I mean they actually told him where they were from (geographically, if not organizationally), so clearly they didn't consider it something that needed to be secret.

Which is interesting, because it gives us insight into their way of thinking [1]. They clearly don't consider themselves to be in any way toxic like the author thinks they are.

Cults are interesting: they provide a sense of belonging and accomplishment to their members, in exchange for something (time, money/tithe, ...). In that respect, they're just another point on the spectrum of human social groups. Including some corporations. Frankly, I (and clearly other commenters here) have difficulty finding a clear ontological distinction between such a cult and, well, the Google corporation itself.

[1] I'm already Othering them, which I'm sure they'd be surprised about

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/valley-of-genius-exc...

I’m not trying to claim it’s endemic at Google, I truly have no idea. But mini cults can happen inside corporations.

The point wasn’t so much the death as it was that generally sexual relations between a boss and a direct report shouldn’t usually be any type of acceptable in a healthy workplace.

No judgement on Poly/ ENM / whatever.

The death merely was my motivation for being passionate about this recurring theme I keep hearing from reports within Google of entanglements between direct reports and management (and sometimes others, like the spouses of management or their other mistresses).

https://www.dailyadvent.com/news/45a9223a5a878bd90c386109e55...

There are also consistent allegations of an abusive culture at both SpaceX and Tesla:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/05/tesla-sex...

https://www.businessinsider.com/former-spacex-engineer-inter...

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/14/22835181/tesla-lawsuit-s...

I feel like the best definition of a cult is any group that won't let you dissociate with your dignity intact. Most corporations are fine with that. Some aren't. So this suggests substantial differences.

The same way you wouldn't say having a charismatic leader is the definition of what a cult is. It's certainly an aspect of most cults, but not the definition, nor unique to cults

A membership community with secrets and opportunities reserved for members.

There are millions of these around us, and we’re all probably members of several. It seems to be pretty normal throughout history. We just don’t acknowledge it as such because the word was only fairly recently stigmatized.

> A membership community with secrets and opportunities reserved for members.

Yeah, but the exact type of "secrets and opportunities" matters. Sometimes (as mentioned in the article) the secret opportunity is a surprise nonconsensual sex with the group leader.

That can also be a guild.

"Cult" is a term from the study of religion (a particular field's jargon, if you will), and usually conveys intense devotion, a ritual or sacrificial dimension that goes beyond a master craftsman's level of devotion to a craft.

Also, a guild can't entertain fanciful ideas about their craft for too long, if the ideas don't work in practice.

The distinction is kind of like using Cobol to build a good solid system (guild), versus dropping some Lisp to reach enlightenment (cult), or using C to build a solid system (cult).

In which case, I'm voting cult all the way.

That might be the modern colloquial use, but I don't think it has much to do with the use of the word "cult" in the study of religion?

As I understand the word, you might talk about the cult associated with a particular temple (meaning just local practices, as opposed to more widespread general practices), or the cult associated with the worship of a particular god (meaning beliefs and practices pertaining to that god and his or her worship in specific, such beliefs might be very widespread or might be highly localized), or you might talk about a mystery cult, which is pretty much by definition a widespread phenomenon distinguished by the fact that it has secret teachings unknown to non-initiates.

But none of those senses convey any special devotion in comparison to ordinary worship; most of them are ordinary worship.

[1] Origin of the phrase "Drink the Kool-Aid". More than 900 people did, and died.

Point being cults are not just a club with a few secrets.

Cults are dangerous. They abuse people physically, sexually, psychologically, and financially, and the leaders reliably scam and exploit the followers. Not infrequently there are links to unusually horrific events such as mass murder and mass suicide.

Of course, part of the problem is that there are concentric rings, increasingly toxic as one goes higher/closer-in. The outer ring is full of gullible normies who do recruiting and PR, useful idiots who have no idea what's really going on.

[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/phew-costco-absolutely-pos...

The cult is real. The clique is the group within Google (as opposed to there being a cult within Google), I hope that distinction makes sense.

I've seen this before. At the BBC. Everyone closed ranks around Jimmy Savile and an organisation called PIE (paedophile information exchange). You were literally told you couldn't say anything about it. But AFAIK the rotten group was small, but powerful. Many, many more decent people work at the BBC. As I'm sure applies to Google.

Edit:

I say this because the headline "Cult within Google" is misleading. (I bloody hate Google and everything they stand for - but there's an important distinction to be made)

so if a guy says “I’m going to rape you” it means he doesn’t think his behavior is toxic? because he’s open about it? brilliant logic

cults are pretty much corporations that aren't ashamed of their authoritarianism, with a few religious themes sprinkled in

The typical corporate "cult"--I don't think Google is any more or less toxic than any other company at this point, and the true cult is capitalism itself, not a specific company--is somewhere between NRMs and actual cults in terms of virulence. Companies have displaced communities in modern life and yet they frequently un-person people for economic or petty political reasons. That said, executives usually prefer to keep their child sex abuse and their economic exploitation in different buildings--and, if Epstein is any indicator, on different landmasses--so, there's that, at least.

If you're referring to the parent comment's description of Google, then there's really no point in trying to make a distinction, since they were using it as a polemic anyways. That said, I don't think describing capitalism as the cult is necessarily useful either, in that it implies a reliance on _active_ belief and conscious performance of rituals which doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to me that the more useful framework is Fisher's capitalist realism, which more accurately describes this neoliberal end of history that inspires so much pessimism (and a more Foucaultian sense of power which is pervasive and defines the discursive space, rather than religious, which identifies a moral power within entities). Regardless, theorizing endlessly on capitalism is probably not going to solve actual issues of corporate overreach and abuses of power, so it's infinitely easier to just call Google a cult and hope it shifts public opinion and motivates political action lmao.