@airthrowDBT are we can all be more professional and talk with our inside voice....sorry not sorry. When Charlie kirk or this lady yells at someone it's okay but if a liberal like hasan does it all of a sudden there is an issue. I can show you debates where people on the right tone police the left lol how about we all just talk with a manner that is respectful. It's not hard but apparently it is.
@@LayarionI could be wrong...but I'm usually not... a straw man arugment is when you take someone else's words in a debate and miss use/repersent them or miss quote them.
@airthrowDBT lol you wrote all that but your missing my point. You can yell and be right. Where did I say you can't yell and not be right? And yes yelling is a change of tone. The issue is being respectful. If you want people to listen and respect you guess what you should probably be what....respectful lol its common sense.
I wish this was less true but growing up in a house that was majority women taught me otherwise. It hardly even mattered how "nice and compassionate" I attempted to make it. If any one of them was in a bad mood it was met with "No! I don't need to do that", "I just can't deal with it right now", or "I didn't mean to do that (for the 1000th time)."
The girl in the red shirt is falsely conflating compassion with being nice. Sometimes the most compassionate thing you can do for someone is to not be nice and tell them the truth they do not want to hear.
This is why in the past, people were shunned by the rest of the community for certain behaviors. No, it was not "hate." The shunners don't enjoy it either. They realized it was necessary because if the behavior spread, you would get the insanity we have today.
Rachel absolutely roasted these feminists. They should be embarrassed and go hide in shame from this video. This clip should follow them and cause them embarrassment for a very long time.
@@chickentwisties2298Why are whatever podcast girls on the opposite side of the table so dumb and immature especially OF girls? They get especially mad and triggered when another women does not agree with them; just like the debate where the woman destiny (Steven Bonnell 3rd) kept being rude to Lila Rose when she criticised Porn and commended pre-marital abstinence . 😂
It goes both ways. Men shouldn't be shamed for being men. Women shouldn't be shamed for being women. Women are more emotional, so they naturally are upset if somebody speaks to them with a negative tone. ☕😐
@@MrSuperPsymonYeah but there has to be a balance. Women are so afraid to hurt someone’s feelings they’ll cheer their friend on as they do something that will hurt them - cheering on an obese woman rather than saying “I’m worried about you”
@@MrSuperPsymon Right and that means we should allow women to be unhinged lunatics because they feel bad. I think no one should be shamed into compensating for the women and instead be encouraged to speak the truth as loudly as need be as direct as possible. And we arrive at the exact same situation Rachel put forth, that is truth should not be tone policed and if you can't put your feelings aside and listen to it you are not ready to receive it, which is no one's problem but your own.
Always. Projection is part of female nature. It can be annoying when you first notice it, but once you realize that they tell on themselves, its revealing.
When your ideology is BASED upon loyalty along demographic lines….. when someone who shares a demographic box with you but disagrees on a key ideology facet, it is simply easier to disqualify their shared demographic than engage in an argument of substance. Thus if a woman disagrees on a subject like abortion, she is not a true woman, if a black person disagrees on a race related subject like affirmative action , they are not truly black, a true hispanic cannot be in favor of regulating immigration, a true muslim cannot defend Israel’s right to exist, and a transgender or gay person cannot be on the “wrong” side of gender specific athletics or drag queen story time , or nambla
@@MrSheckstr *"...when someone who shares a demographic box with you but disagrees on a key ideology facet, it is simply easier to disqualify their shared demographic..."* Is that something like, "If you don't vote for me, you ain't blaque!"?
They are both annoying ... because they are AMERICAN CHRISTIANS who still live in medieval times. "Taking the bible literally" is BAD, because it is a book that was written 1600 years ago and TIMES HAVE CHANGED!
She is wrong about one thing. Men do tone police. If you come at a dude the wrong way, they will check you pretty quickly. We just don't play the victim. We become the aggressor. Normally it's in the form of, "Who do you think you're talking to like that?" or "You better watch your tone when you're talking to me." That's not a beta male thing. I can see how she would make that mistake because most men who require people to speak to them respectfully understand that speaking to someone disrespectfully is not acceptable, so they don't do it.
