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 yesterday at 09:21 AM by Natasha Tori Maru

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Jirh said:

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.

If there is an honest disagreement, you would expect people to actually engage with whats being said, rather than speculating about your motivations or about your conviction behind what you said. (because none of that is directly relevant to this topic and to the arguments - even if you can show that all of us are conceptually and emotionally confused - none of that shows that the arguments are false).

If a  person wants to imply a double bind like that, then that person should make that clear and explicate it in argument form (so that he/she wont be misinterpreted as a bad faith person who is desperately fishing for things to latch onto rather than substantively engaging with the overall case that you made).

Or just lay down how that line of questioning is directly relevant to the topic and how that line of questioning can directly undermine the arguments that were given.

And also make it clear before the questioning that you dont have any arguments yet and that you are fishing for one (depending on what answers will be given to your questions).

People  should make themselves vulnerable by being honest about their biases from the outset .  The issue is that some people will retrospectively revise their claimed original position depending on whether their line of questioning succeeds, and then pretend that it had been their original position all along.

Edited 22 hours ago by zurew

[Inliytened1]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Hmm. https://www.reddit.com/r/nonduality/s/IrgyhN7XTG

Ooh was that @Flowerfaeiry in there?

[Wilhelm44]

16 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Ooh was that @Flowerfaeiry in there?

Yeah,Im guessing that's her, she made a post here a month or two ago about her previous shamanic teachers who also turned to Jesus for some reason.

Edited 22 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Ooh was that @Flowerfaeiry in there?

The OP of that thread is not flowerfaeiry. If that is who you mean. Could be another commenter. 

OP is another member who left.

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

The OP of that thread is not flowerfaeiry. If that is who you mean. Could be another commenter. 

OP is another member who left.

I think he is talking about this comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nonduality/comments/1mzkzfw/comment/nz412d8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[Human Mint]

Leo's way advanced in his philosophy. By thinking he's deluding himself you're actually underestimating your own potential. He's an example of what you can understand. So you just really really hate yourself. I say this in the most practical, materialistic and no woo-woo sense.

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

Leo's way advanced in his philosophy. By thinking he's deluding himself you're actually underestimating your own potential. He's an example of what you can understand. So you just really really hate yourself. I say this in the most practical, materialistic and no woo-woo sense.

Show me one concept you cannot learn anywhere else.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

3 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Yeah,Im guessing that's her, she made a post here a month or two ago about her previous shamanic teachers who also turned to Jesus for some reason.

Goes to show you how much of a mumbo jumbo BS all of this spirituality stuff really is - even the strain preached on this forum - there are basically no cognitive costs/efforts included in jumping from new agey spirituality to other kinds of spirituality and vice versa; and then jumping from those to any kind of mainstream religion, and vice versa. Oh yes, I'm sure she had to put a lot of thought and effort in order to transition to Jesus LOL such an insurmountable barrier to entry

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Jirh said:

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.

Regardless, it's just bot running down the script. A serious engagement would not make the cognitive hallucination that giving a con means you have to leave.

Edited 17 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Joshe]

Everyone here is getting something from being here, and in almost all cases, it’s unconscious or vague. The people who sweep Leo’s toxicity under the rug are getting something that would be threatened if they were to acknowledge it, which is why they don’t allow themselves to see it. This used to describe me as well. 

I suspect for most people who refuse to see, Leo is a symbol of lifestyle and spiritual excellence that they can aspire to. Also, they drew the conclusion that Leo is integrous, which blots out evidence to the contrary. Also, they like access to an “advanced” fame-adjacent figure.

Imagine if someone spent years here and went through all these things but eventually it was no longer tenable to sweep the toxicity under the rug. Should we expect these people to “just leave”?

Also, consider that If every critic were to just up and leave upon recognizing the toxicity, this place could be 10x the sycophancy, 10x the denigration, 10x the toxicity.

[Jirh]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Regardless, it's just bot running down the script. A serious engagement would not make the cognitive hallucination that giving a con means you have to leave.

Well, when you say "a con", it feels like a minor issue, not that big of a deal that requires instant solutions, or even simple consideration.

On one hand, it sounds like: "It's just a con, I'm pointing it out, take it or leave it."

But then on the other hand, the amount of intellectual and emotional investment and effort that's put into it feels like an overkill.

Note:
I'm more in agreement with you. But I'm just playing devil's advocate to try to bridge the gap between the two perspectives.

Edited 4 hours ago by Jirh

[Carl-Richard]

53 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Well, when you say "a con", it feels like a minor issue, not that big of a deal that requires instant solutions, or even simple consideration.

On one hand, it sounds like: "It's just a con, I'm pointing it out, take it or leave it."

But then on the other hand, the amount of intellectual and emotional investment and effort that's put into it feels like an overkill.

1. If you want, look up all the people who have left either quietly or loudly in the last few years and their reasons for it. The Reddit thread I linked is a microcosm of that. That there are a few who have decided to ride through it or have other reasons for staying doesn't negate those numbers. But even in the worst cults you can imagine, people stay, so what does it tell you really? "Leaving" as a metric for how bad it is just doesn't work very well either way. "They were brainwashed". Ok, then are you brainwashed?

2. I can write a 50 paragraph post on literally nothing and that will be a normal day. Besides, my intellectual investment was honestly in talking about what a cult is and then it's the cult members who get emotional. The most emotional I've got here was because one person doesn't know how to have a discussion without treating it like a one-up-man contest. And that was an issue in other threads as well entirely unrelated to this one.

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

@Carl-Richard

Some people adopt the mindset of personal responsibility above all else. For these people, leaving a toxic environment is the ultimate act of agency.

So, when they bring up leaving, they are nudging towards that end. It's not my stance, but at the same time, it's not always motivated by maleficence.

But I haven't read the entire dialogue, so I may be missing important context.