5 MAGA Cult Debate Tactics Explained. Manipulation & Logical Fallacies

[robosmith]

Happens HERE all the time, brought to us by dishonest right wingers who fall for FOS LIES.

[User]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Happens HERE all the time, brought to us by dishonest right wingers who fall for FOS LIES.

Is this a joke?

You are the most worthless poster on this forum.

-You hide like a coward from me and who knows how many others.

-Even the ones you don’t hide from you run from in a discussion

-You do little more than exactly what you did here, you are lazy and post videos to create these trolling spam threads with very little input of your own if any at all

-You are the most pathological liar on the forum

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Is this a joke?

You are the most worthless poster on this forum.

-You hide like a coward from me and who knows how many others.

-Even the ones you don’t hide from you run from in a discussion

-You do little more than exactly what you did here, you are lazy and post videos to create these trolling spam threads with very little input of your own if any at all

-You are the most pathological liar on the forum

I don't hide, your posts are too worthless to be taken seriously.

But you are good for bumping my threads. LMAO

[Deluge]

23 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Happens HERE all the time, brought to us by dishonest right wingers who fall for FOS LIES.

The dude's eyes are cartoon blue. He must be telling the truth! 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

The dude's eyes are cartoon blue. He must be telling the truth! 

IF you are literate, you can look up the references he mentions. Unless you're unable to google.....

[herbie]

He just provided you with examples... and thinks logical fallacies are fake news...

one of dem things elitist intellectuals who passed Grade 9 invented/

[Deluge]

29 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IF you are literate, you can look up the references he mentions. Unless you're unable to google.....

Why would I Google an explanation for something stupid like that? Especially when it's coming from a traitor scumbag like you? 

[John Johnston]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Happens HERE all the time, brought to us by dishonest right wingers who fall for FOS LIES.

MAGA people do not fall for Lies. MAGA people manufacture and perpetuate Lies. They know they are Liars, they were not dupped. 

[WestCanMan]

Ironically robo is looking at the manual for cultist tactics and didn't notice his own picture in Chapter 1.

FYI the first sign that you're in a cult is the inability to consider something as basic as "The vaccines don't prevent you from getting sick", or "Hamas and Iran leaders keep on saying that they want to commit genocide against the Israelis/Jews in general. Here are the quotes, here's what "Quds Day and Quds Force mean, here is the original Hamas charter...."

^^That^^ means that you have an iron-clad confirmation bias, so that reality never gets its ugly tentacles into your brain. 

When pertinent facts can't be discussed, you're a cultist.

When your responses are limited to a few different versions of "CNN DIDN'T SAY IT, SO IT'S NOT TRUE!!!! YOU LIE!!!", then you're a cultist. Eg:

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

your posts are too worthless to be taken seriously.

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

IF you are literate, you can look up the references he mentions. Unless you're unable to google.....

2 hours ago, herbie said:

He just provided you with examples... and thinks logical fallacies are fake news...

one of dem things elitist intellectuals who passed Grade 9 invented/

1 hour ago, John Johnston said:

MAGA people do not fall for Lies. MAGA people manufacture and perpetuate Lies. They know they are Liars, they were not dupped. 

You guys post, but you don't contribute. Get it?

You say words, but they are just in the form of unsubstantiated accusations, propaganda and platitudes.

For example, Re: Iran:

1. All the adults in the room know why Iran can't be allowed to get nukes. That's in the general knowledge category, and should never have to be explained to you.
2. America crushed Iran's defences with very few casualties. And that's what the military is for. 
3. Iran's strategy of blowing up tankers to "win the war" was disgusting, and not something that leftists should have been celebrating.
4. It should be easy to celebrate an American victory against a genocidal cult that killed 42,000 of their own people this year, but you just can't find it in you

I would really for any one of you to repeat the most grown-up sentiment that you have ever expressed about the current Iran war. Just knock me out with it. I honestly think that you can't name a single thing that you said about this war that was both reasonable and true, can you...

[User]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

I don't hide, your posts are too worthless to be taken seriously.

But you are good for bumping my threads. LMAO

Not only do you hide, but you also brag about it. That is exactly what you do when you ignore people. 

If you care so much about making logical arguments now, let's see it. Simply claiming my posts are worthless and running like the cowardly, sniveling, lazy troll you are is not it. 

2 hours ago, John Johnston said:

MAGA people do not fall for Lies. MAGA people manufacture and perpetuate Lies. They know they are Liars, they were not dupped. 

Projection. Look at your own behavior on this forum. 

[herbie]

Those who can't defend their position, don't. 
Just increase the volume of the shit they spew.

[User]

5 minutes ago, herbie said:

Those who can't defend their position, don't. 
Just increase the volume of the shit they spew.

Again... look at your own behavior on this forum. I offered you a deal, you never responded. 