@@travisspaulding2222correct, and I think the point is that women don’t really offer the same consideration to each other and if they did perhaps delivery during adult discourse would be very different. Instead of talking over each other and deviating from the actual issue and when it’s obvious that they’re not getting what they want from the conversation (I’m right you’re wrong) it turns into you’re being a C-U- Next-Tuesday. I looked up the definition of Compassion because the dark haired chick brought it up- here’s what was said: compassion implies pity coupled with an urgent desire to aid or to spare. Nothing about tone of voice. Lol 😂 because sometimes when you’re trying to spare someone from a bad outcome you literally have to shake them. I’m not arguing or debating with you to be clear I’m just sharing as stuff comes up in the moment after having listened to the train wreck panel of women.
@@Supportfreespeech Yeah, I agree. I think another angle of it is men are more direct. If a man has an issue, most of the time, he will address right there. So the outcome will either be an amicable resolution, an argument, or a fight. Either way, when men speak, they know that the consequence for their words will be seen immediately. With women, typically speaking, they will go after a woman's reputation rather than addressing it directly. Of course, there are always exceptions to these rules.
@@travisspaulding2222 Being a woman, I like the direct approach which becomes more prevalent as we get older we care less about peer pressures. That can be interpreted as being abrasive or arrogant when really being direct is a sign of confidence. As opposed to beating around the bush which denotes being coy, underhanded or undecided. Thank you for your time. I think it’s time we had a podcast of men and women who can talk to each other and show the world we can reach common ground. Instead of (repeat rinse) showing how people do not know how to get along.
The woman saying she believes Rachel is controlled or brainwashed by her husband, his mouth piece. All while simultaneously spiraling into trying to manipulate Rachel with a false sisterhood and use of religion like a makeshift cultist is insanely ironic. The worst part is there is no chance she'll ever see it.
@SicsemperevelloMortemtyr-by9hj The collective noun for those people will be censored, but it rhymes with, "shoes" and 6 million of them definitely did *not* die in the 1940s.
It always baffles me when the people that do not step foot into a church, read the Bible, or even practice Christianity in their life STILL have the nerve to question other people on their Christianity.
@@jayssongreenfield it always baffles me how atheists can’t stop talking about a person they don’t think exists, if you don’t think he’s real than just shut the f up, nobody cares about your opinion
@@SeorkMaxx It's very simple: you're a disciple of the Gnostic religion imposed onto education by Freemasonry. They've just replaced the Christian worldview with their Aristotelian crap and imposed as a convention that somehow miracles aren't possible and that they don't come from God and that the entire universe is entirely governed by tangible laws of physics. It's a religious creed. And a wrong one that doesn't match reality. Ask any Christian theologian and they'll explain to you that we're living in End Times noted for their absence of tangible and occasional miracles. You, however, believe in a refurbished Buddist fairy tale in which the universe has no author and human beings are dust and it's all repetition on some unimaginable cosmic scale with a magical spirit by the name of Evolution going around creating species at random - but just so happens to not make a single new one since the beginning of written history.
@@dennisreelie1720no she isn't really look at this clip. She dismissed the evidence that single fathers are better parents or that fathers She has a female bias. And the feminism is still in her And she is completely utterly wrong about James bond that heracy. And historically ignorant of what was before bond . That men were into or other movies..and television, books stories. Back to Greek mythology. And calling people that disagree incels ( and it being a married man of 20 years ) as well as her interjections and trying to be funny. Obviously she is way ahead of the others Byt she is a load mouth former feminist attention seeking woman. Anyone that says incel is automatically in the wrong. If the topic is no incels . Women are always very brave at a distance. She has an agenda and it's not the same as Rachel who is based
How is she sensible when she does nothing but shout? And let's face it, a gentle, sweet woman doesn't yell, doesn't talk back in this way. To believe that she is like this ONLY with women and then suddenly loses it with her husband... that's a huge load of BS. If a person is argumentative, he/she is argumentative everywhere.
@@MoneyIsSilverI hate these kind of over generalizations. Some women prefer truth and plenty of narcissistic men like comfortable lies. The real deciding factor seems to be how serious and knowledgable men or women are in the true Christian faith. Both Adam and Eve fell from grace. Fr. George Calciu, Romanian Orthodox Priest who spent a total of 28 years in Communist prison for his faith said that the Christian women imprisoned also being tortured for their faith generally were stronger and had more stamina and courage in their suffering than the men.
