Nobody around the tiny, itsy-bitsy, entirely irrelevant circle of people you talk to.
I assure you plenty of people “believe in Christianity”, in Europe and particularly outside of Europe. Even more of them use Christianity as a political tool.
Hey, you wanna know how many people “believe in Christianity”? This was Europe this last weekend, not believing in Christianity.
For one thing, Belgium is like 2% of the EU, so barely representative. For another, being actively practicing is less relevant than how much political influence is wielded and how many institutions are baked into the legal and political system to align with a particular worldview.
And for another another, this isn’t about Europe (or the US) much at all. They matter way less than the countries trying to secure a semblance of civil rights in the context of an increasing interference from Western-originated religions using them as breeding grounds for retrograde conservatism.
So you are very welcome to remain oblivious and pretend you have culturally overcome the footprint of Christianity (which again, hah, nah), but that has zero bearing on the relevance of these events.
Europe has a history of stripping power from Christianity? Like, Europe Europe?
Is this some other Europe I don’t know about? There may be an Europe I entirely missed somewhere, I suppose. Because the Europe I know took a millenia to marginally diminish the power of Christianity, and it only happened because of liberal democracy quietly supplanting spirituality for convenience. It was in no way, shape or form a political choice based on them “misbehaving”.
I mean, even if that was true, which hah, nah, the places where the Catholic church is growing these days are in Africa and Asia. Stop making me have to lump Europeans with the gross ethnocentrism of USmericans.
I am very curious to know who “we” is in this context.
Compared to the iron grip the reactionaries held before my understanding is you’re right. That doesn’t mean that wing is going to get away with a continuist choice. I mean, it’s more likely than it used to be, but I’m not making a call until the Habemus Papam.
It is literally a political position. There’s about to be an election to choose the next guy.
I agree that it is serious in that it’s going to have an impact on people’s lives, far beyond the relatively small direct power they have. That concerns me.
To be clear, I have zero respect for the institution, but I care about how they wield the influence they have, and I’d much rather have a relatively progressive guy like Francis than a relative reactionary like John Paul II, with all due respect to Polish pride. I’m assuming we can at least agree on taking him over Benedictus.
Yes.
Yes, you should.
Because as much as you see it as a domestic throwaway denomination among many, they are extremely and increasingly overrepresented in developing countries (and a couple of European ones as well).
So if you want to know which way the use of contraceptives, the position on gay people or the express support for neofascism is going to go in Africa this is relevant.
It is not about the US or their opinions. And I say this as an atheist.
We’ll see where it goes. They aren’t exactly transparent about these things, and they’ve been arguing among themselves for a while. We’ll know with the white smoke, I suppose.
I am surpringly annoyed about Americans somehow finding a way to make this about themselves.
In reality I’m much more worried about the likely counterreformist pushback that is likely about to happen. We’re about to find out if a remarkably powerful organization’s leader was able to seed enough support to secure a politically aligned successor, and if the answer is “no” a bunch of organizations are about to get even more ruthlessly conservative at a time when a new strain of fascism is seeking moral support. The Catholic Church has been here before. It didn’t go well.
Sure! I mean, why not? Hell, release the game DRM free in the first place on all platforms, huh? Why did we have to wait a decade and buy it twice before we could get the DRM version of any part of it, after all?
But you weren’t complaining about it yesterday and you’re way closer to the right outcome today. I would much rather have a DRM free version of some part of that game than not.
Wait, does it? Oh, man, it does! I actively remember the praise, where did I get so much Mandela effect from this? I didn’t even think to look it up, I was so certain.
In any case, here’s to being actively wrong and still having made your point. Eternal is the lesser game in general, and I have played it much less, but it’s still telling I straight up forgot and invented an alternate scenario about it.
I don’t think the setup for Doom 16 would be particularly doable over LAN without rebuilding the game or giving you the server code. Servers are doing a LOT of work in this.
Nobody did. It was one of this weird wave of interesting multiplayer setups that just didn’t have the competitive cleanness of the established stuff and nobody ended up caring about.
It was midly interesting to try out once, but let’s say there’s a reason they didn’t do a MP mode in the sequel and every reviewer praised that choice.
I don’t know how this happened, but I am glad that it happened and yes, I just bought Doom 2016 again.
They said it about the DS at the time. It was meant to run in parallel with the GBA as a “premium” thing for adults. They said it about the SNES, too, actually.
This bit of random outrage is fun to me because it’s something that has been Nintendo’s official stance since the early 90s, but it’s swung back around due to Don Mattrick being such a charisma black hole that what used to be the natural, go-to response to “how come the new, more advanced version is more expensive” has now become a genuine snafu.
PR is not about reality, it’s about perception.
Right.
I have to assume you’re outright trolling at this point, so we’re gonna leave it there.
Man, I REALLY hope you’re outright trolling. Mostly for your sake.