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

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Osaid said:

Leo's cult psychology video is actually good.

It's based seemingly entirely on the anti-cult movement, an outrage and money-making machine. Go to literally any other source, academic ones. Most of them will take a huge dump on the anti-cult movement (and the cult concept itself) and use terms like "new religious movement".

It's a farce considering his purported status as epistemic God numero uno that he doesn't make clear the underlying assumptions of his chosen view or present alternative views. That's epistemology 101.

It would've been yet more evidence of ulterior motives / motivated reasoning if it weren't for the fact that it's actually fairly common for Leo and not limited to these series of videos. I'm trying to limit my cynicism here but it makes you want to ask more questions.

Nevertheless, it underlies the one-sided engagement with the issue by his followers, and that anything else would be a result of self-education or other education.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Osaid]

44 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Go to literally any other source, academic ones.

Isn't that what the Google AI result is parsing from? Quite a few sources seem to cite the need for authoritarian tactics and hierarchies. After doing a deeper dive, it seems it's a point of contention for scholars and not all of them agree with that, but some do. IMO that's the only useful or practical definition, though. That being said, it seems like the definition is not as objective as the video made it out to be.

44 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Nevertheless, it underlies the one-sided engagement with the issue by his followers, and that anything else would be a result of self-education or other education.

I don't think the cult video is doing him any favors, though. I'm the only one who even seems to be bringing up the more specific criteria. 

What seems to happen is that Leo will make a video on epistemology and everyone will think that means he's immune to bad epistemology. This goes for anything he covers. He makes a video on cults, so that means he can't be susceptible to making one. This kind of logic. There is this prevalent idea that he has conquered or perfected all the topics he has covered, probably because of the "I'm the most conscious of all time" rhetoric or the "I'm the number one on epistemology" rhetoric he spews all the time. Which is pretty ironic, but yeah. There is this kind of sidestepping going on that derails from Leo's behaviours and instead tries to point at how generous and considerate he is for keeping this thread open and stuff like that lol. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Osaid

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Insisting our view is the correct one, putting others down when they do not align. Pretending this is done for others own good. That there is virtue behind the actions. To teach.

Leo does this. 

And so are others in this thread. Interesting.

 

[Rigel]

12 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Insisting our view is the correct one, putting others down when they do not align. Pretending this is done for others own good. That there is virtue behind the actions. To teach.

Leo does this. 

And so are others in this thread. Interesting.

 

That’s all part of the plan! You said this earlier: damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Or blessed both ways, whatever. God is having a big laugh regardless. We don’t matter and neither does Leo, that’s the good news.

[Elliott]

If you're concerned about something it's best to just address what you're actually concerned about rather than trying to manipulate people YOURSELVES by riling them up with loaded terms like cult. You guys are waving the war banners over this place being a cult yet you think little girls butterfly clubs are also cults....... That goes for narcissism too, just point out the abuse. Narcissism is a special case, a narcissist will not seek help by being shown their narcissism, and grandiosity is cultural online! Perhaps you need to consider YOUR manipulation of gaslighting someone into believing they're a narcissist, you fucking "sociopath" @Carl-Richard YOU KNOW BETTER! Get help, try to help yourself. You liked nahm because of his disability, sorry but Leo is a human too!

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[zurew]

Manipulation is when you lay down your specific case with links, lay down what you take to be the problemtic behavior, lay down your opertaing defintion of cult, show how your layed down case match with your defintion and where you clarify multiple times that other people can feel free to use a different definition.

Non-manipulation and substantive engagement is when you dont give your own comprehensive case (because you say you are not interested in the debate, you are just here to make sense of views)  and then you stay inside the thread , defintion and gradience rape specific bits from a comprehensive whole and then  you give character and psychology remarks after each and every one of those isolated and raped bits about people who disagree with your take  ( the take that you are not interested in explicating in any comprehensive manner). Non-manipualtion is also where you imply that the other person who is using a different defintion of cult and narcissism than you, that that person is manipulating you and other people.Non-manipulation and honest behavior is also, where you state that you are not interested in debates in general - and then you stay inside the thread and you show a lot of interest in debating much more substantive topics such as the character of the person who is making the comprehensive criticism.

This is what did not happen - shouting that actualized.org is a cult and then not clarifying further what is meant by the term and not pointing out what is the problematic behavior.

The fewer facts you take into account when you do your gradience rape,  the easier it is to do it. Its very easy to show a big, wide range of explanations when you only need to explain some very specific isolated fact , but its much harder to maintain that wide range of explanations once you take a 100 more facts into account on your board. (Again, this is why you have been pushed multiple times to give a comprehensive case ). You cant address this topic by targeting one bit at a time. You need to create a throughline that goes through/connects all the relevant datapoints. 

