That depends on which bible you mean....there are many.

Really? Lost to history?! Hardly....lost to the ignorant and uneducated maybe, but even atheists like me know full well Jesus the man was a Jew, and definitely not a European or "white". Roman/Italian artists knew this, but worked for a Roman church so portrayed him in their image.

Genetic purity?! Lol. I guess that means no one has EVER become Jewish, you're either born one by two pure Jewish parents or not. Hardly reality, and would reject nearly every person in Israel (or elsewhere). Just because there is a long standing religious/cultural taboo against marriage outside the culture, it still happens, as does conversion. Racial/genetic purity is a fallacy debunked by genetic testing.

Prophecy is a leap. No prophecy has been correctly interpreted until AFTER the events supposedly prophesied occurred. It's ridiculous to go back after the fact and claim "see, now that I know exactly how to interpret the unclear prophecy I couldn't decipher before, it's a 100% perfect prediction" but never be able to predict the future. That's the same nonsensical logic mediums use.

The second temple was also the third, since the true second temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable. Logically, the third temple was the one destroyed by Romans, the second replaced by Herod but the new one was still called the second temple anyway. (To avoid contradicting prophecy? ;-) )

If the dome of the rock, the second most holy place in Islam, is destroyed, expect Jerusalem to follow soon after, as that will definitely start a religious war between nuclear powers.

Herodotus is credited with using the term Palestinian first, in the 5th century BCE as an ethnonym, making no distinction between Arabs, Jews, or other cultures inhabiting of the area. Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term then came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.

I think you are confused about the history, here's a primer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

The area was populated by various people's including Jews until the Jewish–Roman wars of 66–136 CE, during which the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area (well, really they arguably left voluntarily because they refused to be second class citizens barred from practicing their religion freely) and replaced it with the Roman province of Syria Palaestina, the Arabs were already there, not invaders or immigrants. When Assyrians (Mesopotamians) invaded in circa 722 BCE, they ruled empirically, meaning only the Jewish ruling elite left, returning in 538 BCE under Cyrus the Great....so no, the Arabs didn't just settle after the Jews were dispersed.

It's patently ridiculous to say the Arab nations were unprovoked, Jewish illegal immigration led to a hostile takeover of the region by illegal immigrants with rapid expansion of their territories into their neighbors continuing through today. The Jews defeated the Arabs thanks to American backing and exponentially better hardware. It was only their right if might makes right, and the Arab nations are under no obligation to let them keep what they stole any more than the Jews were obligated to let the Arab nations retain control in the first place. If Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any combination can take it, by your logic they have every right to do so.

I do agree, in the end there will be more conflict until the area becomes uninhabitable....largely because every religion's prophecies end with them in control, and no one wants to admit it's all nonsensical iron age tribalism at work.

Pretty pathetic "expose"... a few racy jokes that fly over the kids' heads. Yawn.
It's pretty clear infowars WANTS drag to be viewed as taboo and fetish and so she keeps repeating that they ARE... but that's just not the case for the kind of Americans who would go to a drag con. For them, it's just fun to dress up and pretend.

As far as I know, tattoos are still very much taboo in Japan. They are very much associated with the yakuza. There's a growing trend for what's called "fashion tattoos", but nothing like this.

If you're a westerner and you go to Japan with a tattoo, you need to cover it up to use a public bath.

It's a shame because the yakuza style tattoos are really beautiful, even if they have an ugly history.

The trap is assuming a particular individual belonging to a group shares all characteristics of the average member of the group. Or that a particular individual acts how they do because they are a member... that's fuckin' bigoted and ugly.

That said, I don't see why we can't generalize about a GROUP. In general, black people have a much tougher experience of this country than white people. In general, people born twenty years after me have a much different cultural, social and material experience than I did. In general, people of 100 years ago were way more outwardly racist than people of today. Are these generalizations unfair? They don't match every single member of the group, so should we stop trying to recognize broad cultural forces at work over time on large populations of people? You certainly are free to argue that any of the particular generalizations he made are inaccurate or even too dangerous to be spread, I saw a few... but to say that the act of generalization IN GENERAL is taboo...?

Historians 100 years from now won't hesitate to lump our primitive asses all together...

If you don't know who Matthew Silver is:

"My role as a clown, trickster and village idiot is to parody excessive seriousness by playing with taboos, rules, and social norms. My inspiration comes from my heart. I perform for smiles and laughter, loosening people’s armor, and opening up a portal for imagination, creativity and love.