You are not interested in logical discussion on this forum. 

 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Ironically robo is looking at the manual for cultist tactics and didn't notice his own picture in Chapter 1.

FYI the first sign that you're in a cult is the inability to consider something as basic as "The vaccines don't prevent you from getting sick", or "Hamas and Iran leaders keep on saying that they want to commit genocide against the Israelis/Jews in general. Here are the quotes, here's what "Quds Day and Quds Force mean, here is the original Hamas charter...."

^^That^^ means that you have an iron-clad confirmation bias, so that reality never gets its ugly tentacles into your brain. 

When pertinent facts can't be discussed, you're a cultist.

When your responses are limited to a few different versions of "CNN DIDN'T SAY IT, SO IT'S NOT TRUE!!!! YOU LIE!!!", then you're a cultist. Eg:

You guys post, but you don't contribute. Get it?

You say words, but they are just in the form of unsubstantiated accusations, propaganda and platitudes.

For example, Re: Iran:

1. All the adults in the room know why Iran can't be allowed to get nukes. That's in the general knowledge category, and should never have to be explained to you.
2. America crushed Iran's defences with very few casualties. And that's what the military is for. 
3. Iran's strategy of blowing up tankers to "win the war" was disgusting, and not something that leftists should have been celebrating.
4. It should be easy to celebrate an American victory against a genocidal cult that killed 42,000 of their own people this year, but you just can't find it in you

I would really for any one of you to repeat the most grown-up sentiment that you have ever expressed about the current Iran war. Just knock me out with it. I honestly think that you can't name a single thing that you said about this war that was both reasonable and true, can you...

Here's a single thing that is TRUE: YOU have provided ZERO EVIDENCE for ANY of ^THIS.

The FACT is, there is NO SINGLE DEMOCRAT who fits the definition of CULT LEADER for Democrats like there is in Trump for MAGAt. AKA Trumpublicans.

[Deluge]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

Those who can't defend their position, don't. 
Just increase the volume of the shit they spew.

But mostly they flee the debate scene like scared little he/hims. 

[CDN1]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

 

The FACT is, there is NO SINGLE DEMOCRAT who fits the definition of CULT LEADER for Democrats like there is in Trump for MAGAt. AKA Trumpublicans.

The ideology is the cult. It is embedded inside liberal institutions across Western countries. They don't rely on a single leader which makes them far more dangerous.

Trump is a lameduck in less than a year who wasted all of his political capital serving Israeli interests while lining his own pockets.

Edited April 17 by CDN1

[gatomontes99]

Did anyone watch the 6:22 of irony? He literally did everything he said MAGA was doing. He created a straw-man to prove MAGA creates straw-man arguments. He attacked MAGA for their supposed use of ad hominem attacks. His lack of self-awareness was amaze-balls! 

Yes, I am bringing back amaze-balls. I miss the 90s and yeah. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CDN1 said:

The ideology is the cult. It is embedded inside liberal institutions across Western countries. They don't rely on a single leader which makes them far more dangerous.

Trump is a lameduck in less than a year who wasted all of his political capital serving Israeli interests while lining his own pockets.

^NOT the definition of a cult, no matter how much YOU PRETEND, IGNORAMUS.

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Did anyone watch the 6:22 of irony? He literally did everything he said MAGA was doing. He created a straw-man to prove MAGA creates straw-man arguments. He attacked MAGA for their supposed use of ad hominem attacks. His lack of self-awareness was amaze-balls! 

Yes....

I was wondering if anyone would comment on the irony of it all and how long it would take for that to happen. I didn't anticipate "amaze-balls" though.... nice touch.

The critter has an interesting take on ideology vs cult status too. It fails to acknowledge that ideology actually acts as an adhesive...it explains, legitimizes, and even provides a framework of rules governing cult behaviour. In its absence, basic functions like recruitment, control, and even justification of its own existence would be problematic and it would collapse under its own weight.

For the most part (non dangerous) cults and their members fly under the radar and are pretty much ignored by the general public. The more prolific ones (like a certain handsome computer expert of our acquaintance), provide entertainment... some even aspire to  "treasured forum pet status." Other than Robo though, few make the cut.

On a more dangerous side of the equation, here's an AI take on the "cultist vs insurgent" dynamic for anyone interested. It's one of the reasons I don't like the current level of polarization and the places it can lead to... it's like a slow motion train wreck IMO and I think we should step off the tracks:

Militant insurgencies like the Taliban can exhibit many cult-like dynamics while remaining distinct in purpose and structure:

• Charismatic authority: Leaders command intense personal loyalty; dissent is oftenpunished or framed as betrayal.
• Exclusive ideology: A totalizing narrative (religious, political, or both) claims sole legitimacyand justifies actions.
• In-group identity and boundary: Strong us-vs-them framing, rituals, dress codes, andsocial norms mark insiders.
• Information control and propaganda: Tight control over messaging, reinterpretation ofsetbacks, and demonization of outsiders.
• Ritualized loyalty and tests: Oaths, public pledges, or demonstrations of commitment thatreinforce cohesion.
• Justification of violence: Violence is framed as sacred duty, necessary purification, orexistential defense.
• Isolation and recruitment: Networks exploit social, economic, or religious grievances torecruit and insulate members.