@@Flmom15They're not the only ones though. The last 3 generations of women dating back to the 1970s have all been brainwashed. That's why the newest version of feminism is called the "Third Wave".
@@Flmom15they are not the only ones though. They are just the latest generation to be infected with the feminist contagion. Four generations of women have gone through this toxic form of forced social engineering, hence the term "fourth wave feminism" being the most recent.
To a point the delivery does matter for Christians. "Speak the truth, in love." So we sometimes say harsh things, and we don't compromise the truth, but we do it in love. We speak truth for the other's good, but that also includes being hard when needed.
That's the problem though. The secular world has this false belief that if you are harsh while delivering the truth that it doesn't mean love. People don't understand discipline anymore
Not only that, she's doesn't even know that Exodus 34 is a chapter and she neve gives what verse she's talking about. No one would ever quote scripture and only list the chapter, and not verse. She's acting like she knows the Bible but it's clear she got this from a meme.
What bothers me about Rachel and Andrew’s stance is that they seem to leave no room for kindness. Often when they encounter illogical disagreement or interruption, they get loud, rude, and become highly interruptive themselves. They pretend only the “weak” women do it, but they’re behaving badly, too. A good person is slow to anger, is measured in their thoughts and words, and is patient. A Christ-like person speaks with love and turns the other cheek. Rachel and Andrew are immature, plain and simple. I agree with a lot of what they say, and the tone policing from the other side is akin to condemning people for not using their preferred pronouns, so yes, tone policing Rachel and Andrew is ridiculously stupid and immature, but that doesn’t make it mature for Rachel and Andrew to respond however they feel. They are making excuses to not live up to Christ’s example. Moreover, it’s less-effective psychologically to argue rudely and loudly than it is to speak calmly and confidently. If you fly off the handle, you create the impression that your argument is emotionally-based, not logically-based. You create the impression that you don’t respect the person(s) you are speaking to, and potentially including the audience, whilst instilling the idea that you are likely to insult and belittle those who are attempting to converse with you. It’s unprofessional, unproductive, and (from a Christian perspective) does not invite the Spirit to dwell in your heart. A good christian would seek the guidance of the Spirit in their thoughts and words, and that requires reverence… not always, necessarily, but an effort should be made to invite the Spirit. Christ threw the moneychangers’ tables out of the temple, sure, but I don’t recall a single example of him specifically getting angry at any other point. He spoke with love. Imagine if Christ shouted at the top of his lungs, “Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone!!” … Less effective, right? It doesn’t feel the same. Christ didn’t need to shout because his point was made from a very quiet place, and it was the obviousness of his answer and the calmness of his demeanor that strengthened his argument. If he had shouted it would have come across as condemnation and possibly angered the people. He understood this and chose the most effective option. I understand Andrew and Rachel’s approach. I think it’s necessary to state things bluntly sometimes, but interruption, loudness, rudeness, funny and insulting quips, and anger are tools that should be used when needed, not whenever you feel like it, because kindness, stoicism, and patience are also useful tools that do not work effectively at all times. Pick the right tool for the job.
@@talkshitko9234 Jordan Peterson and others like him are insanely popular because people crave morality and common sense. Being polite (but not tolerant) can work very well. It is possible to have an interesting debate without shouting.
@@talkshitko9234 And…? So the point you’re making is that because humans aren’t perfect, they shouldn’t try to be stoic and controlled and should just fly off the handle because you find it entertaining?
The fact they all talk over each other constantly proves Rachel's point. Sadly the average woman doesn't really listen until they feel safe enough to do so.
Actually, they are more likely to lie, scheme, manipulate, coerce, or threaten when they feel safe. A women who feels threatened will pick a man over a bear faster than she can pick a Chad over a um... imp?
Kidness is not talking soft, the best kindness lessons I have received in my life have come in very rough external packages. The kindness resides in how they made me grow as a person.