Edited 40 minutes ago by zurew

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Manipulation is when you lay down your specific case with links, lay down what you take to be the problemtic behavior, lay down your opertaing defintion of cult, show how your layed down case match with your defintion and where you clarify multiple times that other people can feel free to use a different definition.

Non-manipulation and substantive engagement is when you dont give your own comprehensive case (because you say you are not interested in the debate, you are just here to make sense of views)  and then you stay inside the thread , defintion and gradience rape specific bits from a comprehensive whole and then  you give character and psychology remarks after each and every one of those isolated and raped bits about people that disagrees with your take  ( the take that you are not interested in explicating in any comprehensive manner). Non-manipualtion is also where you imply that the other person who is using a different defintion of cult and narcissism than you, that that person is manipulating you and other people.Non-manipulation and honest behavior is also, where you state that you are not interested in debates in general - and then you stay inside the thread and you show a lot of interest in debating much more substantive topics such as the character of the person who is making the comprehensive criticism.

This is what did not happen - shouting that actualized.org is a cult and then not clarifying further what is meant by the term and not pointing out what is the problematic behavior.

The fewer facts you take into account when you do your gradience rape,  the easier it is to do it. Its very easy to show a big, wide range of explanations when you only need to explain some very specific isolated fact , but its much harder to maintain that wide range of explanations once you take a 100 more facts into account on your board. (Again, this is why you have been pushed multiple times to give a comprehensive case ). You cant address this topic by targeting one bit at a time. You need to create a throughline that goes through/connects all the relevant datapoints. 

I'm sorry, I would not group you yourself in as having been manipulative.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

If you're concerned about something it's best to just address what you're actually concerned about rather than trying to manipulate people YOURSELVES by riling them up with loaded terms like cult. You guys are waving the war banners over this place being a cult yet you think little girls butterfly clubs are also cults....... That goes for narcissism too, just point out the abuse.

Leo is the one riling people up by enforcing a single-sided narrative on the issue, insisting to call "cult" a bad thing, and then that concept being applied to him is his own creation, because his minions beg you to point out those features in him (and they happen to fit in some places). Had Leo been open to a more pluralistic narrative (or if he had insisted that cult was not necessarily a bad thing), you would probably not think we would be riling people up, because people are so obedient to Leo that when the cult concept is (as a baseline) removed all controversy, that is most likely what will permeate the discussion.

That you suggest we not use words because they are controversial, yet Leo is here using words like manipulation and mind control, heck solipsism (and also "cult"; that's a word he uses), as if he is trying to keep discourse civil over his desire to call something for what it is, that's the kind of double standard you would expect a cult member to enforce on his fellow members. Words are useful, they have meaning, and if we decide to use them, that may belie their usefulness more than an attempt to "rile people up". Except if you view all discussion as a means to rile people up, which if you do, all power to you.

I have actually been pointing out the narcissism without explictly invoking the term for quite a while, but it's because it's so obvious that is what it is, I didn't feel like I had to or that it added much value (as it would "rile up" people like you, add more noise than signal), but when other people start using the term, I won't deny that is what it is.

 

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

Narcissism is a special case, a narcissist will not seek help by being shown their narcissism,

Again, narcissists can be cognitively open and complex in a multitude of ways in ways that can be consistent with and even feed into their narcissism. Anything that can be seen as virtuous a narcissist can identify with and use to feed their need for feeling superior.

 

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

and grandiosity is cultural online!

It's hard for me to remember if I've ever seen a person online say "I'm the most awake person in the entire world".

 

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

Perhaps you need to consider YOUR manipulation of gaslighting someone into believing they're a narcissist,

You liked nahm because of his disability,

So this is called a "double standard". That's a controversial word that can rile people up, but it also carries meaning.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Leo is the one riling people up by enforcing a single-sided narrative on the issue, insisting to call "cult" a bad thing, and then that concept being applied to him is his own creation, because his minions beg you to point out those features in him (and they happen to fit in some places). Had Leo been open to a more pluralistic narrative (or if he had insisted that cult was not necessarily a bad thing), you would probably not think we would be riling people up, because people are so obedient to Leo that when the cult concept is (as a baseline) removed all controversy, that is most likely what will permeate the discussion.

That you suggest we not use words because they are controversial, yet Leo is here using words like manipulation and mind control, heck solipsism (and also "cult"; that's a word he uses), as if he is trying to keep discourse civil over his desire to call something for what it is, that's the kind of double standard you would expect a cult member to enforce on his fellow members. Words are useful, they have a meaning, and if we decide to use them, that may belie their usefulness more than an attempt to "rile people up". Except if you view all discussion as a means to rile people up, which if you do, that's your prerogative.

I have actually been pointing out the narcissism without explictly invoking the term for quite a while, but it's because it's so obvious that is what it is, I didn't feel like I had to or that it added much value (as it would "rile up" people like you, add more noise than signal), but when other people start using the term, I won't deny that is what it is.

