Up until now you had no problem doing so. Your literal claim is that im inferring things you are not saying. So what are those things?
The things above in this thread, which I pointed out earlier.
If, by the way, you really want to claim, âUp until now you had no problem doing soâ, then you would already know what those things are, exactly.
Itâs a bit hypocritical to claim that up until now I have had no problem telling you what you were inferring, but now asking me, âwhat are those things that I was telling you that you were inferring?â as though I had not already told you.
Anyway, you want me to spell out some of the inferences you have made from what I have been saying. Instead of looking back through our posts, I will just use your last post here, you inferred that I am not just claiming, but that I am âliterallyâ claiming, that you are inferring things that I am not saying.
If I have said these very words anywhere, then please point us to exactly where I have said them.
See, from what I recall, from what I have said, and meant, is -
Just because you infer something from what I have said, that does not, in and of itself, mean that what you have inferred is what I implied and meant. Can you spot the difference? Did you notice the difference between what you inferred, in your last post, to what I recall?
Remember, I asked you to point us to the very words that align with what you have inferred.
One only has to look back over our discussion here to find the things that you have inferred, and when I just did it, I noticed the things you inferred, as well as the inferences you made, from my words, which also did not align with what I implied and meant.
However, maybe you might prefer to go back to something you inferred from what I said earlier, which really got to you.
From those words of mine, you inferred that I was implying and meaning -
To which I replied -
You then replied -
Where, again, you inferred I meant something in what I wrote. Of which you had 3 options, only.
Which, by the way, your 3 only options were all incorrect.
Anyway, I responded with -
What this means is that just because you inferred some particular thing from the words I used, that, what you inferred, does not necessarily mean that what you inferred aligns closely or even at all with what I implied or meant in what I said.
Even in your reply to that quote of mine, you provided another example of when you infered some thing that I never implied nor meant. You said -
I never said that thatâs not the case.
So, there are now two examples. Another example of you inferring, and inferring what I did not imply and mean, is -
I have never said anywhere, anything remotely close to, âeverything that you are saying is merely what you are inferring from my wordsâ.
That is now three examples, and three where you were wrong and incorrect.
So, as can be seen, just because you have inferred some thing, from my words, this does not necessarily mean that what you inferred is true or right, in relation to what I implied and meant.
There are likely exceptions, but I would guess they donât last as long. Also some have more than one leader. Because once many people have full authority, power struggle is coming. And we can have other names for toxic organizations (in fact, that could be one of them).
Total institutions where all facets of the members lives are controlled: military groups, residential facilities like some nursing homes, monastaries, closed medical settings.
Toxic workplaces - free speech is often really curtailed, even in oneâs free time (if it is public) in certain corporations. And inside the toxic workplace there are usually all sorts of things you cannot openly disagree with.
There are cultural norms, of course, and these can punish dissent in subtler ways. I donât think it helps to call these cults, except as a metaphor. But the problems are no less real for that.
They all have abaolute leadership.
A single person is traditional, but there can be more than one, or a complex hierarchical structure in larger ones.
As Nausamedu pointed out, what makes it a cult is the specific methods of cohesion, but also its methods of action, ultimate (not the stated) goals and general psychological pathways.
1 Like
So, you wouldnât go with the idea that we are all in a cult, or? Given that you mention both specific methods and absolute leadership.
I donât know. Which idea was I supposed to be going with, again?
Cults are specific phenomena, not some vague descriptor for aversion to criticism.
Thereâs a mythology, which itâs funny that people love to overlook that because it is what the cult spends most of its conscious time obsessing over.
Also, the group itself is more fundamental than the leadership.
Another oft unseen. What glues people to a cult is the belonging. The leadership is there to give shape, to direct, to handle orders and bills of sale for souls. But itâs the belonging to the group that really keeps them there and is the main lever for blackmail.
Falling in love with the psychotic leader (or, in larger groups, the recruiter) itself is not nearly strong enough. That is the initial attractor.
âThey all have abaolute leadership. A single person is traditional, but there can be more than one, or a complex hierarchical structure in larger ones.â
Madam Poppins is correct. If you guys were ready, Iâd tell you that if you answer to anyone⌠even your own pops⌠you are in a cult. Your neighbors. A cult. The mayor. Cult leader. POleece. Cult enforcers. President. Grand cult master. Why. Because anything someone else wants you to do is the perpetration of a restriction and prohibition against you. Even âfor your own goodâ is nonsense. Nobody can possibly know what âyour own goodâ is. Instead, mom, dad, your teacher, etc., find personal pleasure in being a boss, having authority, and controlling the childrens. In the same way a breeder is proud of flaunting a dog at a dog show. Hell, some even say that what helps overworked and underpaid slaves cope and feel effective is playing lord-king over their childrens and ordering them around. They get to be a leader for a second and take all that anger and frustration at their boss, their president, and all the other clowns, out on their kids.
Not ready, i know. Just think about it some.
1 Like
Whatever you go with.
Yes, I think itâs more useful as meaning a specific pattern.
âŚ.justifying the leader, explaining wherever the magic or âmagicâ is and justifying the isolation from what is not the cult. Good chance some of the rules.
Isnât the specific pattern having an anathema?
having an anathema to____________? Iâm assuming something like dissent, given things said earlier. Thereâs control of a lot of things in cults, behavior, even thoughts, certainly speech, most likely things like tone of voice, dominance submission communication (which is behavior, but itâs smaller and subtler.
If you mean me, I didnât say anything about Athena. Was it the missing âaâ in anathema? that left it closer to anthem?
Naw Iâm nervous and clowninâ, Fuse. Any second Iâll get the call and find out this business about the cam interrupter Magnet in the Caddy. $800âŚ. $8000? Iâm scared to death, mate. Hold me.
I really think you might need a different kind of forum, though as I look around, perhaps you do fit in.
Bro, i need to get AWAY from the forums. Last thing i need is another forum of lunatics like me. Itâs like those AA meetings. They make no sense. You wanna keep alcoholics away from each other⌠not sitting in a circle plotting a twelve pack together while the group therapist drones on and on about self-esteem and setting goals.
And i was on the very first ILP roster, if youâll believe it. Been around here since damn near 2000.
I, sir, am a living testament to what long-term forum participation can do to a man.
I actually think those are all âpretend.â The real function of the myth is to act as a post to tie it all together, or chain everybody to.
Everything is whacky, and even the sense in which the myth justifies the action is convoluted and nonsensical. I think on purpose.
âBecause magic. Are you against us?â
1 Like
I do think cults operate in our midst, that they often go unregistered as cults.
As far as âeverything is a cultâ or whatever or âall my enemies are cultistsâ or all this âweâ business, nah.
1 Like
You are exactly right. Everyone you mentioned has to answer to someone.
And, all of them are not ready to hear.
People have to be prepared to listen before they will. People in cults are not yet ready to hear that they are in a cult.
As I pointed out and said earlier, if people are not questioning everything that they are being told and being told to do, then they are in a cult. People also believe that it is not them in a cult but it is others who are in cults. Just like those in terrorist groups believe that they are not, it is others who are. Just like people in theological groups believe theirs is true and right, and it âthe othersâ who are in the wrong groups.
Everyone believes that âtheir groupâ would not do wrong and is not a cult. It is always âthe othersâ who are in a cult and who do and think wrongly.