Ambassadors of Misinformation

[Anonycat]

They also explain that not all cults are bad and there isn't any proper definition of a cult, hence they don't like using the word.
My only point was that not all cults are bad and stating that not every cult is a destructive cult, which this site explains in its essay Using the Term "Cult."

I can't tell if we agree with each other or disagree...

Show me an academic paper that states that cults are good. You're just making shit up.

 

[Emiko]

Emiko, I think you misunderstood db.

Discussing what you think a cult might or might be and trying to explain it to you is, well, boring.

You also tend to contradict yourself, and pointing out your contradictions is extra, extra boring.

So instead of just writing any which thing that comes off the top of your 19 year old head, can you please put some thought into writing something interesting and a bit deeper, and maybe contribute something of worth to one of the threads? You are on an EX Scn board, btw, so we really aren't interested in discussing things like the derivations of words.

Otherwise, I'm just going to have to bow out. I'm just getting too bored talking to you, sorry. There's just no ... how should I put it, your comments are too bland and unmeaningful to hold my interest. You put me to sleep.

The only thing I was trying to assert is that not all cults are bad. I really don't know why it turned into a debate.:confused2: So of course they're going to be bland. I'm just asserting the same thing that should be clear to everyone. I don't know what else to say.

However, if you're willing to talk about something else, I am all ears. You are boring me out of my mind as well, so a change of topic would be lovely

 

[JustSheila]

/derail

Ambassadors of Misinformation

I wanted to expose an unfortunate and unintended group of people that I have seen quite often give incorrect, incomplete and sometimes outright false information about Dianetics, Scientology and Ron Hubbard: ex Scientologists and critics.

I know your first impulse if you are an ex or critic may be to be defensive and start counterarguing ( thinking internally of reasons to not listen to me ). That is a natural reaction, but cuts off any ability to critically analyze what I am about to say. So please hear me out, and don't just look for reasons to not listen.

The Scientology cult despite claiming tens of millions of members has perhaps tens of thousands worldwide. And perhaps seven thousand or so are largely isolated from mainstream society as staff and Sea Org members.

So if you are a critic or ex you are often to the world an ambassador or expert on Scientology, whether qualified or not. Like it or not.

Now, I have found most people try to honestly explain Scientology, but often unknowingly are forwarding inaccuracies, even the information Hubbard himself had put out. So they serve unintentionally to forward the cult even while opposing it.

I recently saw an excellent interview with an ex who described touch assists as faith healing. It would have been more accurate in my opinion if he had studied the actual origins of Scientology and known Hubbard read and recommended the book Hypnotism Comes of Age which described Mesmer's research on hypnotism and the exact same actions and commands in the assists are Mesmer's hypnotic commands. So the truth that Hubbard plagiarized and incorporated thousands of hypnotic techniques is not expressed.

So there two fundamental lies are repeated. The lie that Dianetics and Scientology are not hypnotic. They most certainly are. And the lie that Hubbard didn't plagiarize Dianetics and Scientology. He certainly did. The work of Arnie Lerma and Jon Atack exposes this and I myself believe Hubbard used a foundation with Crowley's occult practices and Hitler's Nazism along with hundreds of hypnotic practices and a foundation of projecting Hubbard's crimes onto anyone who does or could expose his crimes, with an accompanying facade of pathological lying claiming Hubbard was infallible and Godlike, really uniquely superior, even above God. When in fact he always knew he was running a con.

Additionally Hubbard loved the propaganda techniques of reversals of meaning and loaded language. He used new false terms to constrict thinking and allow only his false reality. He called his mentally enslaving indoctrination that through cognitive restructuring (reshaping what and how people think) obliterates the capacity for independent, critical, linear, rational and analytical thinking study technology - when it destroys your actual ability to study. He calls adding hypnotic commands auditing and adding a hypnotic identity clearing, acting like it removes content when in fact it adds it. He has a poisoning program he calls purification. It goes on and on , he calls permanent slavery total freedom. He habitually did this knowing it confused his victims, making them more suggestible in a very difficult to detect manner. Many are rendered utterly confused by this, even decades after leaving the cult.

Frequently after leaving exes and critics say "Hubbard believed" when "Hubbard said" would be far more accurate. Hubbard pathologically lied, so saying he believed what he said is problematic at best. Don't assume he believed any of Dianetics or Scientology, that's what got Scientologists in trouble in the first place. That is a very frequent error in my opinion.