That redshirt chick used Exodus 34 as proof that God is only compassionate, here let me post it for you guys and you tell me if God is only about being nice and kind and polite. Exodus 34:6 - 7 *And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”*
That's only one translation. The KJV doesn't use "compassionate." It uses "merciful." The passage is about forgiving those who repent, and punishing those who do not. It is NOT about compassion or love. After all, God chastens [punishes] those He loves. His love is not in question. It's whether He'll put up with people's awfulness.
that is exactly why the bible is a crock of shit it is full of contradictions and yet God created evil and also created man to be sinners then blames them for doing so, then left no tangible evidence of is existence, also had to committed mass murder with a flood for his own creation, it is akin to putting a loaded gun on the table then telling your child not touch it then blaming the child for picking it up and shooting mom. they are all delusional and the world his paying for this now. men through thousands of years created civilization tamed there barbaris nature and cherished women with all their heart, unfortunately they were put on a pedestal so high they forgot how a partnership works and have abandoned what was good a loving relationship between to people with a common cause to raise and nurture a family, they did this because women what it all cherry pick with no responsibility for bad choices. this generation will reap what it has sown.
@@theevermind going with your or the first one here... nither one has anything to do with the "compassion" red shirt was trying to slap Rachel with to try and make her bend the knee
THIS IS THE REASON WHY WOMEN ARE NOT TO TEACH OR LEAD MEN in Scripture... THERE womenize FILTER (EMOTIONS) screws EVERYTHING UP SO THINGS ARE wrong OR A lie.
She was dead on when she talked about her filtering that text in Exodus through her feelings and false idea of compassion. There's absolutely no reason to think that compassion means soft tones or niceness in speech. It has to do with action.
I am a retired man. When I was working, and I would say even today, I have a lot on my plate. It is enough that I take care of, or worry about, myself. There are 2 things I cannot and will not do. I cannot be responsible for how you feel, and I cannot be responsible for your choices. If I or someone else says something that hurts your feeling, that is up to you to deal with. It is not my problem. If you get offended, that is on you because that is your choice. A person chooses to be offended. Why anyone would give all of the people that they come into contact with, in person, walking down the street, on social media, on TV, in the government, whatever, this power over them to be able to make them feel this way. Your life is always going to be bad because you have too many people that you have given the power to influence how and what you feel.
That’s the deceit of the tone police. They are lying when they say “I agree with what you said, but…” They didn’t agree with what you said. They are using tone as an excuse not to argue against your point, because they don’t have an argument to make.
This is likely the case, but she still comes off looking bad and convincing no one with her aggressive tone and foul language. She comes off as overcompensating to me. Unfortunate…
“You’re a Pentecostal heretic. What do I care what you think.” That was an amazing mic drop 😂😂😂. Prots think they can say they repesent Christianity was the first step in this delusional world we live in.
Hyperbole. After God says to “leave nothing alive when you take the land,” a few verses later he says not to intermarry the women there. If they were already going to be completely annihilated, why would he feel the need to specify that? Christians who read their Bible and do their homework know the context that so many non-believers seem to ignore. To give a modern example, if two teams are playing a sporting match against each other and one team is “annihilated” the meaning isn’t their team is wiped out. It means they lost badly in the game. Hyperbole. Of course, there are instances where God demands justice and punished evil nations like the Canaanites (who literally sacrificed their own children to ancient Canaanite gods), but justice isn’t about “niceness” it’s about retribution and harmony.
That's why he created the rainbow. It's to mock us, and say that the next time he wipes us out, he's not going to be as kind and gentle as nicely drowning us.
"I need you to prove you're not a mouthpiece, before I'll listen to you" That's called a Strawman Fallacy, a common issue in debate. Basically, attacking someone's character to avoid facing their point
Her compassion is shown by her telling the truth. It's not compassionate to watch someone make themselves miserable and not try to help them out of fear of not being perceived as 'nice'.
Whenever someone says: YoU'rE rIgHt. I jUsT dOn'T lIkE tHe WaY yOu SaID iT. Me: Thank you for acknowledging that not only was I right. But, that by your own faculties of deduction have concluded that YOU are also wrong, arguing in bad faith, are morally and/or intellectually dishonest, and that your feelings can do nothing but cope and seethe. Reality conforms to my understanding, while your feelings can only watch and cry in abject uselessness.
