You saying all that context doesn’t affect their ability to ignite people into a deceptively charged fury? I can imagine this is frustrating. People just amaze me. They say the biggest signal that something is a cult is that the person in charge has so much charisma that they can say anything (and I mean anything, for example someone could claim “I am not crude matter, I am a human-shaped beam of light”) and have people believe them without critical thinking or vetting something for contradictions, like what the leader of the Ant Hill Kids was said to be able to do. And they say the biggest signal that something is a gimmick is that some attribute of something makes people resort to exceptionalism in their critical thinking, as is the case when one person happens upon the best case (though still flawed since it’s not true) someone like you must a pedo based on the flawed evidence, and people who normally have standards for how they treat others forgo those entirely and say it’s fair game to give you literal hell (think of the pretty patties from Spongebob: “but, but they’re colored”… apply that to someone’s life and say “I must keeeel them, they’re colored like a pedo”).

Somewhat makes me wonder if it’s accurate to say that, in a world where some people steal trust by exploiting psychology, people not trusting you is actually a sign of your trustworthiness, in the same way as how a billionaire who clearly stole their wealth has a lower worth than someone poor out of their mind. Especially when they’re not just exploiting mental weaknesses but attacking people merely for not immediately agreeing and conflating them with their target. I noticed the whole clique is obsessed with misinformation.