Clara (she/they)'s Shortform

post by Clara (she/they) · 2023-02-08T03:51:08.222Z · LW · GW · 4 comments

Contents

4 comments

4 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Clara (she/they) · 2023-02-08T03:51:08.505Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm not sure if this thought will come out right. But I recently had demonstrated to me that the Sequence on cults was actually onto something true beyond the scope of this community, not just an evil genius persuading me his cult isn't what it looks like. It's a relief, in a way.

I'd previously seen some unthinking allegations of cultishness in the LessWrong community, ones that looked exactly like the instinctive flinches from weird beliefs I'd read about. But I was on some level worried I'd been taught to unthinkingly dismiss valid criticism. I recently saw an allegation of cultishness around here that didn't seem unthinking, and it was uncomfortable to consider, and I'll have to look into whether I believe it or not, but I'm relieved I can tell the difference. 

Whether or not y'all're a cult, there's some good ideas here and I'm glad to have learned them.

Replies from: lahwran
↑ comment by the gears to ascension (lahwran) · 2023-02-08T04:47:25.438Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yeah, for sure! Cults are pretty common. This community is not, in my view, itself a cult; but there have been cult-founder types who showed up and tried to start things, and such things have been known to succeed.

It's important to keep in mind that all sorts of orgs are potentially cult-like in ways that can replicate the abuse patterns of cults; there have been cults in this community before, and the vibes that can encourage creating cults are still around, but both of these things are also true of other communities less willing to face up to the fact of the risk. To prevent cults, stay on guard about the things that create them - even in communities that don't seem to be at risk of them. eg, here are some posts I shared a while ago.

There seem to be more or less two major threads of "anti-cult" content online; those that use the explanations in these sites I found, and then another set of sites that are pro-religion, anti-"cult", where they see large organized religions as inherently not cults. As you may imagine from the faenrandir link above, I don't subscribe to that perspective; my view is that spirituality never needs to use the features that make something a cult.

I haven't read the sequences and do not intend to, but I hope my comment is in some way useful to you!

Replies from: Viliam
↑ comment by Viliam · 2023-02-08T16:27:19.621Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

How many online cults are there? Those would be the best reference group for Less Wrong.

(Then again, it would be possible that Less Wrong the website is not a cult, but let's say the rationality community in Bay Area is.)

Replies from: lahwran
↑ comment by the gears to ascension (lahwran) · 2023-02-08T20:07:50.530Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't think the communities in the bay area are cults, for the most part, but there have been serious attempts at getting them to be by the likes of dill, ziz, etc. I would definitely label some features of the community "cult risk, but not yet a tight cult"; most features of the community I'd label "a bunch of spiritual nerds who don't trust each other that much". I absolutely have no objection to being hesitant about the risk of it, though, because Extreme Doomerism Vibes and/or Intense Spiritual Vision Of The Future are both religious-leaning-cultish mental patterns, even if they are not actually tied to a specific instance of cult authoritarianism. Secular solstice is cool, but it's important, if participating, to not accept anyone involved as an authority.