Key differences to note: insurgencies pursue political/military objectives and operate in contested environments; they often have formal command structures, territorial aims, and pragmatic alliances that ordinary cults lack. So while many cult principles apply, the term "cult" can oversimplify the strategic, political, and social complexity of groups like the Taliban.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17 by Venandi

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Did anyone watch the 6:22 of irony? He literally did everything he said MAGA was doing. He created a straw-man to prove MAGA creates straw-man arguments. He attacked MAGA for their supposed use of ad hominem attacks. His lack of self-awareness was amaze-balls! 

Yes, I am bringing back amaze-balls. I miss the 90s and yeah. 

Of course unlike Lucas Bean, all you do is make claims with ZERO EVIDENCE. You can't even cite the examples  HE brought up to prove your claim of "straw man" or "ad hominem."

Are you claiming that a "weak aegument" does not make its purveyor a weak person?

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

Yes....

I was wondering if anyone would comment on the irony of it all and how long it would take for that to happen. I didn't anticipate "amaze-balls" though.... nice touch.

The critter has an interesting take on ideology vs cult status too. It fails to acknowledge that ideology actually acts as an adhesive...it explains, legitimizes, and even provides a framework of rules governing cult behaviour. In its absence, basic functions like recruitment, control, and even justification of its own existence would be problematic and it would collapse under its own weight.

For the most part (non dangerous) cults and their members fly under the radar and are pretty much ignored by the general public. The more prolific ones (like a certain handsome computer expert of our acquaintance), provide entertainment... some even aspire to  "treasured forum pet status." Other than Robo though, few make the cut.

On a more dangerous side of the equation, here's an AI take on the "cultist vs insurgent" dynamic for anyone interested. It's one of the reasons I don't like the current level of polarization and the places it can lead to... it's like a slow motion train wreck IMO and I think we should step off the tracks:

Militant insurgencies like the Taliban can exhibit many cult-like dynamics while remaining distinct in purpose and structure:

• Charismatic authority: Leaders command intense personal loyalty; dissent is oftenpunished or framed as betrayal.
• Exclusive ideology: A totalizing narrative (religious, political, or both) claims sole legitimacyand justifies actions.
• In-group identity and boundary: Strong us-vs-them framing, rituals, dress codes, andsocial norms mark insiders.
• Information control and propaganda: Tight control over messaging, reinterpretation ofsetbacks, and demonization of outsiders.
• Ritualized loyalty and tests: Oaths, public pledges, or demonstrations of commitment thatreinforce cohesion.
• Justification of violence: Violence is framed as sacred duty, necessary purification, orexistential defense.
• Isolation and recruitment: Networks exploit social, economic, or religious grievances torecruit and insulate members.

Key differences to note: insurgencies pursue political/military objectives and operate in contested environments; they often have formal command structures, territorial aims, and pragmatic alliances that ordinary cults lack. So while many cult principles apply, the term "cult" can oversimplify the strategic, political, and social complexity of groups like the Taliban.

 

 

 

 

Google AI says you unidentified AI is wrong. LMAO

Quote

Cultists and insurgents represent two distinct, though often overlapping, forms of asymmetric threats, primarily differentiated by their core motivations and methods of operation. A cultist is driven by a shared, fanatical belief system (often apocalyptic or pseudo-religious) and typically seeks to convert, corrupt, or create societal chaos to serve that faith. An insurgent is driven by political, territorial, or revolutionary goals, aiming to undermine or overthrow an established government through force. 

Warhammer Conference +4

Here is a breakdown of the differences based on various contexts:

Core Differences

• Motivation: Cultists are motivated by dogma, ritual, or a charismatic leader. Insurgents are motivated by political change, separatist goals, or regaining power.
• Method: Cultists often operate through infiltration, psychological manipulation, and sacrificial acts. Insurgents focus on guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and attacking government infrastructure.
• Scale and Goal: Cultists may start as small, secretive cells, aiming for transformation or annihilation. Insurgents usually aim to establish a new order or force a government to change its actions. 
  Army War College Press +5

Overlapping Scenarios
In many narratives (such as Warhammer 40,000) and some real-world instances, these roles merge into cultist terror groups—insurgent organizations that adopt a cultist ideology. 