Some people see me as a raving lunatic, pompous “artistic” hipster, or attention-starved 9 year-old, but people don’t consciously understand the role of a clown in society. Read between the lines and you will start to see things from a different perspective. By breaking down boundaries, I provide you, the viewer, with permission to open your mind and realize it’s okay to act silly from time to time. We may trick ourselves into believing we know everything, constantly striving for perfection in a society that requires a civilized, job-holding, serious individual. We cannot be perfect. If we allow ourselves the chance to be flawed perhaps we can let the obstacles humble us, rather than make us rigid. In the end we can let our guards down to attain our most basic need of giving and receiving love."
http://www.maninwhitedress.com/?page_id=2

Ok, I'll play.

I have two boys, 19 months and three years old. I'm in my late thirties, wife in mid thirties. We waited until we were in a decent position financially before having kids. I saw my brother bring up my nephew who is now six so I knew what babies are like and toddlers are like before we had kids ourselves. I took a year and a half off to be a stay at home dad for our first child.

But there's this massive taboo in the UK, and I'm going to guess in America too. Having kids is good, and you're not allowed to say otherwise. I knew that there would be sleepless nights, that on occasion I'd be covered in vomit, or poo, or both. I knew that kids could be annoying.

But I didn't really understand what all that meant. To hear anyone talk about having kids it makes it seem like these things are just background noise for all the wonderful, giggly happy times.

No one told me how relentless it would be. While you can know that you'll be tired if you have a kid that wakes at night you don't really understand it until you haven't had a full night's sleep for three years. Not a single one.

Yes, somehow I should have fully understood everything before actually experiencing it. And of course I shouldn't say anything bad about it, it's all good.

But that's bullshit.

Having kids can be amazing, and getting to know my children's personalities as they've grown has been one of the most incredible experiences of my life. If I had my time again I would do it again.

But seeing some sanctimonious arse bitching about other people's experiences, which could be very different to their own, just makes my skin crawl. You're saying that because you made a decision you're not ever allowed to moan about it? Even if your whole life leading up to it was full of misleading misinformation? Even if the experience you chose turned out to not be typical through no fault of your own?

Pretty much any path a person takes in life can be framed as a result of a decision somewhere along the line. It's like saying that no one can complain about anything, anytime.

Despite what you say having kids is different to what just about anyone expects. If it wasn't for you then well done, you're in the tiny minority. You probably deserve some kind of prize for being so amazing. Here, I've got a little cup around here somewhere. Wait, I'll find it. Here it is. It's engraved. It reads 'Fuck you, you sanctimonious prick'.

Life is full of ups and downs. For me having kids has made the highs higher and the lows lower. I've never felt as amazing as I have when my kids do something brilliant. But I've never felt as down as I did about three months into my second child who was very colicky and just cried almost constantly and at night slept for an hour or so then was awake and screaming for an hour then slept and so on. For three months solid.

No one told me about that. No one made it clear that this was to be expected. My first was a reasonable, average baby. He had his moments but we thought we really understood what we were getting into.

But there's the rub. All kids are different. Even two boys, close in age to the same parents are like chalk ad cheese. To think you understand someone else's situation enough to bitch about them like you have is just stupid. So your child is good and you've enjoyed being a dad? Good for you. You were lucky. Others aren't so lucky and arses like you bitching about them doesn't help. Stop patting yourself on the back and realise that a large part of you having a good experience is nothing more than luck.

So, there you go. I'm sure I fit into your bad parent category. But at least I don't belittle the experiences of others and don't assume that I fully understand their experience.

Yes, some parents can be annoying, but the vast majority who are moaning are genuinely stressed and down. A little empathy can go a long way. Or you could just be an arse hole and bitch about them.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

Well, I must admit you have a point. I don't think that way, growing up around animals that were food, and doing the work ourselves, not hiding from it, but most people don't have that experience.
My opinion is that ending the intolerable suffering some animals are subjected to is more important than ending meat eating, so I suggest trying to convince people to use smaller, family farmed meats that are more likely to have proper, 'humane' treatment and death....but not by shaming them with images of abused animals or blaming them for eating the wrong thing. That only gets people defensive. Simply explaining how the better treatment creates a MUCH better, tastier, 'cleaner' (of hormones and anti-biotics) meat that's worth the extra effort, and extra cost, should work better. Appeal to people's unwavering belief that they deserve better, and steer them in a direction that also works for your goal.
I don't think you'll ever convince a high percentage of meat eaters to go vegetarian, much less vegan, and I think that guilt and shame make people want to fight about the issue rather than do anything. But that just, like, my opinion, man. ;-)

All this said, I've realized that I'm fighting against my own interests, because if most people went vegan, meat would be much cheaper and better quality (it would have to be to sell). Oh well, not the first time. ;-)


EDIT: I've just realized something else. You should never use the 'we don't kill people like that' argument, because we absolutely do kill people when it suits our purposes, like prisoner executions and wars, and also including for food (in a way) in places and times where societal pressures hadn't made eating people 'taboo'.

