I'm with him 100% about getting rid of the taboo. I used to smoke pretty openly around my college campus and get either one of two things: (1) Dirty looks, or (2) High fives! =)

It's taboo in American culture, especially on family programs like The Family Feud. >> ^residue:

I guess I don't understand why her response was THAT funny... is the word "penis" so funny to that many people?

>> ^Gabe_b:

>> ^raverman:
I'm curious what tipping point in cultural development made this taboo?
I'm gonna guess the invention of agriculture and settled community / cities. Kinda hard to eat your neighbors children when you can't move away from them.

The adoption of herding/ animal husbandry I'd guess. Pre-European Maori and moder Papua New Guineans both ate/eat people. And NZ and PNG are both areas where there a few or no large land animals. Once you've got your chickens and goats running around it becomes safer to get your protein from those sources rather than risk war with the next tribe over.
As for eating brains, doesn't that lead to prion caused neurodegeneration? Like CJD or Kuru? Doesn't seem like it would be a sustainable act in a society over a long period of time.


Yeah, eating brains is double-plus bad. Good way to make your own tasty brainmeats melt out of your ears.

I admit, I do bash religion, but there is just too much hypocrisy, inconsistency, and lack of reason in it to leave it alone. In the world of science, harsh critique is beneficial. I evaluate my position all the time and I have changed my stance on issues as supporting evidence surfaces. There is where the difference lies. Religion is incapable of functioning in the presence of evidence and reason. It survives in a logic vacuum. It is incapable of simply stating, "we don't know what happens after we die because there is no evidence.". Instead the answer is, "an multi-thousand year old book tell me I go to a magical land, so it is true.". Sorry. Not good enough.

It may not be your personal task to convince me that god exists... tough apparently it is for the hordes of missionaries that fan out across the world, johovas witnesses that buzz around my front door, and the mormons in their white shirts and magical underwear that harass my wife at the house during the day. Add to that churches, and the signs plastered across towns spouting 'truth' without evidence. Apparently they have something to say and are trying to convince me their fairytale sky god is real. If all is in their great god's plan, then apparently the existence of atheists is a part of that plan too? I'd like to hear the logic behind that. Again, the mysterious ways argument doesn't cut it.

You certainly have a right to believe in whatever fashionable religion you happen to be born into through familial tradition. You'd be following islam if you were born in the middle east. You certainly have the right to believe in a magic sky god. Just as I have the right to state that I don't endorse superstitious fairy tales.

Interestingly many think it is taboo to speak up against religion. Well.. to them it is because doing so, as per christianity and islam, for example, is punishable by death. Oh wait. We ignore that part don't we... probably because it is not popular. I guess following god's word per the infallible book isn't all that obligatory, if it isn't convenient of the culturally acceptable norm for the times.

From where I stand, it is the responsibility of the religious to take the stories that they spread and prove their validity. They cannot prove it. Thus why should I confide in it? They are welcome to confide in it if they wish. Just as you are welcome to confide in finding a high paying job by calling 800-HOME-JOB. Sure I could tell you all about how wonderful god or that perfect job it is, but without a paycheck (evidence) in hand, it is just a fantasy/scam.

Yes, some religious individuals do good things. So do many atheists. The point I am making is.. you do not have to be religious to do good. I volunteer and I donate to charities. I get riled up when a religious person takes into assumption that if someone doesn't believe in a magic sky god. They are innately immoral. I would contest that morality has nothing to do with religion. Religion holds no monopoly on charity. It never has. Religion just likes to claim it does because god will not show up at your door and help you through that bout of cancer. This supposed all powerful universal creator is unfortunately sleeping at the wheel or too darn busy making flowers to show his face, noodly appendage, or whatever to help those of us that were supposedly created in his 'image'. Whatever that means.

About muslims vs christians. I don't give muslims a free ride. I don't give christians a free ride either. The only group I may be a bit lenient on are the buddhists. While the foundation of the belief is bunk as is all other religions, the core general philosophy is somewhat honorable. The purists that is. The ultimate in pacifism. We don't see buddhists blowing themselves up, nor do we see them crusading across the and telling everyone they are going to burn in hell if they don't worship a man nailed to a torture symbol.


