Seems to have a broad definition. If I were to use the word loosely, I could define YouTube channels as being a cult, based on their following. Has the word become too loose to be dependable as an adjective?
heh If you ask Trump, Democrats aren't just a cult but a mob. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/18/republican-scare-tactics-immigrants-sot-vpx-ctn.cnn
Not really. Not even as a noun. It's been used loosely, carelessly and pejoratively for too long. At root, it's the origin of culture. As applied to a group of people, it should denote those who are devoted to cultivating some particular ideal or deity and form a matrix of narrative, art and ritual (a culture) around that ideal or deity. The Cult of Osiris would be a classical example; the adolescent Goth subculture might be a modern one.
But how tightly must the group be bound by their common devotion? I've been watching an online spiritualist whom I really like, but if I were to classify his following, I would define it as a personality cult. I could be wrong, but much of its promotion revolves around the man rather than his ideas, or so it appears to me.
Cults in practice usually involve secrecy, restricted access to key information or core insights, as a base of power for the organizational elite. That can be as simple as having it reside in the mind of a guru or central person, who controls its dissemination personally. There is a cult around Trump, consisting of those who think he knows what he's doing better than anyone else or has a personal store of insight and comprehension beyond their own. But it doesn't account for the body of Trump followers - most of whom seem to regard him as representing their own comprehension, speaking for them to others rather than to them for their own enlightenment.
In what sense of "living"? Cargo cults, say, do not worship a living figure in the ordinary sense of the word.
Personality cult is still cult, isn't it? As I understand, Christianity started with the admiration of some rabble-rouser called Jesus. It could as well be a person as any other kind of iconic figure, if that person represents something more and bigger than himself. I'm not sure what a spiritualist does that attracts a following, but it must be more than just being himself. Cult leaders typically claim to channel some supernatural power or interpret some life-directing doctrine or reveal some profound Truth. His followers typically contribute money or volunteer their efforts to promote the central cause, might be required to swear allegiance, adhere to certain habits, obey certain rules or some other way show loyalty. In extreme cases, they live in servitude and may be called upon to commit ritual suicide. But, as I said, the word's been used so loosely as to apply to everything from sports fans to bird watchers.
Perhaps Daesh ( ISIL) may be a good candidate for the label. Often referred to as a death cult. Discussion notes: Radicalization Sexual violence Slavery Polygamy Divine promises Apostasy Evangelism Apocalyptic end times eschatology ...and more no doubt
Cults are not all the same. Sacrifice of some kind is usual, if not universal. Some are more accurately characterized as "life cults", for example. Ceres/Cybele, the virgin in her myriad guises, rain and crop deities of all kinds: https://www.thoughtco.com/centeotl-the-aztec-god-of-maize-170309 Let's say the modern, invented ones are more likely to be political and militaristic than the ancient, organic ones.
There's an interesting link and relevant report produced by the FBI. I googled: "Definition of cult +FBI" There is a common tendency to view "cults" with a combination of mistrust and fear. Much of this hostility derives from widespread misconceptions about the nature of "cults," founded upon popular stereotypes and simple ignorance. While such misconceptions are unfortunate in the general populace, they may be dangerous when harbored by law enforcement officers charged with dealing with these groups and ensuring the safety of both "cult" members and the general public. src: http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/fbi_report.htm
But that's where the problem arises, when the messenger becomes the object of worship rather than the ideas he brings to the table.
Those are examples of the other possibilities, but consider Christianity and the religion built around Christ.
Why is there a "problem" at all? Every religions began and grew as a cult until it was embraced by some powerful political entity and made official. There are little, harmless cults around celebrities and other fictional characters, and great big wide-spread ones with chapters all over the world and $billions in assets. Some, big and small, state-sponsored and radical, overt and occult, are horrible; some are benign. If seems to be a near-universal human proclivity. Doesn't6 look like they'll go away any time soon.
I don't believe they are all necessarily bad, but I do see potential for exploitation and harm. It's best to be your own Guru, I believe.
Sure. But exploitation of the masses through gullibility is as old [provably] as civilization and exploitation of select groups much older [with minimal documentation going back 30,000 years]. It's SOP, and has been through human [pre]history. What's to get excited about?
