult. NXIVM was absolutely a cult, despite a focus on self-improvement/ philosophy rather than religion. They had a supreme leader, they cut off the members from the outside, there was a clean ingroup/outgroup and they freaking branded their members. Sure, in most ways it was "just" an MLM but it was also absolutely a cult and it absolutely ruined people's lives in an identical way. Scientology was a cult even before the point it took on the trappings of religion for tax purposes. It was originally NOT a religion - it was just more pseudo-scientific MLM nonsense. It was still a cult. Sex cults are also definitely cults, even though the focus is on sex and the leader in general rather than religion.
- andrewla 4y ago
  So you list a bunch of bad things that NXIVM did. How does labeling it a "cult" add or detract from that list of bad things? Sure, it did bad things. If a member were a Christian, did it force them to denounce God or renounce their hope of salvation, or to otherwise accept heretical beliefs? I am not Christian; these are not things important to me, but they are part of the operational definition of a classical cult, which NXIVM is not, in that sense. Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute. Even the wikipedia article on NXIVM, for example, calls it a "personality cult", a term specifically invented to refer to a cult-like organization organized around a persona rather than a religious precept. Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine. I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost. EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > I am not Christian; these are not things important to me, but they are part of the operational definition of a classical cult, which NXIVM is not, in that sense. Could you possibly link to this singular, authoritative (and non-contested) "operational definition of a classical cult"? > Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute. Only your absolute definition is allowed? Is there a governing body for such things? > Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine. This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective? > I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost. Is it possible that this could be happening right here in this thread? > EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage. Now we're back to "the (singular) meaning"? Sir: do you recall where you acquired your facts? Did those who provided them to you include any supporting proofs?
RadiantJo 4y ago
Is this GPT3 generated text?
- vagrantJin 4y ago
  -1 Its was probably written by an adult. Feel free to disagree and engage in the discussion rather than using reductive cheap shots.

sparkie 4y ago

Some people have been saying we are a cult, but they are not using the correct definition of "cult," in our opinion.

andrewla 4y ago
Exactly this! The attempt to reduce "cult" to a strict rule-based definition means you can be endlessly mired in semantic debate rather than actually address the operational parameters that make an organization or association unattractive to join, which is usually what people mean when they say "that's a cult". "Cult" carries a ton of baggage. You say "hey, that MLM you want to join satisfies 4/10 properties of a cult -- it's a cult!" and the baggage is "Jonestown was a cult and they all died. Heaven's gate was a cult and they all died. Branch Davidian was a cult and they all died." It's a rhetorical sleight of hand, nothing more, and it will not convince anyone or create an interesting discussion; it'll just come down to some argument about whether Catholicism is a cult. In order to actually get anything useful, you have to show how the cult-like properties either inevitably lead to the negative consequences (which is nigh impossible; some of these definitions apply to little league teams) or talk about the specific negative or questionable behaviors of the organization itself.
- drewbeck 4y ago
  As far as I can tell you’re the only one mired in a semantic debate. The list of signs of a cult above is a useful rubric for determining if an organizational is harmful. And as others have noted the technical term “high-demand organization” has grown specifically to leave behind the religious implications of “cult”, though language moves slow and many will still use that term day to day. Are there any organizations you’ve been involved in that have been called a cult?
  - andrewla 4y ago
    Well, I wouldn't say "mired", but I do agree that I'm the only one directly addressing the distinction between substance and semantics. I do not agree about the list. That list is there to win semantic arguments about whether something is a cult or not. Nothing to do with harm; you can argue that some of the criteria, like "shame cycles" are harmful in and of themselves, but most are harmless attributes. Apply it to a kid's soccer team to see this. I have never been involved in a cult. But sure, calling things a cult is cheap. I'm Jewish, I have been a Ron Paul supporter, card-carrying ACLU member. All of those things have been called cults.
    - drewbeck 4y ago
      No, the list is diagnostic, in the same way that lists of behaviors and experiences that may indicate depression, bpd, or any psychological state/disorder is. The list is "you may be in a cult if", not "lol it's totally a cult nerd, look at this definitive list" I agree that people use "cult" too quickly. But that doesn't mean that a list like that isn't helpful. Plus if your kids soccer team "delegitimizes former members", "is paranoid about the outside world" and "relies on shame cycles" then … big oof! These are not typical behaviors. (Part of your argument I think is that these ideas are subjective. If you're in a jewish group that has a meeting about rising anti-semitism are you "paranoid". Hell no. But could someone call you "paranoid"? Sure. Working through that subjectiveness is actually where the meat of this issue is.)
      - 4y ago
cainxinth 4y ago
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-yall-with-the-cult https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-yall-with-the-cult

neallindsay 4y ago

Are you arguing that we should not try to define the words we use because natural language is always fuzzy? Or are you just objecting to a definition of "cult" that doesn't require religion?

andrewla 4y ago
No, define away! Descriptivism is a wonderful way to examine artifacts of human activity. But be wary of prescriptivism -- because you have defined a category does not mean you have provided a test for membership, especially if there are connotations associated with the original category. Definitions when applied prescriptively have to be looked at from an operational perspective -- _why_ does it matter that this instance belongs to that category?

alasdair_ 4y ago

>absent a religious motivation (where "religious" itself is a similarly nebulous concept) it's not a cult. NXIVM was absolutely a cult, despite a focus on self-improvement/ philosophy rather than religion. They had a supreme leader, they cut off the members from the outside, there was a clean ingroup/outgroup and they freaking branded their members. Sure, in most ways it was "just" an MLM but it was also absolutely a cult and it absolutely ruined people's lives in an identical way. Scientology was a cult even before the point it took on the trappings of religion for tax purposes. It was originally NOT a religion - it was just more pseudo-scientific MLM nonsense. It was still a cult. Sex cults are also definitely cults, even though the focus is on sex and the leader in general rather than religion.

andrewla 4y ago
So you list a bunch of bad things that NXIVM did. How does labeling it a "cult" add or detract from that list of bad things? Sure, it did bad things. If a member were a Christian, did it force them to denounce God or renounce their hope of salvation, or to otherwise accept heretical beliefs? I am not Christian; these are not things important to me, but they are part of the operational definition of a classical cult, which NXIVM is not, in that sense. Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute. Even the wikipedia article on NXIVM, for example, calls it a "personality cult", a term specifically invented to refer to a cult-like organization organized around a persona rather than a religious precept. Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine. I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost. EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > I am not Christian; these are not things important to me, but they are part of the operational definition of a classical cult, which NXIVM is not, in that sense. Could you possibly link to this singular, authoritative (and non-contested) "operational definition of a classical cult"? > Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute. Only your absolute definition is allowed? Is there a governing body for such things? > Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine. This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective? > I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost. Is it possible that this could be happening right here in this thread? > EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage. Now we're back to "the (singular) meaning"? Sir: do you recall where you acquired your facts? Did those who provided them to you include any supporting proofs?

RadiantJo 4y ago

Is this GPT3 generated text?

vagrantJin 4y ago
-1 Its was probably written by an adult. Feel free to disagree and engage in the discussion rather than using reductive cheap shots.