Interesting. So a non-believer might not go to hell, so long as they don’t sin, but nor would they go to heaven. What, then?

Oh; I think I've miscommunicated. I'm sorry about that. I wasn't saying that they don't go to Heaven; I mean, – technically – one could believe that, if one wanted (there have been no dogmatic statements that that isn't what happens; in the middle ages, there was this theory than unbaptized infants went to a place called Limbo which was neither Heaven, nor Hell, nor Purgatory. It never really caught on as I think most people find something unsettling about a baby, of all things, not getting into Heaven. So one could believe that but most writing on the subject has assumed the non-believer can go to Heaven).

Of course, this whole thing necessitates that you believe in God and that God is Good (since that's the perspective Catholics are writing from) but, if we assume these things are true about our world, one could not believe in God while not realizing morality and the Good of the world stems from Him. This becomes a mortal sin when you realize that these things stem from God and then still choose not to believe and reject him. Because – if you truly understand He's the source, etc. – to still say, "I still won't follow Him," kind of requires that you…don't do the things that are Good either, right? So, when we say that non-belief is a sin, it's a little different than your average, say, Evangelical for whom the belief is the point, full-stop. Hopefully, I'm making more sense and not just being verbose…

Also, it raises the question of what counts as a sin. There are many things a Catholic would consider a sin that other people would not. Things like eating meat on Friday, use of contraceptives, or sex outside of marriage. Are these, if done by a non-Catholic, considered sins? And if not, is it not just…better not to be Catholic? Like, by converting people, is one not increasing the chance that they go to hell?

It's a fair question; I'm pretty certain it's a common fallacy (might not be the most accurate word…) that those who argue against religion – or Christianity, specifically – point to.

I think the issue is you're considering these things non-harmful; in Catholic theology, sin separates us from God (to say the common quote) which hurts us but, to phrase the same thing differently, – since He's the embodiment of morality – means we act immorally and hurt ourselves and others. So these things are things which are inherently hurtful and doing them would cause harm, regardless of belief or not. In theory, part of worshipping God is choosing the best thing for you and that's part of the point in converting people (again, we're not really the by-faith-alone people).

But I think you'd counter that these things aren't really harmful (or, if they are, it's certainly not evident outside of the Catholic Church telling you so). And that's where I reveal that…I'm not an entirely orthodox Catholic and it's not your logic that's being wonky.

Outside of the eating-meat-on-Fridays (as that's more of a practice of worship and I don't think that grievous to perform, if you're truly on board with the whole belief thing), I do find these positions…misguided. I don't know whether there's any way to reconcile them during the development of doctrine or they never will be. Maybe I'm the one who's wrong; obviously, people have fought over these topics for many years.

But, in short, I think the reason your premise makes sense is that it seems more like extra chores than anything else but I think it makes more sense if you bear in mind that most Catholic theologians believe these things truly are harmful not only to our souls but also our bodies (brains included in that; not trying to draw a distinction).

Mmm; that's fair. The husband had an XPS 13 (not sure if that old, though; it was the one where you could get the cover in Rose Gold) but they only use Windows so I can't say. I've mostly installed Linux (for myself) on Latitudes.

Oh, for sure; it is definitely impressive. I dunno if you already know (so, basically, I apologize if so!) but part of how Apple's able to pull that off is they manufacturer their own hardware and only install to it; so OS X's optimized to the hardware in a way Windows and Linux can't be (since they're designed to run on any hardware). I'm sure that's not all of it but it's part of it.

Ah; a woman of culture.

Incidentally, Christine Webber (who probably knows a bit about the subject) was going over how decentralized BlueSky really is or not (spoiler, it's not): https://social.coop/@cwebber/113527462572885698

Honestly, all of the examples in your link sort of has me feeling it; it's certainly not any less consistent.

That's…honestly a fair point; a good chunk of why I never bothered with TikTok is it has some of the worst UX I've ever experienced in my life.

I haven't figured out how to channel it into convincing others, yet (though I haven't done a lot of activism for, like, going on a decade now), but I have been having the thought, for the last 4 years, that focusing on tangible goals could really help us.

Just seeing the Republicans turn half a century of steadfast obsession into actually overturning Roe has me thinking we need material results fast.

Because, if the one constant for our side since the 60s has been anything, it's been a slow erosion at our ability to even effect change.

I feel like even the need for lockstep consensus to work together wouldn't be so direly needed if we had rank-choice voting and a dismantling of the two party system.

To use your union example, more unions mean a slow of concentration of wealth which means less influence for the wealthy upon our society including more stability so there's less desperation to vote for a Hail Mary solution like thinking Trump ever gave a single care about the price of eggs.

Just…really concentrating on tangible goals and carving out progress on them.

Of course, we'd need your aforementioned agreement, for that…

Another platform will pop up over the next week if TikTok is banned.

Or an existing social media will try to take its place; Meta and Google have sites which imitate TikTok's UI (at least, in part).

I don't think it's the only reason necessarily (and I'm inclined to agree your reasons are, at least, part of it) but I think the chance for U. S. companies to cannibalize TikTok's market demographics is, also, a happy little coincidence of the consequences.

THANK YOU; everyone (that I've anecdotally seen) thinks the second LotR is the low point while so much irritates me about the third, in comparison to the first two.

True but Lina Khan's been doing some great work in changing that agency's track record.

But do you think he had no strong feelings one way or the other? He certainly put forth the image of him wanting the best for everyone but his hands were pretty firmly in the controls of most of his worst policy decisions.

I'd argue Bush, Jr. is a better example of a centrist with no strong opinions on anything (and, thus, enabling those around him to do truly awful things).

For whatever reason, I always remembered that being in the second film and not the first; I haven't seen either since childhood, though, so they both just kind of blend together.