On the other hand, the fact that your comment is upvoted here… is not something you would expect from a typical cult, would you?
maybe not as often, but could still be “Ooh, someone who doesn’t like the cult! better show them we’re Normal!”, not to mention “hey, look, we’re not a cult, see? we upvoted you!” Traditional hardcore cults would definitely have difficulty doing it, but medium-strength cults like the religion I grew up with explicitly tell evangelists to listen to people’s doubts, while never holding any doubts oneself. there are still ways for permitting doubt to be turned into a tool of control.
There are usually not simple and reliable ways to tell that something isn’t bad. they’re either simple or reliable. Usually people err on the side of simple and classify some things as bad that aren’t necessarily but which are hard to confirm as being not bad, so as to not risk get screwed over by mistakes in complex is-it-bad-or-not rules. Eg, “don’t talk to strangers on the street unsupervised” is common (generally good!) advice for kids, and it excludes talking to the majority of actually pretty nice people so as to not get screwed over by less-but-still-plenty-common dangerous people.
It should be mandatory reading for new members.
I don’t think having explicit membership that makes a mandatory reading moment possible is itself a good idea.
I do think a community having a warnings doc is good and that people who encounter the community can inform themselves about what kind of danger or annoyance or etc the community is likely to produce is familiar and avoidable. Though if your list of warnings is incomplete, it can produce a false sense of security in readers. If it’s complete and accurate, it can become a target of attacks by the people it’s trying to contain, which they sometimes succeed at, at least partially. And if it contains mistakes, people can even have legitimate issues with it. Eg, malicious folk love to try to get in a position where they can add people to a warnings list like that, so it can even become a tool of control itself.
Still seems like a good idea, that’s why I comment places like this to point out things are not fine, but requires having a good sense of the landscape of attacks.
maybe not as often, but could still be “Ooh, someone who doesn’t like the cult! better show them we’re Normal!”, not to mention “hey, look, we’re not a cult, see? we upvoted you!” Traditional hardcore cults would definitely have difficulty doing it, but medium-strength cults like the religion I grew up with explicitly tell evangelists to listen to people’s doubts, while never holding any doubts oneself. there are still ways for permitting doubt to be turned into a tool of control.
There are usually not simple and reliable ways to tell that something isn’t bad. they’re either simple or reliable. Usually people err on the side of simple and classify some things as bad that aren’t necessarily but which are hard to confirm as being not bad, so as to not risk get screwed over by mistakes in complex is-it-bad-or-not rules. Eg, “don’t talk to strangers on the street unsupervised” is common (generally good!) advice for kids, and it excludes talking to the majority of actually pretty nice people so as to not get screwed over by less-but-still-plenty-common dangerous people.
I don’t think having explicit membership that makes a mandatory reading moment possible is itself a good idea.
I do think a community having a warnings doc is good and that people who encounter the community can inform themselves about what kind of danger or annoyance or etc the community is likely to produce is familiar and avoidable. Though if your list of warnings is incomplete, it can produce a false sense of security in readers. If it’s complete and accurate, it can become a target of attacks by the people it’s trying to contain, which they sometimes succeed at, at least partially. And if it contains mistakes, people can even have legitimate issues with it. Eg, malicious folk love to try to get in a position where they can add people to a warnings list like that, so it can even become a tool of control itself.
Still seems like a good idea, that’s why I comment places like this to point out things are not fine, but requires having a good sense of the landscape of attacks.