 

Again, narcissists can be cognitively open and complex in a multitude of ways in ways that can be consistent and even feed into their narcissism. Anything that can be seen as virtuous a narcissist can identify with and use to feed their need for feeling superior.

 

It's hard for me to remember if I've ever seen a person online say "I'm the most awake person in the entire world".

 

Lol, this is called a "double standard". That's a controversial word that can rile people up, but it also carries meaning.

The manipulation I'm referring to is present in your comment here, I did not say you shouldn't use "cult"

"If you're concerned about something it's best to just address what you're actually concerned about rather than trying to manipulate people YOURSELVES by riling them up with loaded terms like cult."

Perhaps this is unintentional, but just as you like to point out Leo's bad behavior, I believe you're being emotionally reactive on this topic.

If you think it's a cult, of course point it out like @zurew has done. But Carl, you'd think a dungeons and dragons group is a cult, so what in the world would be the point of you jumping in this discussion to prove Actualized is a cult, what is the point since it means NOTHING to you, you're here only for a semantical debate? Bullshit

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, Elliott said:

If you think it's a cult, of course point it out like @zurew has done. But Carl, you'd think a dungeons and dragons group is a cult, so what in the world would be the point of you jumping in this discussion to prove Actualized is a cult, what is the point since it means NOTHING to you, you're here only for a semantical debate? Bullshit

I think if you go back to me describing the Manson situation I was in with my "dungeons and dragons group", you would see why I think a group that does not reasonably engage in any explicit manipulation or exploitation but has highly deviant beliefs compared to society could still be a concerning situation (and that even if Leo displayed zero manipulation or exploitation — which he doesn't — could still harbor potential detriment to people following him). But again, that discussion is largely drowned out by Leo's unidimensional narrative casting its spell on the thread.

 

39 minutes ago, Elliott said:

The manipulation I'm referring to is present in your comment here, I did not say you shouldn't use "cult"

"If you're concerned about something it's best to just address what you're actually concerned about rather than trying to manipulate people YOURSELVES by riling them up with loaded terms like cult."

Can you see how telling someone the best thing to do in a situation can be read as a suggestion?

Can you see how making such a distinction is completely irrelevant to anything else but making that distinction and being a knitpicking loser who only wants to one-up the other person at every opportunity they get? If not, tell me what the fuck I was supposed to learn from that. Tell me why the fuck I should engage with you one more second on this forum.

Edited 38 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

Can you see how telling someone the best thing to do in a situation can be read as a suggestion?

Can you see how making such a distinction is completely irrelevant to anything else but making that distinction and being a knitpicking loser who only wants to one-up the other person at every opportunity they get? If not, tell me what the fuck I was supposed to learn from that. Tell me why the fuck I should engage with you one more second on this forum.

"That you suggest we not use words because they are controversial, yet Leo is here using words like manipulation and mind control, heck solipsism (and also "cult"; that's a word he uses), as if he is trying to keep discourse civil over his desire to call something for what it is, that's the kind of double standard you would expect a cult member to enforce on his fellow members."

Get real

Edited 33 minutes ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

I'm sorry, I would not group you yourself in as having been manipulative.

@zurew This is @Elliott manipulating you to not engage with him after you've provided a substantial response which he has too low IQ to refute. Never expect to engage with this person sincerely on the forum.

He grouped everybody using the cult concept and narcissism concept as being manipulative. Then he conveniently changes the criteria post-hoc when it suits him, for no stated reason.

Edited 25 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@zurew This is @Elliott manipulating you to not engage with him after you've provided a substantial response which he has too low IQ to refute. Never expect to engage with this person sincerely on the forum.

I don't refute his response, I agree with his response.....

Your symptoms here are called paranoia.....

You think I think I'm smarter than you but not zurew? Is that possibly incoherent, or is your comment maybe manipulation? Why do you believe it is that you're being emotionally reactive about this?

Edited 26 minutes ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

30 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

He grouped everybody using the cult concept and narcissism concept as being manipulative. Then he conveniently changes the criteria post-hoc when it suits him, for no stated reason.

 

38 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

Can you see how making such a distinction is completely irrelevant to anything else but making that distinction and being a knitpicking 

"If you're concerned about something it's best to just address what you're actually concerned about rather than trying to manipulate people YOURSELVES by riling them up with loaded terms like cult. You guys are waving the war banners over this place being a cult yet you think little girls butterfly clubs are also cults....... That goes for narcissism too, just point out the abuse. Narcissism is a special case, a narcissist will not seek help by being shown their narcissism, and grandiosity is cultural online! Perhaps you need to consider YOUR manipulation of gaslighting someone into believing they're a narcissist, you fucking "sociopath" @Carl-Richard YOU KNOW BETTER! Get help, try to help yourself. You liked nahm because of his disability, sorry but Leo is a human too!"

Edited 2 minutes ago by Elliott