3 ms·

>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

>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?
  - andrewla 4y ago
    The thing about operational usage is that they don't need a definition, nor do they purport to be absolute, but strictly context-dependent. That's what operational means in this context. For a Christian worried about a congregant joining an organization, if they required those things then it would be considered a "cult" (also usually required here is that it be a small organization). I do not have an absolute definition! That's my whole point! Nor do I deny yours, but only point out that the label, by itself, adds no value to the discussion, unless there's a common framework. Surely you can acknowledge that a significant number of people would require a religious belief; that's what makes the accusation against NIXVM particularly outre, because they are cult-like without a religious element, and saying they are a cult is a way to associate them with something generally found distateful. > This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective? YES! A MILLION TIMES YES! On the border of the taxonomy, things get very wishy-washy -- but finding someone who says that Heaven's Gate or Jonestown are not cults would be enormously difficult. The usage of "cult" only works because we have a shared cultural experience with the notion of cult. and invoking that when referring to things like NXIVM is a rhetorical device, nothing more. I don't get to "decide" the meaning of "cult" and neither do you! It's a word in a living language in the milieu of a society with a shared cultural heritage that carries history and connotation stretching back to before we were born. It is ultimately uninteresting to debate whether NIVMX is a cult or not because it does not make more acceptable or condemnatory their practices. If you could make a strong statement; "they exhibited the following cult-like attributes, and in consequence, like every organization with those attributes, they also exhibited these behaviors" then you're on to something; you're doing observational sociology. But here all you're really saying is "they are super double bad", which is, okay, fine, but you can just call them fascists or communists or something else that people hate and it has the same impact.

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?
- andrewla 4y ago
  The thing about operational usage is that they don't need a definition, nor do they purport to be absolute, but strictly context-dependent. That's what operational means in this context. For a Christian worried about a congregant joining an organization, if they required those things then it would be considered a "cult" (also usually required here is that it be a small organization). I do not have an absolute definition! That's my whole point! Nor do I deny yours, but only point out that the label, by itself, adds no value to the discussion, unless there's a common framework. Surely you can acknowledge that a significant number of people would require a religious belief; that's what makes the accusation against NIXVM particularly outre, because they are cult-like without a religious element, and saying they are a cult is a way to associate them with something generally found distateful. > This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective? YES! A MILLION TIMES YES! On the border of the taxonomy, things get very wishy-washy -- but finding someone who says that Heaven's Gate or Jonestown are not cults would be enormously difficult. The usage of "cult" only works because we have a shared cultural experience with the notion of cult. and invoking that when referring to things like NXIVM is a rhetorical device, nothing more. I don't get to "decide" the meaning of "cult" and neither do you! It's a word in a living language in the milieu of a society with a shared cultural heritage that carries history and connotation stretching back to before we were born. It is ultimately uninteresting to debate whether NIVMX is a cult or not because it does not make more acceptable or condemnatory their practices. If you could make a strong statement; "they exhibited the following cult-like attributes, and in consequence, like every organization with those attributes, they also exhibited these behaviors" then you're on to something; you're doing observational sociology. But here all you're really saying is "they are super double bad", which is, okay, fine, but you can just call them fascists or communists or something else that people hate and it has the same impact.