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

[Carl-Richard]

On 24.6.2026 at 6:46 PM, Jirh said:

I'm not disagreeing per se.

But did you actually answer the question?

You gave a convincing reason to leave instead of to stay. I don't get the point.

There are pros and cons. And I acknowledge the cons. The question "why don't you leave?" is often a rhetorical question saying "it can't be that bad if you don't want to leave", so then I'll answer this is what the cons are so we're clear on what they are and you don't get to act cute with a rhetorical question.

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

There are pros and cons. And I acknowledge the cons. The question "why don't you leave?" is often a rhetorical question saying "it can't be that bad if you don't want to leave", so then I'll answer this is what the cons are so we're clear on what they are and you don't get to act cute with a rhetorical question.

Maybe in some cases.

But from what I have seen it's also often an invitation towards consistency between theory and practice.

It's like a double-bind where:

• If you stay then it's not as bad as you claim it is, maybe not bad at all, or the pros outweigh the cons.
• If it's truly bad then you have to leave to stay coherent with your convictions.

I think it often implies this double-bind, and is not as rhetorical as it might seem.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

https://youtube.com/@amandamontellpodcasts?si=jdGzWiQZz257glat

This podcast is a good example of applying the term "cult" in a non-binary way. The hosts approach each movement looking at it from the lens of "cultish" qualities, and discuss how the frame fits across the spectrum of labels. 

They stretch the label to it's limits. Some of the podcasts are like squishing a square peg in a triangle hole. But interesting to see the cult frame used in a way that isn't totally negative. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru