Well maybe if the USA's economy crashes all of those poor inner city parasites will die of starvation. I mean I am not against poor people who strive to better themselves and indeed do so, but the majority are fine with being parasitic criminal scum.
Isreal for the Jews and only the Jews or you are an anti-semite,
and of course every White country and only White countries are for everyone or you must be a evil racist.
Anti-whites say they want "diversity" but what they are really supporting is the genocide of MY race since they only want it in every white country and only white countries.
If there is one more thing I hate more than racism, it's political correctness.
Freedom of speech must be absolute, even if you dumbasses are preaching primitive ideas of racial purity and whatnot, you have every right to preach them.
@best1089 Ah "buzzwords". What is it, pray tell, that makes you so uncomfortable about treating others UNLIKE YOURSELF with common decency and respect? You're whining about not being able to bitch about people whose lives do not impact yours. I could bitch about people like you and be just another jerk in a line of jerks. It occurs to me there are more pressing and positive things in this life worth doing, eh what? You appear to want to reserve the right to be hateful. Odd that.
Seems to me you're the one bitching and whining constantly because you don't get an automatic right to approval. You're talking about respect, but people like you have none for those who disagree with them. Don't be such a hypocrite and stop parrotting your mainstream crap. "the right to be hateful"? ?? I don't need to "hate", to disaprove.
@TCPPacket You can feel any way you like but if you feel THIS threatened over simply the behavior of others I suggest you look to your own behavior and evaluate. There are many more worthy places (of course in my view) where you could positively exert your energies. Again in my view, this video (for all the times folks who think as you love to assign the word "whining") is the very definition of whining. Get on with life. You're missing one incredible experience called living.
Please stop ascribing things to others that exist only in your imagination. I don't have to feel "threaten" to disagree with you. You tolerate my views and I tolerate yours. There is no need for hatred, nor for any of us to feel "threatened" by the other. And don't worry about me and my life. I'm doing just fine.
@Shubael1809 "Ah "buzzwords". What is it, pray tell, that makes you so uncomfortable about treating others UNLIKE YOURSELF with common decency and respect? "
Our nations are already actually communist states. What they did in the Soviet-Union will be nothing compared to what they are about to do on global scale. They said it themselves.
Typical communism/marxism. Go along to get along. Do as we say not as we do. Don't question us. We might throw you in jail for it. Take lesson from Ernst Zündel. Don't be a 'hater' and 'anti-semite' like him. Just watch your favorite soccerteam on television, and everything would be fine.
Why on Earth do you keep putting the Statue of Liberty in your videos ------ it is more of a symbol of immigration into the United States, than a symbol of liberty, especially with the inscription at its base, written by a Jew.
@mooninquirer I believe the inscription was added later. It's still a symbol of the concept of 'liberty', one of the few symbols we have.
Rather than discard a debased symbol, is it not better to revive its true meaning?
Real liberty is being eroded by the very people, as this video shows, who claim to support it. They don't want true liberty, because that means people can dissent.
The trouble is certain groups dont want "tolerance" they want total acceptace and for everyone to celebrate them and their life choices as totally valid and great as a 'normal" lifestyle
Fine video! Thanks to Obozo, we now have a bill that has been signed by Obozo that makes sodomites more of a person than I am. Pretty soon, I will not be able to argue against climate change, holohoax, and anything the government deems. I will be as useless as a European pretty soon. Sucks to be European and now sucks to be American.
Kensei I barely know you either but I'd lick and kiss you all over too just for the snarky comment. The videos are excellent and we need people like this with some common sense, fairness and insight to run the country otherwise we are doomed
I like the expression, "Their are none so intolerant, as those who preach tolerance". That sums it up nicely. I also like the way Dershowitz and Foxman are depicted as being exactly like this. These two epitomize the tolerance/intolerance games.
The liberal abuse of the race card is why the imaginary case of the Duke lacrosse teams rape of a deranged negro crack whore received 10 times more attention and indignation from the news media and the political world than a real case of car-jack/gang rape/12 hour+ torture/murder/extensive postmortem mutilation of a white couple (Christopher Newsome and Channon Christian) by a gang of depraved negroes.
Shell, who exactly was abusing the race card in your example? Did one group try to cover the Newsome story, but stop when another group accused them of racism?
I'll agree that race was likely a major driving factor in the relative news coverage of the stories, but that has nothing to do with abusing the race card. If anything, news channels were being racist by excessively covering the white crime, and you, by pointing it out, are playing the race card--correctly and fairly.
