Groupthink
For those of you that don’t know what groupthink is, let’s just define it for a second:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs. This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation. Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory, as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.
FOSS-groupthink
In cults (including FOSS-cults), this phenomenon is scarily prominent. I can honestly guarantee that if this manifesto gains traction, I’ll get at least 3 death threats (I’m not that prominent on the internet tough, so I doubt they’ll be able to follow through with it). Leaders of these cults (like Richard Stallman) are often able to manipulate the masses into thinking like them. The mentality of GNU and FOSS as a whole boils down to:
YOU SHOULDN’T CRITICIZE FOSS.
But… You should. It’s important to be critical of everything (including the “rebellion”). Take – for example – the GNU-cult (not GNU, but the cult aspect of it): I’m almost 100% sure that if the GNU-cultists weren’t GNU-cultists, they would criticize Stallman. Any decent human being should criticize Stallman (refer to “The emperor” for why).
The importance of criticism
I know I’ve spent this whole cult section of the book stressing the importance of not being a cultist, but I haven’t (shockingly enough) stressed the importance of being critical of cults. Criticism is – for example – what helps a lot of people to get out of these toxic cults. Criticism is also important, because it helps to crumble the cult leaders facade of greatness and rightfulness.
Pictured: Richard Stallman, insane cult-leader psychopath
Apologetics
Apologetics is the study and practice of the intellectual defense of a belief system. An apologist is someone “who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution.”
A cult apologist is someone who consistently or primarily defends the teachings and/or
actions of one or more movements considered to be cults - as defined sociologically
and/or theologically.
- apologeticsindex.org
… Are you one? Think about this for just a second. Are you a cult apologist? Because GNU has many. “Stallman knows best” this, “I’m going to kill you in your sleep for criticizing our holy leader: Stallman” that. It’s always “Stallman did nothing wrong”, which is almost like praising Hitler because he’s… A staple of the art community! He still killed those 6M jews, you know.
Cult apologists generally defend their views by claiming to champion religious freedom and
religious tolerance. However, they tend to be particularly intolerant toward those who question
and critique the movements they defend.
- apologeticsindex.org
This is the quote that made me able to predict that “if this manifesto gains traction, I’ll get at least 3 death threats”, and it’s honestly a sad reflection upon reality that my prediction is probably true. The thing with cult apologists is that they – either intentionally or unintentionally – participate in the same doctrine and groupthink as the actual cultists.
Some cult apologists and their supporters (including, sadly, a handful of Christians), spend much
time and energy attacking the very term “cult apologist.” It is telling that, for the most part,
they refuse to deal with the very serious issues surrounding cult apologists. These issues include
(but are not limited to):
active promotion (intended or unintended) of cults (e.g. Gordon Melton’s booklet on Scientology
reads like part of that organization’s press kit),
actual collaboration with cults
financial entanglements
a destructive agenda
support and promotion of heresy
faulty research, unsupported conclusions and/or outright misrepresentation
Being a cult apologist is – in a way – just being a cultist. Even though you might unintentionally be an apologist you – as I’ve said before – still participate in the doctrine and groupthink of that cult. Saying “I don’t see anything wrong with Scientology” is almost like being a part of that cult since, well, you praise it! If you know that something is a cult or a sect, DO NOT PRAISE IT, FOR THE LOVE OF THE LORD!!!
Anticultcult
An anticultcult (origin: Anti-cult cult) is a cult that originates from opposition of another cult (or organization perceived as one), it’s an idiotic principle that always leads to negative effects. Other names include combatcult, rebelcult, resistocult, pugnacult and proeliumcult
It’s cracy how many anticultcults unironically exist. Take – for example – the anti-godot movement. It’s basically a cult which originates from people perceiving Godot as a cult (spoiler: It’s not) and thus creating another cult in the process. And don’t worry, cultists! Groupthink is prominent in these cults too!