"lack of Christlikeness" actually, she's very Christlike Christ was literally crucified for standing for the truth clearly He didn't put fEeLiNgS above the truth
Notice, though, that he willfully submitted to his crucifixion. He took insults, mockery, and shame without retaliation. It's true that he spoke truth and was crucified for it, but we should pay careful to attention to how he went about it. He didn't insult in return; he didn't hold his tormentors in contempt. He asked God to forgive them. He blessed those who cursed him. When someone gets on about a "lack of Christlikeness," what they mean is that the other person comes off as a jerk. And there's really no scriptural basis for being a jerk. It's not a fruit of the Spirit. I know there's a whole rhetorical thing now about truth v. feelings, and I get it, but Christians should take the notion of Christlikeness seriously enough not to subject it to the banal platitudes of today's discourse.
@@nathanmarone I hear you, even in the "he who has not sinned may cast the first stone" situation, Jesus qualified to cast the first stone since He never sinned but He didn't throw it and we tend to leave that part out. He did, however, tell her to go and sin no more so we can't leave that part out either we are not called to condemn people but we should correct them, and correction requires initial judgement (so does condemnation)... reason I bring this whole thing up is because when you're on the recieving end of correction, you mistake it for condemnation since you are being judged... Jesus did look like a jerk when He tossed out those merchants from the temple... being a jerk isn't a problem here, it's really just the merchants disrespecting the temple and being mad about being held accountable
Show me in the Gospels where Christ addressed sin and falsehood by unhinged shouting over people and by using profanity. Rachel shouted over others, too. The only people who think she won this…um…”debate” are those in her camp. I, too, despise modern “Woke” feminism, but this does not seem productive, frankly. It may score plenty of views, but keeps the divisiveness & acrimony going and changes no minds because they are all made up. I’ve seen better ways to expose flaws in feminist ideology and advocate for traditional values and dignity of both men and women. Which sex of Christ’s followers was better represented at the foot of the Cross when most of His disciples had fled for their lives?…
Yeah it’s hard as a man not to put a “tone” onto things, especially when correcting someone when they’re doing something wrong. It would be so amazing to have a conversation with Christ to just see that sort of perfect poise and tone coming from him. To be a fly on the wall when he had his conversation with his disciples… the only guy to be perfect with everything.
I thought Andrew Cross-dressed for a second, there. Then I realized that this is more """""Tone deaf"""" than how he would deliver! Priceless! HR analogy was spot ON 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Tone Policing is basically : _”I don’t like you, I can’t argue against what you’re saying as I’ll look stupid but it’s making me feel uncomfortable & my ‘feelings’ are all that really matters.”_ 🤷🏻♂️
Christ had two exemplary aspects; mercy AND judgement. Women tend to only recognise Christ's mercy, because it is a feminine virtue, while neglecting the masculine virtue of judgement, which is just as essential for true compassion. True love is not just telling people what they wish to hear, it can often mean telling people what they _need_ to hear.
The reasons she is, it's becuz Rach called Red out earlier in this episode becuz Red is a Christian protestant..and they disagree philosophically cuz Rach has a different philosophy. And Red caught feelings becuz of tha, so she was slinging mud at Rach becuz of it...😂😂😂
They did a survivor show where woman were grouped on an island and men were grouped on an island. Men within a day had a system to collect water, shelter, gathered food and had a system of who was in charge of what. The woman had nothing done within the first day, were arguing with each other fighting for attention, for their feelings, and for who would be in charge. After a few days they swapped camps. Men went back to zero because the women had nothing, and the women got the males built and organized camp with food collected etc. Within a day men rebuilt everything and had what they needed. Women destroyed everything that was built by the men in the old camp before. Men learn early on you cannot let your emotions run your life, you have to be factual and objective in order to have success. Emotions can inform your decisions, but they have to only be a piece of a decision that is still made with objective fact in mind, otherwise you get nowhere. Men learn early on that order is important, that listening to authority is important, that if you want to be in authority you have to earn it and deserve it gaining the needed learning and experience and that it is a massive responsibility because success and failure fully depend on you. Many women are not this way, they feel entitled that their feelings not only matter but are the most important thing, that they should be in charge, that they don't want to be told what to do and that only leads to disaster and bickering. NOT all men are the way I described men and NOT all women are the way I described women, but most are, the stereotypes are there for a reason as shown in this video.
As soon as tone policing comes up I go worse, not many people tone police me anymore. And that chock in the red is basically saying if you use the wrong tone you have no compassion, can she really be that stupid.......
i wish people knew what femininity means, the beautiful, its graceful, its flowers and sunshine, its rainbows, its peace, its tranquility, its a place u go to escape
