This insane edgelord "all religion is bad so shut up about it" shit.
There a literally billions of Muslims in the world. They are not all following their cults orders in lockstep, doing exactly what is said, holding one belief.
You are vastly oversimplifying and grouping Sunni and Shia and Catholic and Protestant and Episcopalian and Jewish and Hindu and Sikh and Buddhist and Shinto all together.
None of those groups move as one within their faith. None. Scientology does. Because Scientology is not "lol religion is the opitate of the masses" cult, Scientology is a LITERAL "we keep people imprisoned and torture them routinely and steal all our members income while we take their children from them" kind of literal cult. Not colloquial. Not from a certain point of view. This is their entire structure.
The "gospel of prosperity" is almost a cult, arguably a cult of personality, but these people a literally physically free to do anything they want. They are manipulated into donating. Scientologists are blackmailed and, again, LITERALLY imprisoned within the groups of the groups facilities.
One, is a "proverbial" cult, because it is manipulating the weak minded and is very sad and wrong too. One is a LITERAL cult. And these two things can both be bad while one can be CLEARLY more objectionable than the other.
"we keep people imprisoned and torture them routinely
Anyone that does not immediately renounce the religion is no longer eligible for benefit of the doubt, even if they were raised in the religion, even if they tether reject part of the beliefs.
Hate to break it to you, but if scientology is doing this level of horror to people in the name of their beliefs, it hasn't made the news recently.
If you're arguing that scientology is somehow worse than any of that, I would say malarkey.
As nasty as scientology can get, as much as they need to be shut down, they aren't even close you the kind of insanity of any of that.
I don't care what word you want to apply to it. Cult, religion, idgaf. Call it whatever you want. But whatever you want to label things, I object just as much to literal terrorism and murder, no matter who does it.
You know who hasn't done anything like any of this? Emily Armstrong. The worst thing she's done is show up in court with a bunch of other brainwashed members of the group. That's it.
If she is responsible for things she didn't do, just because someone in the same organization did them, then everyone is responsible for the acts of the worst of their organization.
Seriously, how does nobody have anything in the way of proof she did anything illegal, dangerous, or even bad? Everyone is all whiny about her still being associated with scientology, like she's some kind of ringleader instead of someone that's stuck just as much because "we keep people imprisoned and torture them routinely and steal all our members income while we take their children from them". If the cult is that bad, why is she expected to be the one to take a stand?
It's bullshit. And that's the point. I genuinely do not give a stinking shit what kind of semantics you want to fuck with. You do you, I'm done with that part of things because it has never been the point.
You got anything, any shred of proof that Emily Armstrong did any of the illegal acts that scientology has carried out? Because, again, I've gone looking, and there's jack shit online. If anything, she's just another victim of scientology via her parents. I get that the lady that masterson assaulted gets a pass for ranting at the wrong person. She gets that after what she went through. But nobody in this entire thread, nor in the YouTube comments, or on any of the social media platforms currently swamped by people that did not give a flying fuck about scientology two weeks ago have managed to dig up anything Armstrong has done other than sit in a courtroom.
That's it. That's her crime.
I read this whole thread, and started out kinda disagreeing with you, but I actually agree with you now. You make some very good points. Nobody is bringing this same energy to artists that are openly preaching for their own cults.
I'm not really a huge LP fan so I wasn't going to listen to them too much anyways, but this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. I guess I can still somewhat understand people just being mad that they kept the name. Really should've rebranded, in my opinion, because they aren't the same band. But, as long as she isn't preaching Scientology in LP lyrics, people that care are mostly all hypocrites.
I appreciate it.
And I mostly agree, it isn't really the same band. Can't say I object to the name staying the same since it was never "Chester's band, Linkin Park". It was a group effort, and as much as I love Chester, he was only part of what made them what they were.
As it stands now, there's only one member from the original linkin park lineup not involved, and it seems like he's just done with music entirely, at least as a performer.
If Shinoda had just hired on an entire new group, and used the name, I'd be annoyed. Wouldn't necessarily reject it, but wouldn't be standing in line for the new album either.
And it isn't like there isn't plenty of bands that have moved forward with a band after losing a vocalist, while keeping the original name.
But, yeah, I appreciate you taking the time to respond a lot. Thanks :)
This insane edgelord "all religion is bad so shut up about it" shit.
