promethea.incorporated

@ non-italian followers

ilzolende:

dagny-hashtaggart:

eversolewd:

yxoque:

pirozhok-s-kapustoj:

myshipsailson:

pirozhok-s-kapustoj:

pix3lsqu1d:

do you have a “religion” class in your school system

germany:
youp, though it becomes nonmandatory at some point pretty early on (i wouldn’t know when because i went to a catholic school with religion classes all the way) and you can elect sth like “ethics” or “philosophy” instead.

In Bavaria it’s mandatory until you graduate. There’s an “ethics” class if you’re not catholic or protestant and some schools offer an islam class as well.

Well, it is the same here, it is also ethics/philosophy or catholic/protestant/sometimes muslim religious classes, you have to go to one of these.

Yes. Belgium has this. Technically not mandatory, but I went to a Catholic school that offered no other options.

Nope to American public schools. Not even as an elective for my (poor, small, and rural) school.

Public schools (usually the wealthier ones) will occasionally have religious studies/history of religion classes, but the law frowns pretty seriously on anything that appears to be favoring or attacking any particular religion. In private schools it’s pretty much anything goes as long as they meet certain basic educational standards.

I had one in Denmark. It was mostly Protestant, IIRC? I was in the 6th whatever and it seemed mandatory.

Finland, yes, it’s either religion or ethics and members of the Church aren’t allowed to take ethics instead of religion even though it’s way more Actually Useful.

In addition, iirc they’re going to make it so that in high school the only class of a certain category that must be offered to people is religion; everything else is optional. Yes, screw things like history, psychology, economics and government, etc. because ~religion~ is the one that’s vital to know!

(via ilzolende)

9 hours ago · tagged #bitching about the country of birth #finland is swastika country · 30 notes · source: pix3lsqu1d · .permalink

wirehead-wannabe:

kai-skai:

wirehead-wannabe:

thathopeyetlives:

multiheaded1793:

enjoralls:

i was talking to my american friend today and something occurred to me 

out of sociolinguistic interest, 1) where are you from? and 2) if someone from the same country as you started talking about ‘the war’ (without any context as to which), which war would you assume they meant?

Russia/WW2 (which is true for everyone here, and it is mostly called simply “the war”)

America/WW2 usually. 

Except that with very low amounts of context it can either be the ~Global War On Terror~ or WWI. 

America.

I would usually assume “The War On Terror” or something, although that’s rather vague. Could be Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, or even possibly Syria are all in a giant clusterfuck I collectively think of as “The War,” even though levels of US involvement vary wildly.

Austria/WW2, although it would be kind of weird if it was someone my age. (Older people frequently talk about “the war” and mean WW2, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone my age do that - they usually say which war they mean.)

I mean yeah, I would normally guess either WWII or Vietnam depending on the person’s age, but OP specified no context.

Finland, WW2, or as they call it around here, “that time when we didn’t get our asses completely kicked by the russians” and “that time we totally weren’t allied with the germans despite fighting side by side and getting all our stuff from them and planning our entire glorious future on their victory”.

2 months ago · tagged #finland is swastika country · 20,280 notes · source: enjoralls · .permalink

Anonymous asked: Do you support Israel?

ilzolende:

nuclearspaceheater:

wirehead-wannabe:

That question could be interpreted in a lot of different ways, anon. I assume this means something like “do you identify with Team Isreal in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?” Last time I looked into the issue with any degree of effort I can to the conclusion that both sides had fucked up a lot, and that determining who has the more legitimate claim to a piece of land is often a hopeless quagmire.

If it’s something like “do you support the continued existence of Israel,” then yeah, I’d rather not force people to live through a change in regime.

If you mean “should the Jewish population get to have its own ethnic state,” I lean toward yes. “But then shouldn’t Europeans and Christians get that too?” I don’t think so.

I’ve been thinking recently about how atomic communitarianism works for majority and minority populations. Consider gay bars. Nearly everyone who doesn’t just oppose homosexual behavior outright seems to think they have at least some useful function. Whether or not they should get to exclude cishets is more controversial, but most progressives lean toward yes. Opponents will obviously point out that allowing this but not allowing cishet-only bars seems unfair. Supporters reply that “the whole world is a safe space for cishets!” This last reply is true for two reasons that I think we don’t distinguish between often enough.

