I've interacted with some of these people once upon a time and I think you're spinning some pretty wild fantasies. I don't think there is a clear "in" vs "out" boundary, it's more accurate to describe a series of loosely connected and amorphous "scenes". But insofar as "membership" makes sense, I wouldn't consider myself a member. I don't represent anyone besides myself.
>This is also NOT ad hominem because conflict of interest matters here.
As PG put it:
>An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
>Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
>This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?
https://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Can you name a specific other "cult" which offers $$$ to criticize their ideas?
If such prizes don't count as evidence against culthood, what would?
This cult talk seems quasi-unfalsifiable. It kinda seems like "running events" and "having prizes" means you must be "bait"ing people?? I mean, this kinda just sounds like paranoia?? I don't think the money is coming from unknown sources, but I doubt you would change your mind even if I persuaded you of that point?