>> ^quantumushroom:

It's not my task to convince you that God does or does not exist.
There are likely millions of people on this planet that would deny the existence of God even if God appeared before them.
But the militant atheist, who denies that ANY good has come from religion is, IMO, intellectually dishonest, ignorant of history, or both.
In this age, subversives have made it fashionable to bash the world's one billion Catholics while giving the world's 1.5 billion muslims a free pass.

>>

>> ^raverman:
I'm curious what tipping point in cultural development made this taboo?
I'm gonna guess the invention of agriculture and settled community / cities. Kinda hard to eat your neighbors children when you can't move away from them.


The adoption of herding/ animal husbandry I'd guess. Pre-European Maori and moder Papua New Guineans both ate/eat people. And NZ and PNG are both areas where there a few or no large land animals. Once you've got your chickens and goats running around it becomes safer to get your protein from those sources rather than risk war with the next tribe over.

As for eating brains, doesn't that lead to prion caused neurodegeneration? Like CJD or Kuru? Doesn't seem like it would be a sustainable act in a society over a long period of time.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's a cultural taboo, but I could see it coming back into fashion if there was a worldwide drought or food blight. I remember reading this SF book where a caste of human cattle developed over time- people treated them like livestock even though they were genetically the same as humans.


>> ^raverman:
I'm curious what tipping point in cultural development made this taboo?
I'm gonna guess the invention of agriculture and settled community / cities. Kinda hard to eat your neighbors children when you can't move away from them.

I'm curious what tipping point in cultural development made this taboo?

I'm gonna guess the invention of agriculture and settled community / cities. Kinda hard to eat your neighbors children when you can't move away from them.

@gorillaman I think you're not even hearing what I'm saying, much less trying to understand me.

I will remind you that way back in my second response, I said "I'm talking about one narrow, but obvious, aspect of what racism is" not that racism begins and ends with epithets. It's disingenuous of you to think this is the point I'm making.
>> ^gorillaman:

There exists a pretty obvious distinction between arbitrarily enforcing taboos, which is what you're doing, and asserting that communication requires common meaning, which is what I'm doing.

Wrong on both counts. I'm saying that people who are upset by racial epithets aren't the source of racism, and you're saying if those people would just shut up and stop complaining, we would be so much better off. You're wanting to introduce your own arbitrary taboo -- one on people being offended by being called hateful names.

I'm saying we should strive to be more polite, learn to empathize a bit more with people who're different from us, and treat everyone with at least a modicum of respect.

>> ^gorillaman:

We don't seem to working from the same definition of the word 'racist'. Seriously, it doesn't mean anyone who says things you don't like. We are literally not speaking the same language here.

I agree, and I think you probably should provide a dictionary definition of your version.

It seems like you feel it's impossible for racism to exist anywhere other than in the minds of people who're offended by racial epithets, and maybe outright racial supremacist groups.

>> ^gorillaman:
Do you imagine the real bigots are going to be redeemed if you can just stop them saying nigger in public?

Nope, that's never been my point. My point is that nigger is a hurtful, and racially charged term. It's very easy to offend people by using it. If you do inadvertently offend people, the appropriate behavior is to apologize for it. Dismissing the concerns of the racial group you just described with an epithet is essentially a racist act itself, because it doesn't treat them with the type of respect that equal human beings are due.

Get it yet?

Now, you say the fix for this is for the target of racial epithets to just "get over it", and just not get upset. Well, you know, maybe they get upset for a good reason.

Let's pretend for a moment someone raped my sister, but she didn't press charges on the guy. I have some friends over, and they make a joke about her rape, and she gets upset. I kick them out of my house, and call them a bunch of assholes.

By your logic, I'm doing something wrong. What I should have done is tell my sister to just get over it, because after all, we wouldn't want to chill my friends' ability to engage in free speech by making them aware of our disapproval.

PS: I don't actually have a sister.

