[namuol]

There’s a real kernel of truth to what you’re saying but don’t you think calling something a “cult” is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy? You’re turning this into an “us vs them” thing when it never should have been one, by your own assessment. There’s no better way to politicize something than to group people based on some reductive binary belief and generalize about said group.

[username332211]

Your reasoning might as well be applied to the Church of Scientology or most Ponzi schemes. Calling those for what they are does make the members close ranks.

[namuol]

Some things really are cults. I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. Maybe there’s some foul play in “prediction markets” and that kind of crap, but what you’re suggesting with these comparisons is that this entire phenomenon is some deliberate ruse…

[username332211]

Nothing I've said suggests deliberate ruse. It's entirely possible for a cult to be created completely honestly by people who believe in it. Most medieval heresies are an obvious example.

[jacquesm]

Or any other church, or any soccer team, political party or icecream flavor. Humans get invested in stuff, even to their own detriment.

[username332211]

Of course, calling communities or groups cults makes them close ranks. The question raised is should you do it if they are indeed cults (or merely cult-ish).

[jacquesm]

That depends on your goals. I think Richard Dawkins is an excellent example of what can happen when you focus too much on the means and not enough on how you package the message, in the end you will see your goal become more distant rather than less.