Another error in my opinion is claiming Hubbard found a basic helpful therapy, but the organization is cultic in other areas. Well, it misleads people and doesn't critically analyze who Hubbard was, what he did and why he chose to plagiarize the methods he did. Starting with Dianetics he plagiarized failed abreactive therapy aka catharsis therapy which Freud and others researched. They found it didn't help patients but did create tremendous dependence on the therapist through a hypnotic method. It made the patients highly suggestible and vulnerable to manipulation by the therapist.

So Hubbard had practiced hypnotism for over a decade before plagiarizing Dianetics from earlier abandoned harmful practices. Some already had the term engram, the concepts of earlier similar incidents, chains of incidents and so on. It was all old hat, and selected to seem like a scientific therapy, while really being a delivery mechanism for hypnosis and covertly repackaged Nazism, or at least a Nazism knock off.

Sometimes people say the therapy works, without understanding a couple of important ideas. First off hypnotic trances can feel pleasant, so Scientologists think they got gains, but a temporary trance isn't real improvement in my opinion. Second, a false relationship can feel authentic if you don't understand you are being lied to and exploited. In abusive relationships there is often a seduction phase in which an abuser lies about themself and promises a false future, they cannot and do not intend to deliver.

Cults are abusive relationships spread out over groups and mirror them perfectly. Sadly in an abusive relationship you can feel great and fall in love with a lie. It can feel great, and if you discover the truth and the true nature of an abuser you can realize all those feelings were for a person who never was. Similarly in a cult you can feel great chasing rainbows with no chance of ever catching them.

There has never been any scientific validation of any Dianetics or Scientology method, and furthermore to my knowledge no scientific validation of the plagiarized methods in their earlier forms ! They were failed hypnotic techniques ! Tried and failed. Sometimes Hubbard dishonestly combined and repackaged them but zero percent were proven.

That is a big misconception. And people don't understand any beneficial therapy is worth pursuing, as they are so hard to find. So claiming any beneficial therapy in Scientology is too much, by far. There simply isn't any.

Thinking " Well, there had to be some good in Scientology, since we did so much for so long". Anecdotes and personal incredulity don't mean you should take the middle ground between the "Scientology works" claim and the counterclaim "Scientology isn't beneficial".

It's as logical as saying "well some people pray to a blue jellybean and believe it can work miracles" but others say "the blue jellybean isn't real". I guess the logical answer is "SOMETIMES the blue jellybean works miracles".

That's not really a great way to reason.

But if Scientology can get the ex or critic to forward ANY of their lies unchallenged they clamp down on it.

Scientology is a cult and in my opinion should always be described as such. Calling it a church confuses people and helps to hide a fraud, an intentionally designed fraud and thought reform program, as a religion.

There are many times in watching interviews where critics are doing great and just forward a lie from Hubbard and I kind of wince. Because I know the information may be spread and carried out. Sometimes this happens on TV interviews seen by millions of people. And I of course am powerless to correct it.

Just ask yourself if you are saying something online or on a YouTube video or documentary "Am I sure this is right" or "Is this something I know, or held onto from when I was a Scientologist ?".

None of us are perfect ( me included ) , but we can try to be accurate and honest as ambassadors of Scientology. Hubbard and the cult certainly won't do it.

The bolded part is my favourite:

Additionally Hubbard loved the propaganda techniques of reversals of meaning and loaded language.
He used new false terms to constrict thinking and allow only his false reality. He called his mentally enslaving indoctrination that through cognitive restructuring (reshaping what and how people think) obliterates the capacity for independent, critical, linear, rational and analytical thinking study technology - when it destroys your actual ability to study. He calls adding hypnotic commands auditing and adding a hypnotic identity clearing, acting like it removes content when in fact it adds it. He has a poisoning program he calls purification. It goes on and on , he calls permanent slavery total freedom. He habitually did this knowing it confused his victims, making them more suggestible in a very difficult to detect manner. Many are rendered utterly confused by this, even decades after leaving the cult.

WHERE IS GIB?!?! :megaphone: Paging Gib!!

 

[Emiko]

No argument here.