Saying that "Taxation is the price we pay for a decent civilization" is the same as saying that "Human sacrifice is the price we pay for having a sun."

Such "primitive" ideology (with its absurd beliefs, fetishes, taboos, and weirdnesses) is reflected by a belief in strange elites as being either godlike ("Bernie!") or demonic ("Koch!"), along with a total ignorance about the functioning of the (alien) banking system and the military empire that it feeds.

Oh, Im sorry for calling out his bullshit. PC is much more important than the truth, right? No. PC creates taboos, and taboos have no place in a real democracy by definition.
And thats not opinions, that actually facts. There are even psychological studies about this. But the biggest bully of the world of course wont accept those facts and call them opinions, not only because he doesnt know anything else and would never admit he caused all this crap, but also because people like those would lose their power instantly. Funny how the first concern was about blame, he was afraid of being exposed, like they all are. And here I am putting out blame to the ignorant people who dont want to accept reality and being attacked because of it. Also something learned from history. We had to fight a world war to make people realize what a piece of shit they voted. Again, nothing learned from history. "But I didnt vote for them" instead.

These people are mentally ill, always have been for thousands of years. And they rule THE superpower nowadays. Normally history would have taught us about people like those very well, yet they are still being elected into power, if that history would be taught in schools. Well, it is, but there is no connection being made. "People today are completely different. We are hard working, honest, freedom loving democratic people who love all that lives, no comparison from the Romans or medieval times!!111eleven". BULLSHIT. Humanity hasnt changed a bit. And everyone knows that who knows just a bit of actual history. FACTS.

And now ridicule me for semi-ticking out with things you dont understand, and thus they must be stupid.

Yeah, never understood this taboo. Most people got the idea from somewhere that it's bad manners. 'Course, I think we should all be talking politics and religion at the workplace as well...

We need to get over society's ridiculous killing taboo.

I thought DMT lasted much longer. I thought I had experienced it before. From his description it sounds exactly like Salvia.

Also, I agree with everything @newtboy says. Most of these videos have their little "educational use only" disclaimer at the beginning, but this guy actually sounds like he is advocating use (and irresponsible use in many of these cases), despite saying exactly the opposite.

Clearly he's not met many people who have had negative experiences; there are many.

Also, I can name many people, alive today, who have absolutely killed it in terms of contemporary success in the modern world, to speak to newts point about evidence of positive, individual evolution. If that's one way you measure success, I personally know multiple people who have made, literally, millions (billions in one case) and were significantly inspired by experiences like these in their lives. Two problems: It's an illegal substance, and it would be taboo to tie public figures names with it. Secondly, there are too many factors to attribute personal success to one event or influence, but there are also very few things in the world that can provide an experience so profound that it does impact your entire life long world view.

Wow, powerful video. I think this is why certain psychedelics, can (can) help people with addictions or even people with simple obsessions (porno, video games, etc). They have the potential to temporarily exit the cage for self reflection or experience outside of it. Some of the more powerful ones (iboga, ayahuasca) really physiologically reset the afflicted receptor sites - and much much more.

I agree whole-heartily that the way that the US handles drug addiction, mental illness & criminality are completely out of whack. Implying that the direct parallels between those subjects are ignorance (or taboo), incarceration & the lack of clear, precise scientifically proven reformation.

@SDGundamX

We can criticise religion generally - for it's falsehood, for it's stultifying effect on the mind, for the shadow the faithful cast over an enlightened world.

We can criticise religions individually - for the divine exhortations to genocide in each of the abrahamic canons, for the promise of infinite torture by a benevolent god in both christianity and islam, for their arbitrary or bigoted taboos, and particularly of the newer creeds - islam, mormonism, scientology - for what we know to be the bad character of their founders.

And, as you say, we can criticise the behaviours of individual believers, communities or sects - catholicism on condoms and the spread of aids, genital mutilation in africa (which you're quite right to point out has cultural roots that pre-date islam, though it would be disingenuous to claim religion has no reinforcing or propagating effect on that practice).

I wholly disagree that this last is the only or most meaningful critique to offer of religion. There are fundamental tenets of these ideologies on which all their denominations, however fractured, can be said to agree.

Allow these people their diversity, their specificity and their subtle variation of interpretation and you're in danger of chasing a thousand little fish at once, in a thousand different directions, while the religious school as a whole shifts, shimmers, dazzles and slips away. I prefer to play the dolphin pack: surrounding, corralling, squeezing and finally devouring the enemy entire.