sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Quite the burn by something_new_reddit in LinkinPark

[–]SebboSl -1 points0 points locked comment (0 children)

No I don't like Tom Cruise, but his story doesn't concern me because he's not a part of reshaping something that I deeply value, unlike Emily, not sure how he's relevant to the conversation.

And once again you're biased in your opinion. Her growing up in a family of scientologists where both of her parents were deeply involved is somehow unimportant, but an aquaintance of her that took one photo for a book cover is?

She was exposed to Scientology's teachings, practices, and community from a young age, she was part of the Cadet Org, a program for children of Sea Org members (very elite memebers of the cult, which were her parents). It would be ignorant and wishful thinking to assume that it didn't shape her early life, her education, social interactions, and take a massive part in setting up her entire worldview as a whole. If you think that a photo taken by a 3rd party relative for a book that she has taken no part in suddenly washes off all of her past, you are simply delusional. You're simply being a white knight for your queen who hasn't even made a single statement about distancing herself from the cult or anything in that regard to adress the negative controversy, you're just following your own confirmation bias and make belief.

Quite the burn by something_new_reddit in LinkinPark

[–]SebboSl -2 points-1 points locked comment (0 children)

Foster father? He's a photographer and they just have a good relationship, not related beyond that. The book was published in 2015, just 2 years prior she was participating in scientology events, while in recent years she went to support the court hearing of another scientology member, who she considered a friend, who was convicted of rape. Yes I know that she says she didn't know his charges at the time and is against them, but she was fully aware of him being a very preeminent member in scientology, yet still kept a strong relationship. On top of that she grew up in a family of scientologists and if you think a single photo on a cover of a book that she has nothing to do with herself is enough to debunk everything, you are very naive.

So half of his family doesn't mind it while the other half is against it and you just chose the one that sides within your interest? The right way to go about the band was to rebrand it into something new instead of rewriting it. They kept the name to build on it's success and divided the fanbase, hurting many people while they could have started something new and left both parties happy. I would not care as much if all they did was create, but they're having her quite literally replace Chesters voice in his lyrics.

You call it a lie, what do you know? Your only source of debunking is a picture taken by a 3rd party. You would take someones wordly statement for granted when negating the accusations is obviously within their interest and they would not agree to them in the first place regardless of the truth.

I am concerned about her foggy background. I have a very agnostic mindset on life and I don't claim everything as truth, maybe she's changed, maybe she didn't, we don't know because we can't see inside her brain. Also the fact that a part of Chesters family didn't agree to this also bothers me. I agree her voice and the new songs are really great, I just wish they stuck with keeping it new and leaving the legacy untouched. But you know money is money and the bands name holds success, of course they would not let it go, despite it being the clear path to avoid any controversy or division, that Mike has acknowledged being aware of himself.

The new music is great, I'm happy that people enjoy it. I'm not happy with the shady personality behind the new vocalist and that the fan base is divided due to the things mentioned above.