as a general rule i choose to believe someone when they say they believe something, because they're the authority on their own beliefs. it's not my business to move the goalposts and define what a ""real"" follower of that belief looks like, even as a follower myself. this is an inherently selfish tactic because the only purpose is to distance yourself from people you don't like.
i can, however, contend that, as a result of that mindset, there are a massive variety of individuals that would be defined as followers, and so it doesn't quite make sense to say that one person's beliefs accurately represent everyone else's. i'm speaking generally because this applies to any conceivable conflict of value. humans love to try and find patterns where they don't exist. if i see that a religious group is being incredibly aggressive and offensive, my first instinct will be to assume that followers of that religion are all in some way the same. if i see that an individual is overtly obnoxious about their political beliefs, as a human being, i'll probably assume that's a result of that political belief. the problem with both of these is that they are not logical conclusions because they're based on an individual's personality, and how that effects their expression, and not what they appear to be expressing. my problem with these people isn't that i disagree with them, it's that they're just unpleasant individuals. it simply doesn't make sense to extend that personality onto something that is by no means human, nor dependent on that individual to exist. if there appears to be a pattern, it likely stems from a common source. going back to that religious group, the problem lies in that group's individual doctrine (though there has to be something within the participants which enables them to take part from the start). if you see a pattern where there is seemingly no connection between the individuals, it is most likely a case of personality.
i would like to also point out that, though it is obvious when stated, an abstract concept cannot significantly subvert and alter one's inner self unless it already has a foothold, and it cannot force that change upon someone unless another individual is involved that forces it. the point of saying this is that someone can't have their fundamental personality suddenly changed when introduced to a concept. the only way this happens is by having other active forces pushing this change into them, such as pressure from peers.
