Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

It's too bad that Invision haven't allowed for a hard ignore function, only this soft ignore BS

[Natasha Tori Maru]

17 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

It's too bad that Invision haven't allowed for a hard ignore function, only this soft ignore BS

Even I want this. But I cannot, as a mod 😢

Half the time I don't read replies when I know I'm going to read a torrent of incoherence 

[Wilhelm44]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

So whats the actual positive case for why he is not a cult leader or for why this place is not a cult?

I want to again - redirect some  attention back to the fact that no one has made a non-adhoc positive case for that yet, where you actually lay down your specific theory in length with evidence and with links and where you account for all the problematic data that was pointed out by me  [1 ,2 , 3, 4] and by other people in these threads [1 , 2, 3] . A case, where  you demonstrate that you are informed (that you actually read most of these threads and have the relevant context ,and you dont need to get walked through literally all the info). A case, where you open up yourself to get defintion and gradience raped by a bunch of users, who will use a bunch of rheotrical questions hidden as "im just questioning parts of your theory"  when in reality, they intend to spend a good chunk of time analyzing and making comments about your motivations   and they intend to spend a good chunk of time fishing for reasons so that they can attack your character and so that they can end up making a bunch of implications about your character and motivations  -rather than, again - directly focusing on and engaging with the overall substance of your theory in good faith and then making a good faith summary why they disagree with the overall case.

Give a comprehensive, holistic case, where you account for all the problematic data taken as a whole stack or as a big configuration of facts (and where you dont just account for just little  bits and pieces , while you also pretend and imply  that you managed to make a good positive overall case or that you managed to defend the positive side by simply asking a bunch of questions ).

I think you actually made some good points, especially those 3 main points that were highlighted.

The real question is, now what ?

[Wilhelm44]

9 hours ago, integral said:

Actualized.org Analyzer i just built in 30 seconds. (im posting as a joke, its incomplete)

@Natasha Tori Maru @Carl-Richard @zurew @Thought Art @Wilhelm44 @Joshe @Osaid @No1Here2c

 

It's completely wrong, but I just thought it was funny so I posted it. (if you can't read: right click -> open image in new tab + magnify)

I'd have to do a lot of work to get this to be accurate

Am I gonna get paid for my data being used in such an embarrassing way ?

(What happens when you put Trump in the machine ?)

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

The real question is, now what ?

1) Leo can respond

2) Other people can make their own comprehensive , overall cases (hopefully again, using as much relevant data as possible). After that, people can examine and compare and contrast these big cases and draw their own conclusions.

[Wilhelm44]

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

Other people can make their own comprehensive , overall cases (hopefully again, using as much relevant data as possible). After that, people can examine and compare and contrast these big cases and draw their own conclusions.

Yes, where are the mods (who don't agree with the cult accusations) that have some strong analytical debating skills ? 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Wilhelm44 would take time to gather data points I imagine.

@zurew's evidence, premise and conclusion is solid. 

I thought about countering it, but I cannot hit all angles comprehensively. The narcissistic angle is an interesting one. I was looking up studies regarding development of narcissistic defence mechanisms and traits in response to being a public, online social media figure earlier. How facing constant critique / feedback might cement the ego and calcify thinking patterns. But this only serves to argue Leo could change and he didn't have any personality disorder as a fit (ie his reactions online were habitually developed). Constant gaslighting has great effects on the psyche (especially regarding ones grip of reality ie psychosis + psychedelics). I also considered mapping a timeline of Leo's posts as linked by Zurew, in an attempt to track a pattern illustrating the rise in his egoic and arrogant statements and look at timelines between his largest expletive episodes. More to track growth to see if Leo's behaviour had become more grounded with time. When he was taking peak psychedelics, when his most ungrounded claims were being made. When he took longer breaks etc. A structured timeline.

But none of this goes toward the entire argument, it can only attend to one or two points. And I continually found my points of research and pattern matching to steelman Zurew even more 🤣

The cult fit is a very, very difficult one to shake. My only attempt there could possibly be a reframe entirely; that not all cults are bad. Present examples (which I have one or two that fit the cult model, but aren't negative or bad to me).

I might be able to tackle some angles, but at the moment, my work is my priority. I have 2 medical centres at handover in big trouble with the RBS and I have roadblocks to getting occupancy granted. This is literally sucking the life out of me coming up with insane solutions to get compliance on the most fucked up design I have ever seen.

Zurew seems like a very patient chap, so it might out if I get some free time soon. A charitable engagement because I would be debating a side I don't necessarily agree with in totality. But a good challenge nonetheless - I used to debate topics I didn't agree with all through high school (fucken decades ago, skills have eroded). And I would want to do the topic justice. But I am facing a juggernaut with Zurew 

Pretty sure I will just end up reinforcing the opposite side as well!