There a literally billions of Muslims in the world. They are not all following their cults orders in lockstep, doing exactly what is said, holding one belief.
You are vastly oversimplifying and grouping Sunni and Shia and Catholic and Protestant and Episcopalian and Jewish and Hindu and Sikh and Buddhist and Shinto all together.
None of those groups move as one within their faith. None. Scientology does. Because Scientology is not "lol religion is the opitate of the masses" cult, Scientology is a LITERAL "we keep people imprisoned and torture them routinely and steal all our members income while we take their children from them" kind of literal cult. Not colloquial. Not from a certain point of view. This is their entire structure.
The "gospel of prosperity" is almost a cult, arguably a cult of personality, but these people a literally physically free to do anything they want. They are manipulated into donating. Scientologists are blackmailed and, again, LITERALLY imprisoned within the groups of the groups facilities.
One, is a "proverbial" cult, because it is manipulating the weak minded and is very sad and wrong too. One is a LITERAL cult. And these two things can both be bad while one can be CLEARLY more objectionable than the other.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qgq919yl5o
Anyone that does not immediately renounce the religion is no longer eligible for benefit of the doubt, even if they were raised in the religion, even if they tether reject part of the beliefs.
Hate to break it to you, but if scientology is doing this level of horror to people in the name of their beliefs, it hasn't made the news recently.
https://theconversation.com/violent-buddhist-extremists-are-targeting-muslims-in-sri-lanka-92951
Haven't seen any bombings by scientology yet, though I wouldn't be surprised.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-64658648
But, no true Christian would do such a thing.
If you're arguing that scientology is somehow worse than any of that, I would say malarkey.
As nasty as scientology can get, as much as they need to be shut down, they aren't even close you the kind of insanity of any of that.
I don't care what word you want to apply to it. Cult, religion, idgaf. Call it whatever you want. But whatever you want to label things, I object just as much to literal terrorism and murder, no matter who does it.
You know who hasn't done anything like any of this? Emily Armstrong. The worst thing she's done is show up in court with a bunch of other brainwashed members of the group. That's it.
If she is responsible for things she didn't do, just because someone in the same organization did them, then everyone is responsible for the acts of the worst of their organization.
Seriously, how does nobody have anything in the way of proof she did anything illegal, dangerous, or even bad? Everyone is all whiny about her still being associated with scientology, like she's some kind of ringleader instead of someone that's stuck just as much because "we keep people imprisoned and torture them routinely and steal all our members income while we take their children from them". If the cult is that bad, why is she expected to be the one to take a stand?
It's bullshit. And that's the point. I genuinely do not give a stinking shit what kind of semantics you want to fuck with. You do you, I'm done with that part of things because it has never been the point.
You got anything, any shred of proof that Emily Armstrong did any of the illegal acts that scientology has carried out? Because, again, I've gone looking, and there's jack shit online. If anything, she's just another victim of scientology via her parents. I get that the lady that masterson assaulted gets a pass for ranting at the wrong person. She gets that after what she went through. But nobody in this entire thread, nor in the YouTube comments, or on any of the social media platforms currently swamped by people that did not give a flying fuck about scientology two weeks ago have managed to dig up anything Armstrong has done other than sit in a courtroom.
That's it. That's her crime.
I read this whole thread, and started out kinda disagreeing with you, but I actually agree with you now. You make some very good points. Nobody is bringing this same energy to artists that are openly preaching for their own cults.
I'm not really a huge LP fan so I wasn't going to listen to them too much anyways, but this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. I guess I can still somewhat understand people just being mad that they kept the name. Really should've rebranded, in my opinion, because they aren't the same band. But, as long as she isn't preaching Scientology in LP lyrics, people that care are mostly all hypocrites.
I appreciate it.
And I mostly agree, it isn't really the same band. Can't say I object to the name staying the same since it was never "Chester's band, Linkin Park". It was a group effort, and as much as I love Chester, he was only part of what made them what they were.
As it stands now, there's only one member from the original linkin park lineup not involved, and it seems like he's just done with music entirely, at least as a performer.
If Shinoda had just hired on an entire new group, and used the name, I'd be annoyed. Wouldn't necessarily reject it, but wouldn't be standing in line for the new album either.
And it isn't like there isn't plenty of bands that have moved forward with a band after losing a vocalist, while keeping the original name.
But, yeah, I appreciate you taking the time to respond a lot. Thanks :)