I will copy and paste your post:

_____

I completely disagree, actually. It's fine, we just have different views. I am well aware this is not a help board, but the offer is there for those that need it.
What I disagree with is that people shouldn't accept advice from others. In fact, professionals have made me worse more times than they've made me better. That's why second opinions amongst professionals are encouraged, as they're often wrong. I can't blame them, as psychiatry and medicine are both hard fields, especially in diagnoses. What has helped me and many of my friends ended up being coping skills suggested by people who are not professionals in the slightest. Most professionals will say the same things in terms of coping skills, ie writing, drawing, listening to music. Even therapists generally don't give much more advice than that. I was offering coping skills for those that need them from someone that has experienced tons of them. They're suggestions, not recommendations.

If I wasn't open to advice, I'd have committed suicide long ago. Of course, some people are fine with listening to music, writing, etc. I just left the offer, but thanks for the advice.

Fun little tidbit you might find funny (or not). I was treated for seizures and epilepsy for over 5 years when in fact I had a specific migraine disorder.
.

1) And you think it's a good idea to go to a sexual abuse survivors forum and pop in to say that you're open to a relationship with a stranger that posts there? That is very fucked up, in case you were unaware. It looks like you are self-serving, and have disregard for the spirit of the forum. Yes, we have different views.

2) If professionals have made you worse, it's probably you, not them. Yes, like life in totality, there are people you do amazing things at their job, and people who don't. This is a given. But if you turn your back on medical help, you're fucked. And the promotion of people that have no proper education, in overseeing your wellbeing, is the worst advice imaginable. Yeah, if I need heart surgery, I'll look for the man with clown shoes and no idea what reality is.

3) Psychiatry and Medicine are your best bets, if you want to thrive, or to live.

4) You just contracted yourself. You can't say that Medical Doctors all give the same advice, and then say that second opinions are an option. Obviously, logic takes a backseat to your hype agenda.

5) Who do you know on the Spectrum, or with any serious illness that was told to draw and listen to music as a cure? You're just making things up. Dox or GTFO.

6) Unskilled and unprofessional "coping skills" are not wanted.

1. no one ever said getting into a relationship with a stranger. Wth are you talking about?
2. No, the f ups of professionals were completely on them, not me. It was medications prescribed to me, by them, that caused many problems and also their misdiagnoses, which again, were by them. Medical professionals are wrong a lot more than you're aware. Hence why people recommend second opinions. Meaning you go to visit two or three doctors instead of one. Is this a foreign concept to you?
3. I agree. Psychiatry I mainly agree temporarily unless there is no other choice.
4. Wrong. I said opinions on coping skills are generally the same among doctors.
5. Uh, how about when I was in the hospital for eight months and everyone there was told to listen to music to help cope? Do you not understand what a coping skill is? It is to cope with mental illness, not physical ailments.
6. That is your own opinion.

 

[JustSheila]

Ambassadors of Misinformation

Another error in my opinion is claiming Hubbard found a basic helpful therapy, but the organization is cultic in other areas. Well, it misleads people and doesn't critically analyze who Hubbard was, what he did and why he chose to plagiarize the methods he did. Starting with Dianetics he plagiarized failed abreactive therapy aka catharsis therapy which Freud and others researched. They found it didn't help patients but did create tremendous dependence on the therapist through a hypnotic method. It made the patients highly suggestible and vulnerable to manipulation by the therapist.

So Hubbard had practiced hypnotism for over a decade before plagiarizing Dianetics from earlier abandoned harmful practices. Some already had the term engram, the concepts of earlier similar incidents, chains of incidents and so on. It was all old hat, and selected to seem like a scientific therapy, while really being a delivery mechanism for hypnosis and covertly repackaged Nazism, or at least a Nazism knock off.

Sometimes people say the therapy works, without understanding a couple of important ideas. First off hypnotic trances can feel pleasant, so Scientologists think they got gains, but a temporary trance isn't real improvement in my opinion. Second, a false relationship can feel authentic if you don't understand you are being lied to and exploited. In abusive relationships there is often a seduction phase in which an abuser lies about themself and promises a false future, they cannot and do not intend to deliver.

