>>13694186The definition is set by the person using it. If they claim themselves to be one, they are one.
>>13694255The person defining themselves takes priority over people disagreeing. You only need one person willing to agree with you to make it "true."
I've been workshopping my explanation, so here's a way that may make sense.
This may be stupid, but think of it like a Warlock and a Patron Diety. If the Patron Diety claims itself to be something, and the Warlock worships it for power, then the thing gains power and legitimacy from the fact that it is worshiped as such. Even if it's considered a heretical being or a myth by others, the fact that the Warlock made a pact with it is proof of it being true.
In a similar vein, an idol defines themselves as such, and makes pacts with fans for support in exchange for community, or whatever it is they offer. Even if people deny it to be true, that person's pact stands as proof of it being so.
