The video is called "Religious Cannibals."
The video makes fun of people who justify their own sins and lash out at the people criticizing them with arguments like, "What’s the difference between what we’re doing and gossip?" There have been a lot of arguments about it on Facebook over the last day.

Okay. The quality of the humor could use some improvement, but what’s the problem? What are the discussions about? I don’t see anything here worth discussing.

There aren’t really any substantive claims, but as a general marker, what’s wrong with these? (This needs development, but they’re all very much real discussion topics. Not that this video is a good enough springboard for such a discussion.)

1. Eating human flesh — the relationship between a formal religious prohibition and a solid moral prohibition.
2. The issue of erasing boundary lines because everyone slips up with the dust of gossip and some people evade taxes too (the religion-meter, etc.).
3. People who ignore criticism and attribute it only to the other person’s motives ("Why was he angry?" "Because there are people with narrow eyes and a closed heart")
4. The phenomenon of people doing every bad thing but still making sure to display split hooves and tithe the salt.
5. The issue of The Giving Tree (brainwashed people who in the end completely give themselves over to whoever brainwashed them)

The main thing is that they make sure to eat only kosher people 🙂

And in any case, "skinny theologians" don’t need to be afraid of them.

Best regards, Horns of an Ox

I could have raised more topics for discussion. But they asked my opinion about the video. If someone wants to discuss a particular question, they can open a thread about it.

And the most respectable discussion in which this video could definitely have a place of honor is about the role of satire. As a general line, I’d say pure satire deals with attributing cynical and self-interested motives to people (usually that’s also my default assumption toward people with a lot of power), highlights hypocrisy, and ridicules arguments ad absurdum. At least for me, it’s usually funny only if I identify to some degree with the criticism. It seems that here Anderdos were trying less to be funny and more to "spark a discussion at the Sabbath table." They did have one funny line: "If they keep this up, they won’t even have a quorum invitation after meals."
I haven’t seen enough satire in my life to try to characterize it thoughtfully, and I’m not even sure I’m capable enough of that kind of characterization, but if poetry got a place here (in a truly wonderful series of columns that didn’t only come out to teach about itself—though as an ardent poetry lover myself I’m not sure I identify with the characterization presented there, and I need to go back to that series and read it again; in any case, the methodology was enlightening), then it seems to me that satire deserves that too.

Once upon a time there was a cannibal woman who "ate a man," and he "ate her up."
And everyone who saw it either "got a shock," or "ate their heart out," or "got cold feet." And the connoisseurs "uploaded it online" and said "Like" 🙂

With the blessing "those who taste it merit life," Cayim Balau

And as Ephraim Kishon already said, the Land of Israel is "a land that eats its inhabitants, but doesn’t get fat from it" 🙂

A lot of people criticized it on the grounds that Anderdos are aiming here to mock religious LGBT people, who are vulnerable as it is. I saw quite a few posts from people saying they went too far with the comparison of LGBT people to murderers, or from religious LGBT people saying Anderdos crossed a red line.

Why is this mocking LGBT people specifically? Eating human flesh (halakhically permitted, "ethically" forbidden) is exactly the opposite of homosexuality (halakhically forbidden, "ethically" permitted).

Truly a wonderful video! They have good taste. Makes me want to eat them 🙂

Grace after meals, the rabbinic taster

The comparison between cannibals and LGBT people is that in both cases there is a moral problem even though no one is harmed (at any rate, if no one is killed for the purpose), and examine this carefully. (I know Rabbi Michael Abraham’s view is that there is no moral problem in such a case, but that’s the claim the video is trying to refute.)

In Haredi society, cannibalism is really accepted. You walk into a supermarket and hear people asking: "Do you have Rabbi Machpud’s shanks?" "Rabbi Landau’s liver" 🙂 and so on.

It seems Anderdos are mocking the Haredization of Religious Zionist society.

Best regards, Shim Shung Il,
Chef of the restaurant 'The Eaters of Eater-China'

Cannibalism has another priceless virtue: including the "other." There is no greater inclusion than eating, in which the "other" merges into the eater’s body, "and they shall become one flesh." 🙂

And as was expounded in Hasidic thought regarding the greatness of the Land of Israel, that it "eats its inhabitants"—they are swallowed up, merged, and unified with the holiness of the land.

Best regards, Dr. Cola, Forum "Kadima" [Religious Cannibals (with) Too Much Humor]

With God’s help, 13 Sivan 5780

The sketch mocks all the phenomena of "syncretism" that have taken root in Religious Zionist society. The phenomenon of religious homosexuals is one example of that same phenomenon, in which people claim that one can remove a central part of the Jewish religion and still demand to be recognized as "religious."

And so we also have religious people without family purity; religious people texting on the Sabbath; religious Bible critics; religious people who do not believe in providence; sincere converts without acceptance of the commandments; and the rest. If it is possible to remove from religion central commandments or principles of faith—then indeed, why should the share of the "eaters of the population" be diminished when it comes to being considered religious? 🙂 Judaism spreads its infinite wings over eve-ry-one.

A religious Jew can fail in various transgressions because his impulse overpowers him, but to make that into a "banner" and demand legitimacy? — "Thus far is the Sabbath boundary"…

Best regards, S.Tz.

Their example is incorrect. There is no halakhic prohibition against eating human flesh, except perhaps according to Maimonides’ view, who made a novel exposition that has no source in the Talmud or the midrashim, and others already disagreed with him. Even human blood is not considered blood. Therefore, technically there could be religious human-eaters.