You know you're being disingenuous.

This is a conversation about conversation and its most productive paths. There exists a pretty obvious distinction between arbitrarily enforcing taboos, which is what you're doing, and asserting that communication requires common meaning, which is what I'm doing. We don't seem to working from the same definition of the word 'racist'. Seriously, it doesn't mean anyone who says things you don't like. We are literally not speaking the same language here.

The point I tried to make to pb, what I want you both to understand, is that language and belief are distinct bodies. Do you imagine the real bigots are going to be redeemed if you can just stop them saying nigger in public? Do you think decent people turn into racists because of the things they say? Then WTF do you think you're accomplishing playing the invective police?

>> ^NetRunner:
Well, now who's telling who what words we can and can't use? Nigger (and apparently homo) don't phase you, but racist does?
Hurts when someone uses epithets to describe your own group, don't it?
Imagine how people with actual grievances must feel.

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner: "to try to make sure all men are still being created equally."
"Still?" Don't you mean 'for the first time since the start of civilization?'
"All men are created equal" means equality under the law, not that humans are even remotely equal in abilities and cognitive complexity.

Good points, but I was more making an allusion to the Declaration than actually meaning to invoke the original. All I meant was that our position will likely be one of trying to keep the income disparity between the different classes from turning the rich and poor into effectively different species.

Right now, genetics makes a difference, but the range of human ability is pretty narrow compared to what will be possible with genetic engineering.

>> ^chilaxe:
Re: reprogenetics:
It's essentially the same as the term 'genetic engineering,' which liberal circles talk about frequently, generally being highly opposed to human genetic engineering and anything else "unnatural."
I'm more than a little plugged into what liberal circles talk about, and fears of human genetic engineering really never comes up. If it does, it's usually in the context of bashing right-wing fundamentalists who want to ban stem cell research.

Genemod food comes up a lot, but most of that is driven by deep mistrust of corporations doing things to boost profit without concern for long term public health risks, coupled with the whole natural/organic/pure/clean food thing so many liberals are in to.

I suppose the other big topic is the idea of companies being able to patent genetic codes. Liberals don't like that, but it's usually focused on corporations overstepping their bounds (e.g. patenting the DNA of people without their consent) than some general desire to prevent corporations from being able to patent genetic intellectual property they legitimately develop.

>> ^chilaxe:
Re: "You may need to elaborate on the "liberals oppose genetics" comment -- we like research into genetics"
Liberalism in the 1970s-1990s used to argue IQ etc. had "no genetic basis --not that IQ means anything."

[snip]

However, it's still very common to see liberals claiming human behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology, or human intelligence research are meaningless or simply have too high a "yuck factor" to allow for open discussion. That's particularly true if you're dealing with the more interesting areas, which are taboo for liberals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html


I can't speak for all liberals on this one, but I don't see those kinds of subjects as being taboo. I guess what I do think is taboo is for someone to use studies like that to turn around and make the case that society should become less egalitarian because of it.

@NetRunner: "to try to make sure all men are still being created equally."

"Still?" Don't you mean 'for the first time since the start of civilization?'

"All men are created equal" means equality under the law, not that humans are even remotely equal in abilities and cognitive complexity.


Re: reprogenetics:
It's essentially the same as the term 'genetic engineering,' which liberal circles talk about frequently, generally being highly opposed to human genetic engineering and anything else "unnatural."


Re: "You may need to elaborate on the "liberals oppose genetics" comment -- we like research into genetics"

Liberalism in the 1970s-1990s used to argue IQ etc. had "no genetic basis --not that IQ means anything." Now the anti- human sciences marxist academics who led liberal thought, like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, are too old or have passed away, so the liberal position seems to have migrated from 0%-5% genetic basis to 50% genetic basis, which is the number I noticed liberal Malcolm Gladwell gave in Outliers. The most recent American Psychological Association consensus statement that I'm aware of gives the number at 75%, so Gladwell's still probably being a little hopeful, but 50% is accurate enough.

