- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 47,031
- Reaction score
- 22,909
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I saw in a thread a Moderator instructed people not to refer to other posters as a "cultist".
I didn't look at the posts that led to it, and am not discussing those, but would like to comment on the issue more generally.
Certainly there are times when the word can be used without much justification, and be 'name calling' that could be sanctioned. But not all cases are like that.
A first question I'd ask is, is there such a thing as a cult? As cult thinking? As a cultist? Can it exist in politics?
If so, isn't there not only some room but some need for honest and useful discussion to say when it's seen?
Let's make up an example comment.
Someone says that trump is the best leader in world history, that knows more about medicine than any doctor and war than any general, and that he's never lied. That he has the best vocabulary of any politician.
Now, those comments are clearly both untrue, and of a particular type of error. And when you see them made over and over, you recognize a more general problem of irrationality.
There is such a thing as 'cult mentality'. While my example is extreme, comments with the same issue are seen. And when a 'cult' is a real thing, in people's view, there's a need to discuss that. It's a question of which comments are reasonable, and which aren't.
A desire for civility can be mishandled. It's one thing to try to have the discussion be civil, and another to ban discussion of a problem altogether.
When fascism rose in Italy and Spain and Germany in the 1930's; when right-wing militarism rose in Germany and Japan in the same period; it would be reasonable to notice the rise and comment on it, possibly critically. You might have someone come along posting great things about Hitler, and someone else respond that they're a fascist and why that's bad. If such a mention of the problem were simply banned on the grounds of civility, it would prevent discussion of a rather important issue and problem.
I would suggest a more measured approach; such as requesting restraint, not throwing around the word loosely as an insult, but using it reasonably.
This is a political forum. Not every issue is a rational discussion of pros and cons on a policy. One of the developments in our political society is a growing and massive influence of propaganda and manipulation and social media, and it has powerful effects that could be described as 'brainwashing' or cult creation. This development is seen by some as a fundamental threat to our functioning as that rational, civil democracy some would like us to have, and deserves to be discussed as an issue.
I'd like to give a few examples of how the 'trump cult' and 'right-wing cult' has been noticed as a real thing.
Even before trump, Bill Maher did some of his best skits by literally having a person in a bubble, to show how many Americans were 'in a bubble', like a cult.
Amazon has a book, "The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control"
Another is "Losing Reality: On Cults, Cultism, and the Mindset of Political and Religious Zealotry"
Another is "Dangerous Charisma: The Political Psychology of Donald Trump and His Followers"
The LA Times has an article saying to call trumpism what it is: a cult
Mother Jones has one saying Cult Experts Warn That trumpism Is Starting to Look Awfully Familiar
The Atlantic has one arguing that trump's 'cult of personality' made the country unable to respond to the Coronavirus crisis
These are just some examples. Such examples shouldn't be needed for someone to post that view, but since it was restricted, this makes the need for some discussion of it more clear.
It'd be nice if every post was reasonable enough to get a rational reply, if there was not 'cult' phenomenon. But that's not the case.
When a post is made with extreme, over the top, false worship of trump or any other figure, referring to the posted as a cultist is the response that might make sense.
Hopefully there's a better way to curtail excesses of it short of barring the word.
I didn't look at the posts that led to it, and am not discussing those, but would like to comment on the issue more generally.
Certainly there are times when the word can be used without much justification, and be 'name calling' that could be sanctioned. But not all cases are like that.
A first question I'd ask is, is there such a thing as a cult? As cult thinking? As a cultist? Can it exist in politics?
If so, isn't there not only some room but some need for honest and useful discussion to say when it's seen?
Let's make up an example comment.
Someone says that trump is the best leader in world history, that knows more about medicine than any doctor and war than any general, and that he's never lied. That he has the best vocabulary of any politician.
Now, those comments are clearly both untrue, and of a particular type of error. And when you see them made over and over, you recognize a more general problem of irrationality.
There is such a thing as 'cult mentality'. While my example is extreme, comments with the same issue are seen. And when a 'cult' is a real thing, in people's view, there's a need to discuss that. It's a question of which comments are reasonable, and which aren't.
A desire for civility can be mishandled. It's one thing to try to have the discussion be civil, and another to ban discussion of a problem altogether.
When fascism rose in Italy and Spain and Germany in the 1930's; when right-wing militarism rose in Germany and Japan in the same period; it would be reasonable to notice the rise and comment on it, possibly critically. You might have someone come along posting great things about Hitler, and someone else respond that they're a fascist and why that's bad. If such a mention of the problem were simply banned on the grounds of civility, it would prevent discussion of a rather important issue and problem.
I would suggest a more measured approach; such as requesting restraint, not throwing around the word loosely as an insult, but using it reasonably.
This is a political forum. Not every issue is a rational discussion of pros and cons on a policy. One of the developments in our political society is a growing and massive influence of propaganda and manipulation and social media, and it has powerful effects that could be described as 'brainwashing' or cult creation. This development is seen by some as a fundamental threat to our functioning as that rational, civil democracy some would like us to have, and deserves to be discussed as an issue.
I'd like to give a few examples of how the 'trump cult' and 'right-wing cult' has been noticed as a real thing.
Even before trump, Bill Maher did some of his best skits by literally having a person in a bubble, to show how many Americans were 'in a bubble', like a cult.
Amazon has a book, "The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control"
Another is "Losing Reality: On Cults, Cultism, and the Mindset of Political and Religious Zealotry"
Another is "Dangerous Charisma: The Political Psychology of Donald Trump and His Followers"
The LA Times has an article saying to call trumpism what it is: a cult
Mother Jones has one saying Cult Experts Warn That trumpism Is Starting to Look Awfully Familiar
The Atlantic has one arguing that trump's 'cult of personality' made the country unable to respond to the Coronavirus crisis
These are just some examples. Such examples shouldn't be needed for someone to post that view, but since it was restricted, this makes the need for some discussion of it more clear.
It'd be nice if every post was reasonable enough to get a rational reply, if there was not 'cult' phenomenon. But that's not the case.
When a post is made with extreme, over the top, false worship of trump or any other figure, referring to the posted as a cultist is the response that might make sense.
Hopefully there's a better way to curtail excesses of it short of barring the word.
The mod team is aware of this thread and your concern. We will try and give you a statement soon. I am closing the thread to keep more people from getting in trouble.