We are living in an age of decay and hypocrisy. The great master of the lie is brainwashing the masses with this anesthetic called democracy. And the sheeple are drifting away to the slaughter house.
Liberals are motivated to silence dissenting opinions, because they usually have insufficient logic and/or reason to back up their stated viewpoints. They typically avoid provable facts and instead lean upon hysteria, denial of reality, thought control, name-calling, and projection of guilt.
Thats just a sweeping generalisation. I have been in debates with conservatives who do just that aswell. Don't generalise. There are assholes on both 'sides' of the political spectrum.
I'm saying that its surreptitious when you have politicians and political activists, relentlessly playing the race card as a political tactic to discredit their opposition by labeling them as "racist" or "bigoted". This is unfair because it allows them to relegate their opposition to "morally inferior" racists, who should not be accorded a place at the discussion table of American politics. Additionally, the accused racists are not racist! This is a tactic I have observed used by the left.
We can state with absolute certainty the same ideological parasites who conquered the Russian people in 1917 (They are free now thank the Lord) with racial equality are the same "intellectuals" who are conquering America with the same ideological poison. Basically, communism and capitalism see man in a purely economic or materialistic sense, with humans being interchangeable.
Hay mucha verdad en lo que dices. El hombre medio es de por si una nimiedad, pero con una vuelta de tuerca más, se le intenta convertir en un necio fetichista idólatra del oro, un hombre sin profundidad, sin orgullo, sin grandeza. Estoy contigo.
I don't really make tolerance or intolerance claims about people. It does little to further the debate. But I will say that a person who is going to force others to live differently than they choose is being intolerant. :)
A whole bunch of empty words, with nothing concrete to get behind. What are you talking about? Give us examples.
It's too vague. Your definition of tolerance, for example; what do you mean by 'put up with'? If you mean 'don't kill' then it's perfectly clear that the new tolerance is, in fact, tolerant.
And who the hell is calling people intolerant over simple disagreements? I've yet to hear one senator call another intolerant because they disagree on funding a road project. (cont)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(cont) When I say people are intolerant--and I occasionally do--it's not because we DISAGREE, it's because we disagree on an issue in which THEY'RE BEING INTOLERANT. For example, homosexuality; I'm typically on the pro-gay-marriage side, and I occasionally call people bigots for their desire to restrict gay rights. I'm calling them intolerant because they're BEING INTOLERANT. Under the purview of this video, it seems as though you would call me intolerant for that.
I you believe that absolutely no one has the right to an opinion different than yours on the issue of gay marriage, I'd say yes, that's being pretty f***ing intolerant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, it really doesn't, because you don't explain what 'having a right' means in a practical sense.
If having the right to an opinion means you won't be killed for expressing it, then once again your video becomes nonsense, because bigots aren't killed for speaking bigotry. If having a right means you won't be criticized for expressing an opinion, then true tolerance would make every meaningful discussion of ideas impossible.
LOL. You don't have to KILL people to be labelled intolerant. You can insult them (that includes calling "bigots" - you appear to be one too, BTW), assault them, throw shit at them, prevent them from demonstrating, not publish their papers, censor them by invoking "hate speech", etc...Does THAT help, buddy? Because if it doesn't, you should move on to something more appropriate to your level of understanding....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm sorry, but if you think calling someone a bigot is being intolerant, then I'm going to say that YOU are the person trying to redefine the term tolerance. Tolerating someone's views is not the same as never criticizing them.
Those other things you mention are all either physical or legal efforts to silence dissent, and I agree that they're intolerant, but no one I know of actually supports them, so once again I have to ask what the hell is the point?
The video is not suggesting that you should not criticize views that you disagree with, but rather, it asks that you NOT silence dissent by serepticously labeling dissenters as being morally inferior. Liberals - and conservatives, but especially libs - tend to accuse white people of being racist whenever they start losing a debate.
Strong8, bid you just try to equate name calling with silencing dissent? Seriously, what the hell? Have you ever known a person to shut up because they were called a bigot? Most people just talk louder.
The whole purpose in any debate on morality is to establish that your opponent is morally inferior. Making that assertion, surreptitiously or not--BTW calling someone a bigot to their face is in no way surreptitious--is perfectly in the ground of fair play.