However, it's still very common to see liberals claiming human behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology, or human intelligence research are meaningless or simply have too high a "yuck factor" to allow for open discussion. That's particularly true if you're dealing with the more interesting areas, which are taboo for liberals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html

"Agnostic" is one term that I think is unfortunately pulled in many directions in attempts to apply it to different meanings. I agree that at its core it means "unknowing", specifically with regard to theistic / religious queries. But I think that a refinement of the definition that adds some beneficial structure is to suggest that one is not only "unknowing" or "unsure" about theism or religion, but that they would suggest that it is impossible to have such knowledge.

The lighter definition can spring from ignorance; we're all uncertain about many belief systems or religions of the past (or future) because we've never really been exposed to them and don't know what they are about. The stronger definition is when I think a person that would proclaim themselves to be "agnostic" actually begins to have some real meaning. And I tend to agree with the precepts of that stance -- my preference towards scientific and logical thought tells me that many of the proclamations of religion that I am exposed to are untestable, so the only 100% solid statement that I can make is that I am "uncertain" about whether they are true or false.

However, I also think that stance is a fairly unnecessary cop-out. Religion is not the only source of untestable hypotheses in our world. Many people would have us believe in the factual existence of dragons, fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, or Santa Claus. Yet when confronted with questions about any of those, people very rarely feel any compulsion to be "agnostic"; they simply say "no, that doesn't really exist", thereby rolling the dice and being confident in their (self-evaluated) 99.9999999%+ odds.

I wish that more religious concepts were subjected to scrutiny and not just given a free pass for being too taboo to question or criticize. That is why although I cannot scientifically or logically prove that no god or gods exist (and in fact believe that it is impossible to do so), I elect not to use the term "agnostic" to describe myself, but stick with "atheist". Most importantly, I lose no more sleep over the possibility that I am incorrect about the non-existence of any god or gods than I do over the possibility that I am wrong and somewhere out there, if I looked hard enough, I might just find a unicorn.

Thanks for posting this.

I don't think religion talk is taboo on the Sift. Recently there have been a spate of videos showing the ugly side of religion and what has followed has almost always been a string of "religion sucks" and "all religious people are idiots" or "all religious people are insane--they believe in fairy tales" sort of comments. I, for my part, have done my best to turn the tide of these comments when I come across them and get people to think beyond stereotypes and over-generalizations. As you have pointed out in this post, religion is such a multi-dimensional cultural and sociological phenomenon dismissing all religion on such grounds as mentioned above seems fairly ignorant to me.

In terms of what you wrote above, I think spiritual beliefs are not as based on "creativity" as you seem to believe. Many spiritual people compare their beliefs with their experiences and refine them in a way that is similar to the scientific process. The difference is that they work with subjective and unobservable data (i.e. their feelings) as opposed to objective observable data. If this process didn't occur, the world's major religions would have remained static over the course of their existence. Of course, there most certainly are people out there who close their eyes to anything that doesn't fit into their spiritual framework, but I don't think that describes most spiritual people--just fundamentalists and ideologues.

Um ... so, your opinion is that the people involved here consented? Are you of the opinion that any sex which occurs over the age of consent is consensual? Furthermore, are suggesting that all the victims are over the age of 12 (or 13, or 14)?

And, even further to the point, are you suggesting the only guideline for behaviour is the law? Even if it was legal to rape children, that would not excuse the priests from doing it and in no time or era has the catholic church condoned sexual activity outside of marriage, let alone between an adult and a child, let alone in the same sex (which seems to be the majority of the abuse for one reason or another). Your different places & values is BS; it has always been taboo in the church from day one (hence the admonition in AD60 mentioned in the video).

You're probably just trolling, but this sort of BS needs to be called out just the same.

>> ^thumpa28:

POP QUIZ ya dopes, what year was the age of consent introduced? What is it currently in Spain, Austria AND the Vatican? (you only have to choose between 12,13 and 14) Different places, different social values and believe it or not, different times.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

errr it seems reduced fractions are taboo in stats now a days. Shouldn't that be 2/5?


41/100!