Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[deleted]



So, you're saying Scientology doesn't drain its devotees' bank accounts, filling their heads with the work of a third-rate sci-fi writer--one who invented a bunch of dreck with the announced purpose of ginning up a religion for his own financial enrichment? That the CoS doesn't alienate its more vulnerable members from their friends and families?

I am challenged to think of a more pernicious organization. Who else, save perhaps a handful of other religions, preys on the weak and gullible to such an extent while enjoying great tax advantages?


I don't know if you want this debate. I'm sure many people are very well versed in all the nonsense that resides in the content of Scientology. No one is spreading hate; people are upset about supposedly objective news organization lending it's brand to prop up a pariah of society, namely Scientology. As well, comparing views such as those probably held by many at HN that essentially state that million year contracts with the Sea Org, the story of Xenu, the notion of thetans, or proclamations from David Miscavige that "arbitraries are cancelled" are COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS to being like racism is just hard to take seriously. If you are stuck in some kind of rut of Scientology, please try to get out.


Though plenty has been said elsewhere about the content of Scientology's beliefs and books, the post you're replying to said nothing about it.

If you're going to have a knee-jerk reaction or post some other canned response, you could at least try to make it a little bit relevant.

EDIT: Wait a minute...it seems that was a top-level comment. Were you even replying at all?


[deleted]


I fail to see what is wrong with that.

Sponsored "news" articles or paid-for comment moderation? It depends on what your definition of 'wrong' is I suppose.

The idea of a news publication for most readers is that it should be unbiased. Of course, that's probably impossible in an absolute sense, but presenting paid content with "news" brings disrepute upon the publication.

Of course they marked it as paid content, but some people noticed that disclaimer and some folks did not. So we could discuss the degree to which the notice was prominent enough, or whether The Atlantic is simply offering its masthead (along with any remaining credibility) up for sale.

Of course, the reason we're talking about this specific case of The Atlantic selling sponored content or Scientology buying ad placement is because it seems to be such an odd juxtaposition to most of us.

Edit: Wow, I like to say "Of course" a lot. I must think I'm pretty hot stuff!


I think there is probably something wrong with the mere fact that Scientology exists. :)


If Scientology did not exist, Scientologists would be forced to invent it.


Yes, I have.

They have a delightful public face, but their internal stuff is absolutely batshit crazy.

The CoS's reputation as a manipulative, abusive, destructive, and deceitful organisation is well-deserved.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: