Why are the HK in that list? I actually do a considerable amount of work in the area of cultism, and it gets my goat when folks like yourself equate genuinely dangerous groups with not dangerous groups because you misuse the word ‘religion’ to equivocate between them. It is precisely this sort of lazy thinking that has provided cover for abusive groups like Scientology. There is a particular reason why references to HK in this manner sets me off though. It is a rarity to ever find examples of where a group involved in abuses managed to change, like genuinely change, and put in place measures to prevent those abuses from happening into the future. The abuse in this particular case was one of child abuse. Think the Catholic Church but amplify it due to the HK commune lifestyle and you’ll get the idea. Unlike the Catholic Church, and many other institutions both religious and non-religious it must be said, the HK meaningfully tackled the issue instead of merely paying lip-service. I cannot think of a single case of an abusive group meaningfully transforming to a non-abusive group that surpasses the HK example. But to notice this you would have to actually looking to groups and their actions rather than being conned and blinded by the label of ‘religion’. Whether a group is or is not a ‘religion’ has fuck all to do with whether a group is or is not abusive, and an example of how potent that distraction is can be seen in the above quoted comment. Also – fucking lol at how you think people should be able to easily walk away from conditioning and getting mentally fucked. Wish it worked like that. There wouldn’t have been any need for Chanology if this were true.