Cults are abusive relationships spread out over groups and mirror them perfectly. Sadly in an abusive relationship you can feel great and fall in love with a lie. It can feel great, and if you discover the truth and the true nature of an abuser you can realize all those feelings were for a person who never was. Similarly in a cult you can feel great chasing rainbows with no chance of ever catching them.

There has never been any scientific validation of any Dianetics or Scientology method, and furthermore to my knowledge no scientific validation of the plagiarized methods in their earlier forms ! They were failed hypnotic techniques ! Tried and failed. Sometimes Hubbard dishonestly combined and repackaged them but zero percent were proven.
.

Cults are just like abusive relationships. Many abused women describe similar treatments and PTSD when they finally free themselves of their abusers. This is from a Domestic Abuse website:

• Has your partner tried to keep you from seeing your friends or family?
  Yes No
• Has your partner prevented you from continuing or starting a college course, or from going to work?
  Yes No
• Does your partner constantly check up on you or follow you?
  Yes No
• Does your partner unjustly accuse you of flirting or of having affairs with others?
  Yes No
• Does your partner constantly belittle or humiliate you, or regularly criticise or insult you in front of other people?
  Yes No
• Are you ever afraid of your partner?
  Yes No
• Have you ever changed your behaviour because you are afraid of what your partner might do or say to you?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever destroyed any of your possessions deliberately?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever hurt or threatened you or your children?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever kept you short of money so you are unable to buy food and other necessary items for yourself and your children?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever forced you to do something that you really did not want to do?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever tried to prevent you from taking necessary medication, or seeking medical help when you felt you needed it?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever tried to control you by telling you you could be deported because of your immigration status?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever threatened to take your children away, or said he would refuse to let you take them with you, or even to see them, if you left him?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever forced you to have sex with him or with other people? Has he made you participate in sexual activities that you were uncomfortable with?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever tried to prevent your leaving the house?
  Yes No
• Does your partner blame his use of alcohol or drugs for his behaviour?
  Yes No
• Does your partner control your use of alcohol or drugs (for example, by forcing your intake or by withholding substances)?
  Yes No

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domesti...handbook.asp?section=000100010008000100310004

 

[Anonycat]

1. no one ever s[C.OLOR.=#333333]aid getting into [/C.OLOR.][C.OLOR.=#333333]a rel[/C.OLOR.][COLOR.=#333333]ationship with [/CO.LOR.][COL.OR.=#333333]a str[/C.OLOR.][CO.LOR.=#333333]anger. Wth [/C.OLOR.][C.OLOR.=#333333]are you t[/CO.LOR.][COLO.R=#333333]alking [/C.OLOR.][C.OLOR=#333333]about?
[/C.OLOR]2. No, the f ups of profession[C.OLOR=#333333]als were completely on them, not me. It w[/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]as medic[/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]ations prescribed to me, by them, th[/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]at c[/C.OLOR][CO.LOR=#333333]aused m[/C.OLOR][CO.LOR=#333333]any problems [/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]and [/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]also their misdi[/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]agnoses, which [/CO.LOR][CO.LOR=#333333]ag[/CO.LOR][CO.LOR=#333333]ain, were by them. Medic[/CO.LOR][COL.OR=#333333]al profession[/C.OLOR][CO.LOR=#333333]als [/CO.LOR][C.OLOR=#333333]are wrong [/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]a lot more th[/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]an you're [/C.OLOR][CO.LOR=#333333]aw[/C.OLOR][COL.OR=#333333]are. Hence why people recommend second opinions. Me[/CO.LOR][CO.LOR=#333333]aning you go to visit two or three doctors inste[./COLOR]ad of one. Is this a foreign concept to you?
[/CO.LOR]3. I [C.OLOR=#333333]agree. Psychi[/C.OLOR][CO.LOR=#333333]atry I m[/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]ainly [/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]agree tempor[/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]arily unless there is no other choice.
4. Wrong. I said opinions on coping skills are generally the same among doctors.
[/C..OLOR]5. Uh, how [C.OLOR=#333333]about when I w[/C.OLOR][CO.LOR=#333333]as in the hospit[/C.OLOR][CO.LOR=#333333]al for eight months [/C.OLOR][C.OLOR=#333333]and everyone there w[/C.OLOR][CO.LOR=#333333]as told to listen to music to help cop.e? Do you not underst[/CO.LOR][CO..LOR=#333333]and wh[/CO.LOR][COL.OR=#333333]at [/CO.LOR][CO..LOR=#333333]a coping skill is? It is to cope with ment[/C.OLOR]al illness, not physical [/COLO.R]ailments.
[/CO.LOR]6. Th[C.OLOR=#333333]at is your own opinion.[/C.OLOR]

I would have read your post, but this thread is no longer about you.

