68
Brendan Carr was a member of a rogue Alcoholics Anonymous group some labeled a ‘cult’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
68 points (98.6% liked)
politics
31192 readers
2556 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
AA and similar programs are, medically speaking, indistinguishable from telling someone "just quit" or walking into a church and asking the liturgist for guidance.
It's great that they work for some, and I'd hate to suggest anyone to give up on what works for them. But AA is historically cult-like with how they talk about their success rate and that is a major issue.
One of my closest friends had a drinking problem, crappy insurance, and was referred to AA. I went as silent support to his first meeting, but the program absolutely did not take and the net result of time spent was disillusioning him from getting any help at all. He went back to the bottle and died a few years later, yet to hear AA describe it his death was because he "failed the program" and not at all because the program failed to help him.
If your 12 step program helps you and gives you a chance to help others that's a great and wonderful thing. But AA was founded by a drunk who invented a new label for "drinks too much", and there are people who would have loved longer and healthier lives if their take was less "this is the one way for all" and more "this is one way that happened to work for us".
Its not meant to be on par with medical methods for treatment though. Its not fair to set that as the bar for what we consider effective or not. This is a really nuanced conversation I sadly do not have time to have right now but the influence that program has had on society puts it easily within the top 10 of most positive impacts in the previous century. Millions have found recovery through various 12 step programs (and their spinoffs).
In no universe does any group purporting to help people get to measure itself by a different standard than everyone else. If AA is at all worthwhile they should neither fear medical research into their efficacy nor protest when the measured result is sufficiently lower than their own unprofessional claims.
Let me re-state and expand my complaint : the way AA sells itself does more harm than good. Peer support groups with or without religious overtones are definitely helpful to those they work for, and their fiscal efficiency does make them a great first-try resource for anyone seeking to reduce alcohol consumption. But they do not work for everyone, and the way AA asserts that this failure is always a moral fault of the individual discourages some from seeking other forms of treatment.
I am not even questioning the efficacy of the program for regular adherents, as was done before the 2020 NIH meta-study. My chief and sole complaint is that the way AA portrays itself specifically and "alcoholics" in general can and does lead some adults suffering from alcohol abuse to abandon any hope of cessation rather than seeking alternative forms of assistance that appear at least as successful for those who continue treatment.