Arizona State University (ASU)

• Warhammer 40k: Cultists (e.g., Chaos Cults) act as insurgents, sabotaging from within to pave the way for a greater military force, often sacrificing themselves for ritual power.
• Real World (Niger Delta): Student cults sometimes act as violent agents within larger insurgent movements, combining organized crime with political resistance.
• Pokémon Insurgence: The term "Insurgent" is used interchangeably with "Cultists," where fanatical groups (Cult of Darkrai, Abyssal Cult) are actively working to take over the region. 
  YouTube +4

Tabletop Context (Root Game)

• Insurgent Faction: A player type that is not a primary, high-presence "militant" group. They tend to be sneaky, weak individually, and rely on unique mechanisms (like the Lizard Cult or Corvid Conspiracy) to spread influence rather than brute-force combat.
• Militant Faction: A group that controls map spaces, builds strongholds, and engages in constant, direct battles. 
  Reddit +4

Summary
If the goal is to overthrow a government to establish a new political system, they are an insurgent. If the goal is to trigger an apocalypse, honor a dark deity, or follow a mad leader, they are a cultist. Both can be equally subversive to the established order.

 

[Venandi]

34 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Cultists and insurgents represent two distinct, though often overlapping, forms of asymmetric threats, primarily differentiated by their core motivations and methods of operation

That was the point really, and personally, I find the level of overlap worrisome especially given the current political climate. Regardless of differing perspectives though, I'm surprised you don't.

I think the difference in AI results is subtle and likely the result of wording of the input question. The parallel between cult status and the Taliban fighter isn't a huge leap (IMO) even if political/religious motivations are indeed the ultimate objective.

For a group that is largely illiterate and can't find Canada or the US on a map of the world, their belief structure certainly strikes me as cultish in the extreme and the difference is at a technical and systemic level... the average Taliban fighter hasn't spent a lot of time meditating on. the distinction.

Edited April 18 by Venandi

[gatomontes99]

21 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Of course unlike Lucas Bean, all you do is make claims with ZERO EVIDENCE. You can't even cite the examples  HE brought up to prove your claim of "straw man" or "ad hominem."

Are you claiming that a "weak aegument" does not make its purveyor a weak person?

I mean, I thought those were obvious enough that I did not have to set them up. But if you need a couple of examples, sure. 

First, I gave as much evidence as he gave. Everything he said was a straw-man. He provided no examples other than his fabricated scenarios. For example, he said MAGA's response to "he did not get congressional approval for war" is something stupid. I forget what he said. It was lame. But, the actual response I nse from most MAGA is "the POTUS has authority to take swift military action for a set period of time before approval is needed." Of course, that didn't fit his straw-man arguments. 

Now, the entire video was an ad hominem attacks on anyone that might appreciate a MAGA argument. The assertion here was that MAGA does not debate rationally or have serious opinions and there fore should not be taken seriously because they are all stupid.

He wanted to assert that MAGA opinions are not worthy of consideration. So he created a list of accusations, not backed by any substantive or even realistic examples, that render MAGA opinions unworthy of consideration. 

All the while he accused MAGA of engaging in straw-man, ad hominem, what-about-ism and hypocrisy that just filled his videos. Then he just made up this b.s. about Charlie Kirk being unprepared and never proving a point. Which is ironic because this guy can't even prove his point against the straw-man fallacies he created. Further, Charlie was extremely well prepared. He would quote scripture off the top of his head. He knew studies and would quote them on any topic. He wouldn't just prove his point, he would pick apart the opponents po in it and then prove his point. He did it in a 1 on however many showed up setting. He took on the best of whomever showed up and was pretty much owning them. 

This guy's is a fake. A wannabe. A loser that can't form a coherent thought against real competition. No wonder @robosmith loves him. Two peas in a pod.

[robosmith]

On 4/17/2026 at 7:08 PM, Venandi said:

That was the point really, and personally, I find the level of overlap worrisome especially given the current political climate. Regardless of differing perspectives though, I'm surprised you don't.

I think the difference in AI results is subtle and likely the result of wording of the input question. The parallel between cult status and the Taliban fighter isn't a huge leap (IMO) even if political/religious motivations are indeed the ultimate objective.

For a group that is largely illiterate and can't find Canada or the US on a map of the world, their belief structure certainly strikes me as cultish in the extreme and the difference is at a technical and systemic level... the average Taliban fighter hasn't spent a lot of time meditating on. the distinction.

IF you clicked on the link I provided, you would UNDERSTAND that ^this is wrong. I used the exact phrasing you supplied.

[User]

16 hours ago, robosmith said:

IF you clicked on the link I provided, you would UNDERSTAND that ^this is wrong. I used the exact phrasing you supplied.

You lazy ignorant troll spamming "logical debate" now consists of you posting links and demanding we click on them. 

ROFL