• @Snapz
    link
    English
    713 months ago

    On Saturday Carnell-Bixler condemned Armstrong and Linkin Park in a statement, writing:

    Dear Emily, If you’re not going to speak out against the human and child trafficking cult in which you are apart of and in which you enable by remaining silent on the crimes you know about then you have no right to fill the shoes of Chester Bennington, a true advocate. I don’t give a fuck that you are very close to the serial rapist. I don’t give a fuck that you lied in your “apology” instagram story. I do care that you participated, after being asked, in the cruel intimidation of Jane Doe 1 with your cult pals at court. I do care that you didn’t once mention that you are a member of a child and human trafficking cult that covers up the abuses and rapes of CHILDREN and adults. I do care that your parents work for OSA (the office of special affairs) of the cult of Scientology which have been ordering attacks on me and my family which includes murdering my dogs in the most inhumane and evil ways. I do care that they have been attacking and harassing my fellow sister survivors. You don’t speak out against Scientology not because you’re terrified of them. You don’t speak out because you are one of them. Shame on Linkin Park. Fuck you.

    “Scientology P.I.’s outside our house all day,” she also wrote in an earlier Story. “Stole our trash… And other things. Documented.” Bixler-Zavala shared his wife’s statement, adding additional context and telling Linkin Park, “You should fire your entire team for not thoroughly vetting your choice. You’re a Disney level brand trying to make a comeback and you didn’t think to spend a little money on looking into her? Stop playing at the drive in’s music on your pre show playlist.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -213 months ago

      I am 100% with the spirit of this statement. But people need to stop overusing “of which” and “in which”, literally even Matt Mercer (who I assume is largely responsible for the recent popularization of this turn of phrase) uses it wrong half the time. In this instance, it should be either: “in which you are a part” or “which you are a part of” but instead they used both, presumably in an attempt to sound sophisticated, at which they failed. Which is unfortunate because I love a good lambasting of scientology