 

[Emiko]

I would have read your post, but this thread is no longer about you.

I have no idea why my posts do that... yours look normal.

 

[Emiko]

Cults are just like abusive relationships. Many abused women describe similar treatments and PTSD when they finally free themselves of their abusers. This is from a Domestic Abuse website:

• Has your partner tried to keep you from seeing your friends or family?
  Yes No
• Has your partner prevented you from continuing or starting a college course, or from going to work?
  Yes No
• Does your partner constantly check up on you or follow you?
  Yes No
• Does your partner unjustly accuse you of flirting or of having affairs with others?
  Yes No
• Does your partner constantly belittle or humiliate you, or regularly criticise or insult you in front of other people?
  Yes No
• Are you ever afraid of your partner?
  Yes No
• Have you ever changed your behaviour because you are afraid of what your partner might do or say to you?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever destroyed any of your possessions deliberately?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever hurt or threatened you or your children?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever kept you short of money so you are unable to buy food and other necessary items for yourself and your children?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever forced you to do something that you really did not want to do?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever tried to prevent you from taking necessary medication, or seeking medical help when you felt you needed it?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever tried to control you by telling you you could be deported because of your immigration status?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever threatened to take your children away, or said he would refuse to let you take them with you, or even to see them, if you left him?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever forced you to have sex with him or with other people? Has he made you participate in sexual activities that you were uncomfortable with?
  Yes No
• Has your partner ever tried to prevent your leaving the house?
  Yes No
• Does your partner blame his use of alcohol or drugs for his behaviour?
  Yes No
• Does your partner control your use of alcohol or drugs (for example, by forcing your intake or by withholding substances)?
  Yes No

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domesti...handbook.asp?section=000100010008000100310004

I've taken that quiz before! haha that's a funny questionnaire. Why does it seem like I'm checking yes to every destructive cult ever...?

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Snipped.

The only thing I was trying to assert is that not all cults are bad.

Name some good ones please.

 

[JustSheila]

Stop trolling, Emiko. You're contributing nothing of worth and now you're all over a bunch of threads with your brainless comments.

 

[Emiko]

Snipped.






Name some good ones please.

The beginning of Christianity, Wicca, Quakers generally aren't bad and neither are most Hare Krishnas.:confused2:

 

[Emiko]

Stop trolling, Emiko. You're contributing nothing of worth and now you're all over a bunch of threads with your brainless comments.

I'm sorry my opinions are brainless

 

[JustSheila]

Nobody wants to read a bunch of made up, meaningless stuff that takes 3 seconds to type just because you want to fill up the forum. If you have nothing of value to contribute, don't just type for the sake of filling up space. Please. I'm trying to be nice here and tell you the problem, but if you still continue on just blathering meaningless things and contradicting yourself and making shit up, nobody is going to want you around, It's too shallow. Opinions are a dime a dozen, yours are not well-thought. It could be that is the best you can do, and if so, I feel sorry for you, but you can certainly be more honest and forthcoming. It appears you're just looking for attention. That's stupid. Get some sleep and think about what's important to you and write something worthwhile tomorrow, okay?

 

[Emiko]

Nobody wants to read a bunch of made up, meaningless stuff that takes 3 seconds to type just because you want to fill up the forum. If you have nothing of value to contribute, don't just type for the sake of filling up space. Please. I'm trying to be nice here and tell you the problem, but if you still continue on just blathering meaningless things and contradicting yourself and making shit up, nobody is going to want you around, It's too shallow. Opinions are a dime a dozen, yours are not well-thought. It could be that is the best you can do, and if so, I feel sorry for you, but you can certainly be more honest and forthcoming. It appears you're just looking for attention. That's stupid. Get some sleep and think about what's important to you and write something worthwhile tomorrow, okay?