Edited 5 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[zurew]

@Natasha Tori Maru 

I wont attack your steelman. (Btw, I dont think this is something that should be done by people who dont genuinely believe in the position they are trying to make a comprehensive case for - because you wont have enough motivation to spend enough time on it)

I just want to push people to  provide more overall assessments and not just bits and pieces, because that way we can actually gather a set of big comprehensive cases  (the scattered data and arguments make it hard for everyone to properly make sense of things).

It would be cool to have at least 2-3 different comprehensive cases.

Also, regardless of how much Leo disagrees, I think it would be valuable for him to address the full body of relevant evidence in a comprehensive response, rather than focusing on isolated points. (Needless to say - It would also help if he engaged with opposing viewpoints instead of dismissing them outright).

Edited 4 hours ago by zurew

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I think I'd try to approach this from the angle that the main points make a case for "cult like structure", but not the cult criteria. 

I think the cult criterias of coercive control, punishment for leaving, isolation from outsiders (physical and mental), financial exploitation & suppressing of dissent (especially in later eras of actualized.org) could be looked at deeper. I case might be made that perhaps at one stage actualized.org fit the cult model better and has slowly evolved away from most of the detrimental cult aspects. 

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

 

I just want to push people to  provide more overall assessments and not just bits and pieces, because that way we can actually gather a set of big comprehensive cases  (the scattered data and arguments make it hard for everyone to properly make sense of things).

It would be cool to have at least 2-3 different comprehensive cases.

Also, regardless of how much Leo disagrees, I think it would be valuable for him to address the full body of relevant evidence in a comprehensive response, rather than focusing on isolated points. (Needless to say - It would also help if he engaged with opposing viewpoints instead of dismissing them outright).

That'd be something a cult would do.

To me you guys @zurew @Joshe @Carl-Richard appear to be at the peak range of intelligence on this forum, have you considered that most of the other people on here might just have different behavior patterns than yourselves in general that look more 'cult following' monkey see monkey do than yourselves? Perhaps you're expecting less intelligent people to react in a similar manner that you three do to certain things, or are disturbed by behaviors that can just be attributed to lower intelligence.

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[integral]

3 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Am I gonna get paid for my data being used in such an embarrassing way ?

(What happens when you put Trump in the machine ?)

lol nope, The descriptions are all wrong basicly, Leo was diagnosed at be stage blue.

 

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Elliott said:

@Carl-Richard so your complaint with me and Father Wilhelm is that we question a part of an argument? This is counterproductive to you? I don't understand the complaint, by questioning a single part I do not dismiss the other parts.

Even if it might seem like it's not a big issue and people practice it often, it's not actually good debate to have someone who hasn't presented a position arguing against your position (notice how no official debates use this format), it's not good to have someone who doesn't have a goal of evaluating their own position but only seeking what they think is consistency in a local and usually irrelevant linguistic structure. And when that local consistency is dealt with, you find another based on not a goal of arriving at a larger point, but defeating yet another more local point.

A bit rambly but: it's engagement at a low level of complexity. It doesn't hold large amounts of data in mind at once. It's a quintessentially "Orange" way of debating, getting caught in consistency testing rather than refining relevance. It's in a sense sociopathic as it's short-sighted, only focused on the immediate present, not a larger structure of meaning.

 

11 hours ago, Elliott said:

Do you see a difference between the scientific method and debate?

It's a larger problem of epistemology. You are rolling the dice again and again waiting to get a six. Just by probability, you will likely get a six at some point if you roll the dice enough times. Trouble is that six will likely not be very relevant in the larger scheme of the discussion, because you're fishing for sixes in waters where relevance is low. You're like a guy fishing in a polluted lake trying very hard to catch toxic fish that no one will eat.

Solution is give your own comprehensive well-thought through take on the entire thing and we can respond to that within our own comprehensive well-thought out take. That's a fair discussion when we're working on two comparable fronts. (Weird analogy, the others were worse): It's like two big lego figures trying to stick together rather than a little one encircling the bigger one and finding any and every possible place to stick to.

And it tethers you to your own comprehensive take so you must be consistent to it and you can't go on wild fishing trips trying to roll the dice in the wildest of places.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Even if it might seem like it's not a big issue and people practice it often, it's not actually good debate to have someone who hasn't presented a position arguing against your position (notice how no official debates use this format), it's not good to have someone who doesn't have a goal of evaluating their own position but only seeking what they think is consistency in a local and usually irrelevant linguistic structure. And when that local consistency is dealt with, you find another based on not a goal of arriving at a larger point, but defeating yet another more local point.