Firstly, our society is still rather homophobic, even if this varies in degree, so gay and trans people have an interest in being protected from that sort of thing that cishets don’t. Secondly, unless there’s some very surprising and scientifically interesting demographic shift, gay and trans people will always be in a minority, and will never make the whole world a queer-only space in the way that cishets often can even without trying. This also happens to be true of Jews, since Judaism is by and large a non-evangelistic religion.

Thinking about this some more, I think I’d be okay with letting majority groups have their own dedicated spaces as long as there a limit to how much total space they take up. I am, for example, perfectly okay with the existence of Vatican City, and I wouldn’t have a problem with them declaring themselves to be a Catholics only zone. The problem is when exclusive spaces get big enough that you can’t avoid them or they take up all of a given category. So straights-only bars would be okay with me as long as they only made up a small minority of the bars that were out there, and as long as they didn’t end up being used for business meetings to keep out gay people or whatever. This is obviously a much harder standard to reach in a small town than in a big city. I’d be much more comfortable having bakery #3757 in New York City refusing to cater for gay weddings than Joe’s Baked Goods which serves the entirety of Podunk.

I think this works as a meta-level rule, but I’m not sure how confident I can be endorsing it yet. I’d love to hear critique on it.

An interpretation of that rule could be, “you’re only allowed to defend yourself after you’re already losing.”

“New defensive measures with costs are only justified if existing ones don’t seem to work, and current ones with costs may be unjustified if they’re redundant” seems reasonable?

Like, right now there is a problem with anti-Semitism in some regions of Europe. Historically, there have been other problems with anti-Semitism in some regions of Europe. I would suggest that there are some responses that would be justified in the late 1930s that are not justified today.

Also, if Denmark wants to let in everyone who formally converts to Evangelical Lutheranism (specifically, whichever kind Den Danske Folkekirke practices) and signs some agreement to pay the church tax [1] and maybe even show up a certain amount, that would probably not be that bad? (It, uh, also wouldn’t be very good for nationalism whatnot, though, because I’m pretty sure lots of existing Christians in countries that are worse than Denmark would be happy to convert to a slightly different sect if that meant they could live in Denmark. This is the natural consequence of having Christianity be the majority religion.)

And I’d be essentially fine with being banned from entering Vatican City, but I doubt sedevacantist groups would be.

Also, if you want to defend cisgender heterosexuality, isn’t there kind of an issue with plastics going on? IDK, it’s not my priority, but I thought there was. And if you’re looking to defend the institution of marriage, again, I doubt straight-only bars will help as much as other measures. You might want to do a comparison study on the effects of legalizing covenant marriage, although there’s an obvious confounder in that states with the sort of people who want to legalize covenant marriage are the ones in which it is legal.

[1] What do Denmark and the historic Ottoman Empire have in common? Christians have to pay a special tax in both regions, although I’m sure Denmark would say this isn’t about pressuring people to deconvert.

First rule of the plastics thing club is you don’t speak of the plastics thing to people who might be interested in stopping it. Dumping finasteride into the water supply is only suitable as a backup plan.

Also, Finland also has a special tax for christians. Not supposed to make them deconvert, but revealed preferences and all (but we could use a lot of deconversion because the state still gives a shit about what the church says and that’s not okay). Another thing it has in common with the Ottoman Empire is that one can construct an argument for either them being the legal heir of the Roman Empire (along with at least Russia and possibly kind of Austria as well but that one is stretching it).

3 months ago · tagged #support your local supervillain #nordic country hatedom ingroup #finland is swastika country · 43 notes · source: wirehead-wannabe · .permalink

Today’s hottest news in Finland: White man burns down centuries-old church to protest “influx of barbarian hordes coming to destroy our priceless cultural traditions”

3 months ago · tagged #finland is swastika country #this goddamn continent #motive not proven but really really likely · 6 notes · .permalink

gdanskcityofficial:

ozymandias271:

@socialjusticemunchkin has informed me that Finland manages to be a settler colonialist state without settling anywhere or colonizing anyone

which I feel is the triumph of Finnish introversion

figuring out how to oppress people without having to put on real pants or talk to strangers

grubhub for racism

according to Wikipedia finnish national identity was constructed along with all the other big euro ones in like the 19th century - can it be considered colonizing / settling places occupied by previously-existing groups e.g. sami

Yes it can, because it’s doing colonialist oppression to them. If it quacks like a duck, and tries to forcibly assimilate indigenous people after stealing their land like a duck, we don’t really care whether it was born a duck or just inherited its duckness from the monarchies that started that oppression.

3 months ago · tagged #bitching about the country of birth #finland is swastika country · 46 notes · source: ozymandias271 · .permalink