How Would You Define a Cult?

[*pally*]

(05-07-2024, 09:30 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You didn't directly say it, but the OP posted 3 links involving Religion. 

Do you expect anyone to believe that the intent was purely an innocent question? 

I answered his question without any inference...if you have a question about the motive of the post direct it to him.

[Dill]

(05-06-2024, 12:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This could technically apply to almost every "group" of people out there... But I understand you are currently attempting to make it a MAGA/Trump/Religion thing only

I don't think Pally's list could apply to almost every, or even many, groups out there,
if we are talking about political organizations/administrations in liberal democracies. 

Most such groups tolerate and even encourage questions. They don't believe their leader is
right at all times, or that criticism of the leader makes one an enemy, or that vindictive,
public humiliation/abuse of underlings is cool. There are lines of decency leaders cannot
cross and remain leaders.

I.e., there is a difference between authoritarian and democratic politics, even at the interpersonal level.

Comparing how presidents select, interact with, and dismiss advisors and staff tells us a lot about 
where they are on the scale of authoritarianism, from "none" to "a lot." And if we are talking about political 
groups, I would add "misogyny" to the list of danger signs.

The list is heuristic, not to make it a MAGA/Trump thing "only," but to explore whether there is a descriptive fit all,
or even enough to differentiate Trump's campaign, policies, administration and staff politics from Biden's or Obama's.

That could go forward in two ways--first to discuss/agree whether the list really does describe cultish behavior which
could be recognized in political organizations.

And getting past that with some agreement, then deciding ff there is a fit or not by considering examples. 
E.g., Can we tell to what degree these leaders do or do not encourage advisors to question or speak truth to power? 
Has either Biden or Trump humiliated staff in public or fired them in humiliating ways? Is there evidence that
followers place inordinate trust in their party leader and will tolerate him crossing lines of public decency
that they would not tolerate in others?  Does either leader express toleration or even admiration of authoritarian
politics?  

If we get a lot of "yes" answers to such questions, which means followers tolerate or even embrace their leader's behavior,
then it is difficult to dismiss the cult analogy outright.  

[Luvnit2]

(05-04-2024, 10:13 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Because holy shit man. I didn’t know it was this hardcore. This story was kind of shocking. And fits my criteria to be a cult to a T.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-christian-tv-show-rallying-150011439.html

They better be cracking down on this bullshit. The mechanisms are in place.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics

The man behind it all. Yikes
https://youtu.be/9LtF34MrsfI?si=yZnz33xBuFqIQm7I

Any voter or media who keeps protecting Joe Biden and a corrupt DOJ. I looked it up, it was in the dictionary. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-12-2024, 01:05 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Pally's list could apply to almost every, or even many, groups out there,
if we are talking about political organizations/administrations in liberal democracies. 

Most such groups tolerate and even encourage questions. They don't believe their leader is
right at all times, or that criticism of the leader makes one an enemy, or that vindictive,
public humiliation/abuse of underlings is cool. There are lines of decency leaders cannot
cross and remain leaders.

I.e., there is a difference between authoritarian and democratic politics, even at the interpersonal level.

Comparing how presidents select, interact with, and dismiss advisors and staff tells us a lot about 
where they are on the scale of authoritarianism, from "none" to "a lot." And if we are talking about political 
groups, I would add "misogyny" to the list of danger signs.

The list is heuristic, not to make it a MAGA/Trump thing "only," but to explore whether there is a descriptive fit all,
or even enough to differentiate Trump's campaign, policies, administration and staff politics from Biden's or Obama's.

That could go forward in two ways--first to discuss/agree whether the list really does describe cultish behavior which
could be recognized in political organizations.

And getting past that with some agreement, then deciding ff there is a fit or not by considering examples. 
E.g., Can we tell to what degree these leaders do or do not encourage advisors to question or speak truth to power? 
Has either Biden or Trump humiliated staff in public or fired them in humiliating ways? Is there evidence that
followers place inordinate trust in their party leader and will tolerate him crossing lines of public decency
that they would not tolerate in others?  Does either leader express toleration or even admiration of authoritarian
politics?  

If we get a lot of "yes" answers to such questions, which means followers tolerate or even embrace their leader's behavior,
then it is difficult to dismiss the cult analogy outright.  

It would be interesting to see binary bullet points, like The Hero.

Fair concept, but who decides the questionnaire?

[Dill]

(05-12-2024, 09:06 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: It would be interesting to see binary bullet points, like The Hero.

Fair concept, but who decides the questionnaire?

Not sure what "the Hero" is. 

People interested in testing the list and its definition of cult behavior could presumably agree about enough questions.  
They'd also be willing to test and revise them together to meet objections.

People who did not want the test to occur would not participate or likely object to the most telling/incriminating questions. 

I find that supporters/defenders of authoritarian leaders and politics very much resist public discussion of independent definitions 
and criteria of authoritarianism as already accusatory, especially as such relate to current US politics.

Possibly there'd be the same resistance from people who looked at the list of criteria indicating cult behavior and saw right away
a number of them applicable to their group/leader. They'd reject the whole project as "biased" or claim it applicable to "both sides." 
End of discussion, exemplifying the second criterion.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-13-2024, 12:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what "the Hero" is. 

People interested in testing the list and its definition of cult behavior could presumably agree about enough questions.  
They'd also be willing to test and revise them together to meet objections.

People who did not want the test to occur would not participate or likely object to the most telling/incriminating questions. 

I find that supporters/defenders of authoritarian leaders and politics very much resist public discussion of independent definitions 
and criteria of authoritarianism as already accusatory, especially as such relate to current US politics.

Possibly there'd be the same resistance from people who looked at the list of criteria indicating cult behavior and saw right away
a number of them applicable to their group/leader. They'd reject the whole project as "biased" or claim it applicable to "both sides." 
End of discussion, exemplifying the second criterion.

I believe the book was called "The Hero" but maybe I am mistaken I was a long time ago when I referenced it.

The basic concept is it lists questions and based on how many "yes" answers, you could predict a person likely being fictional versus real.

The questions were something like,

Product of a virgin birth.

Assigned a list of tasks/trial to complete.

Sent away at a young age.

etc...

With the idea being a fictional hero has a relatively defined path. I did a search this morning and Found it to be The Hero with a Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell. Not remotely the author name I was trying to come up with.

No worries, the idea just drew up some comparisons in my mind at the time.

[Dill]

(05-13-2024, 12:47 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I believe the book was called "The Hero" but maybe I am mistaken I was a long time ago when I referenced it.
The basic concept is it lists questions and based on how many "yes" answers, you could predict a person likely being fictional versus real.
The questions were something like,
Product of a virgin birth.
Assigned a list of tasks/trial to complete.
Sent away at a young age.
etc...

With the idea being a fictional hero has a relatively defined path. I did a search this morning and Found it to be The Hero with a Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell. Not remotely the author name I was trying to come up with.
No worries, the idea just drew up some comparisons in my mind at the time.

Ok so that's comparative religion/mythology. Haven't read it, but it reminds me of Frazer's The Golden Bough, which examines ritual sacrifice, or Vladimir Propp's Morphology of the Folktale, which identifies various "functions" common in folk tales, like the protagonist must leave on a "quest" in which he encounters a succession of "obstacles," "interdictions," "villains," and "magical agents"  in various combinations.

Off topic a bit but an interesting subject (to me at least).  Come think of it, though, those narrative studies might shed some light on current political/media narratives deploying hero saviors, villians, and political "obstacles." lol