It's engagement at a low level of complexity. It doesn't hold large amounts of data in mind at once. It's a quintessentially "Orange" way of debating, getting caught in consistency testing rather than refining relevance. It's in a sense sociopathic as it's short-sighted, only focused on the immediate present, not a larger structure of meaning. It's about gathering "wins" at a microlevel rather than advancing a larger case.

 

It's a larger problem of epistemology. You are rolling the dice again and again waiting to get a six. Just by probability, you will likely get a six at some point if you roll the dice enough times. Trouble is that six will likely not be very relevant in the larger scheme of the discussion, because you're fishing for sixes in waters where relevance is low. You're like a guy fishing in a polluted lake trying very hard to catch toxic fish that no one will eat.

Solution is give your own comprehensive well-thought through take on the entire thing and we can respond to that within our own comprehensive well-thought out take. That's a fair discussion when we're working on two comparable fronts. It's like two big lego figures trying to stick together rather than a little one encircling the bigger one and finding any and every possible place to stick to (weird analogy, the others were worse).

And it tethers you to your own comprehensive take so you must be consistent to it and you can't go on wild fishing trips trying to roll the dice in the wildest of places.

I completely disagree with your characterization of mine and Wilhems questions. I believe you don't actually understand the relevance of our questions and are dismissing them because you just believe that you do.

[Wilhelm44]

57 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I completely disagree with your characterization of mine and Wilhems questions. I believe you don't actually understand the relevance of our questions and are dismissing them because you just believe that you do.

Tell Carl that according to the AI debate analyser, one of his blind spots may be: "Personal cult history may colour his readiness to see cult dynamics here."

Edited 1 hour ago by Wilhelm44

[Elliott]

Just now, Wilhelm44 said:

Tell Carl that according to the AI debate analyser, one of his blind spots may be: "Personal cult history may colour his readiness to see cult history here."

He was in a cult?

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

He was in a cult?

Yes, it was discussed a bit earlier in this thread. (p14)

Edited 17 minutes ago by Wilhelm44

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, integral said:

lol nope, The descriptions are all wrong basicly, Leo was diagnosed at be stage blue.

 

When I first checked I was chuffed, cause I thought amber was like yellow lol.

You know I was thinking, if there actually was a full proof system that graded everyone's development here, then to me that would feel more like a cult than anything.

[Elliott]

Sorry @Carl-Richard, as im sure you know i have not read the entire thread, i would have been more sensitive. I think I understand why you would take this subject so seriously, and I'm not taking it very seriously, I'll stop commenting.

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

I completely disagree with your characterization of mine and Wilhems questions. I believe you don't actually understand the relevance of our questions and are dismissing them because you just believe that you do.

It's a structural problem mostly related to how you haven't presented your own comprehensive take and given your own definitions of what you think a cult is or what you think narcisissm is, etc. (Wilhelm started off the same way and I had to eventually ask him what he thought a cult is and even then he just gave a one-sentence answer which we later discovered was clearly inadequate). Feel free to argue against that, find flaws in the consistency of that.

 

48 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Tell Carl that according to the AI debate analyser, one of his blind spots may be: "Personal cult history may colour his readiness to see cult dynamics here."

I think the AI at times just assumed people's arguments and framings and put that in someone's blindspot section without going much in depth into the reasoning itself (i.e. it gave more of a summary of points rather than a critical evaluation of points); I hold that for your "1-point argumentation" line as well. And that's to be expected as AI ironically also has trouble with identifying relevance at deeper layers (see me and @zurew's breaking of a 3-times double-checked Claude deep research query in my thread about GDPR and EU AI Act).

 

34 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Sorry @Carl-Richard, as im sure you know i have not read the entire thread, i would have been more sensitive. I think I understand why you would take this subject so seriously.

I'm a bit schizo but I interpret that as a patronizing "poor thang, his brain is broken".

Leo's definition doesn't consider it a cult, Wilhelm also didn't think it was a cult but apparently he changed his mind after our discussion. Maybe you wouldn't think it's a cult either if you gave your own definition of a cult.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

I'm a bit schizo but I interpret that as a patronizing "poor thang, his brain is broken".

Leo's definition doesn't consider it a cult, Wilhelm also didn't think it was a cult but apparently he changed his mind after our discussion. Maybe you wouldn't think it's a cult either if you gave your own definition of a cult.

I'm apologizing for not taking the discussion as seriously as you. I don't care enough about this discussion to put in the effort that I think you deserve.