For the most part I looked at what the other posters contributed and tried to give a somewhat equal response.:confused2: Next time I won't even bother with threads without anything meaningful in them. I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[JustSheila]

Emiko, it's not a popularity contest. Slow down.

Study the Board. Think about what YOU want for yourself, what you need, what is important to you. What upsets you? What makes you happy? What threads appeal to you? What do you feel strongly about and why?

Be yourself. But think things through before you type. If you have opinions that are far from this forum's views, then maybe this isn't the right forum for you. But study the Board first so you get an idea of how it works and please, sleep on it and give us a real good post tomorrow about something you really, honestly care about or are concerned about.

It's okay. Just slow down, k?

 

[Anonycat]

I have no idea why my posts do that... yours look normal.

There are two possibilities. Either your posts are being sent to you, for you to post, or that you have been obsessively massaging them, and are lying about not having any idea why your posts are a HTML wreck.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

Show me an academic paper that states that cults are good. You're just making shit up.

I remember reading a book about Scientology which published before Jonestown which used one of the pre-Jonestown meanings of the term cult.

They said something along the lines that Scientology started out as a harmless cult (ie the Dianetics craze) and developed into a dangerous sect. This was back when they used the term 'sect' where we now use the word 'cult.'

This was using the definition of the word cult as in the cult of the hula hoop, so it would be inaccurate to try to press the above sentence into suggesting that some cults (by the regular use of the term) are harmless.

Emiko is offering quotes which use the word 'cult,' from people who probably don't share his definition. That is what is causing the confusion.

In general, when people attempt to push a definition of a word as a consiousness raising exercise (as feminists have been doing for decades now), it's a good thing, if there is something in the language that embodies a prejudice.

In this case, Emiko's pushing of this definition operates as an attempt to destigmatize the word 'cult' by distinguishing it from 'destructive cults.'

I don't know if there is any such thing as a harmless religious cult, and I am dubious that there is any social benefit in attempting to increase acceptance of small cults until they are demonstrated as harmless, which is the net effect of the linguistic consciousness raising of the OP.

The mechanisms that cults use are quite powerful. If we assume that a cult begins in a harmless manner, it can easily change.

Cults have power over people. Power corrupts. This has been repeatedly demonstrated as in the 1971 Stanford prison experiment, as in Abu Graib. To try to increase tolerance of organizations that have absolute power is a problem.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

The beginning of Christianity, Wicca, Quakers generally aren't bad and neither are most Hare Krishnas.:confused2:

I like to keep things simple ... and think for myself.

When you say "good" I think you may mean "not bad" ... but I don't have the energy (or interest) to go through a list of cults and their worth or lack of worth to present society.

 

[Anonycat]

I remember reading a book about Scientology which published before Jonestown which used one of the pre-Jonestown meanings of the term cult.

They said something along the lines that Scientology started out as a harmless cult (ie the Dianetics craze) and developed into a dangerous sect. This was back when they used the term 'sect' where we now use the word 'cult.'

This was using the definition of the word cult as in the cult of the hula hoop, so it would be inaccurate to try to press the above sentence into suggesting that some cults (by the regular use of the term) are harmless.

Emiko is offering quotes which use the word 'cult,' from people who probably don't share his definition. That is what is causing the confusion.

In general, when people attempt to push a definition of a word as a consiousness raising exercise (as feminists have been doing for decades now), it's a good thing, if there is something in the language that embodies a prejudice.

In this case, Emiko's pushing of this definition operates as an attempt to destigmatize the word 'cult' by distinguishing it from 'destructive cults.'

I don't know if there is any such thing as a harmless religious cult, and I am dubious that there is any social benefit in attempting to increase acceptance of small cults until they are demonstrated as harmless, which is the net effect of the linguistic consciousness raising of the OP.

The mechanisms that cults use are quite powerful. If we assume that a cult begins in a harmless manner, it can easily change.

Cults have power over people. Power corrupts. This has been repeatedly demonstrated as in the 1971 Stanford prison experiment, as in Abu Graib. To try to increase tolerance of organizations that have absolute power is a problem.

So clearly, if this person/people think that Wicca is a cult, they just don't understand the word as the rest of the world does.

 

[Emiko]

So clearly, if this person/people think that Wicca is a cult, they just don't understand the word as the rest of the world does.

not all of Wicca is a cult, but there are plenty of cults surrounding Wicca