Your speculation that "most people talk louder" after being called a bigot is unsound. While some people may speak louder, countless others are pressured into biting their tongues on important political issues for fear of confrontation and being called a racist! This is INSANITY. Morality is herd instinct in man. Not every issue is a moral issue.
Secondly, a debate may have many different purposes other then establishing my opponent as morally inferior. My main purpose could be to seek truth.
First, it's not speculation when there's a body of evidence to support a claim. You know my evidence; it's simply an observable fact that calling anti-gay rights activists 'bigots' hasn't stopped the movement, for example. What is your evidence that 'countless others bite their tongues'?
Second, what kind of debate are you talking about? Debates are competitions; the goal is to undercut your opponents position. If you go into a debate with the goal of learning about the sides, you're an idiot. If you want to learn about your opponent's position, you're better off just talking about it. If you want to learn about the position you take the side of, you sure as hell won't get anything new from hearing yourself argue for it.
Yes, one of my highest goals in debate is to undercut my opponents position. Thats the general idea. However, some debates have a larger purpose which has nothing to do with winning a pissing match and everything to do with the acquisition of truth and furtherance of my own knowledge. The purposes of my debates are for me to decide. Of course the majority of debates are competitions, but sometimes the truth transcends both sides. That is where zealously arguing sides can become problematic.
Strong, when I asked if there were examples of liberals abusing the race card, I was expecting an example, not merely a repetition of the assertion.
As to the debate thing, I still disagree with you. Yes, truth transcends both sides, and a smart debater will realize when his argument has failed, and should reassess his argument appropriately, but that comes AFTER the debate. Anyone going into a debate who doesn't think his argument is the best shouldn't be there in the first place.
Yes, that may be the case if i'm debating in high school, or in a court of law, where my goal is to win at all costs (typical pissing match). However, I often debate dear friends when no one else is around to witness. In these small moments there is no prize for winning, and like I said, SOMETIMES my debate will serve the purpose of enlightening BOTH parties.
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF MY BREAKTHROUGH COMES BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER!
Anyway, you keep your philosophy and I will keep mine.
If your goal isn't to win, YOU'RE NOT IN A DEBATE. If you and your friend get together to talk out your ideas, it's a 'discussion'. No, this isn't a 'philosophy', it's simply the word's meaning. Yeah, sometimes debates can enlighten both sides. So?
When exactly did this happen, ie. people protesting illegal immigration were called racist white mobs? Could you give me a more specific source?
Please, drop the hallmark crap. You've said it before, now stop repeating it and prove it.
We agree on a lot, but you are STUCK speaking in strict, WESTERN terms of what YOU THINK a debate should be. I'm speaking more philosophically and subjective, the bounds are endless and less outlined.
You are RECITING the book line.
I HAVE READ THE SAME BOOK.
FOR ME, debate may be analogous to constructing a building, demolishing it too find its weakness, and repeating.
The purpose of my debates is to master weakness by creating the strongest, most stable building I can!
Ugh, this whole debate on the meaning of the word 'debate' has gotten to the point where it's just idiotic. Accusing me of using 'western terms' when we're communicating in English--Jesus Christ.
Fine, whatever, I'll drop the point. Debates can be about whatever you want them to be about. However, the debates we're discussing--political debates--are victory-centric. Both sides explicitly want to win in order to enforce their ideologies.
"When exactly did this happen, ie. people protesting illegal immigration were called racist white mobs?"
The fact is that liberal columnists HAVE described white protesters of illegal immigration and health care reform as "racist white mobs".
These so called "mobs" consisted of non-violent, white protesters, exercising their constitutional right to assemble. Unfortunately, Paul Krugman of NY times, has characterized them as "racist mobs"
Would he call hispanic protesters racist brown mobs?
When did Krugman use those words? Cite the story; I've spent about an hour sifting through NY Times articles and I can't find it.
I can find times when he's argued protesters may be racist, but so far all the examples include justification. For example, he recently pointed out that many protesters clearly have no idea about even the basics of health care--like not being aware that medicare is government-run--and he argued that their motivation might be race more than ideology.
As for your example, I intended to provide you with one when I suddenly realized how absurd your request was. Why would you be so dense as not to see that liberals play the race card? It is a FREAKING HALLMARK! Just open a newspaper and you will not need me to give you an example! White people who were non-violently protesting illegal immigration are called "racist white mobs" by liberal columnists. Conversely, when Sharpton and company protested in Jena, no one called them "racist black mobs"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I always find it annoying when people downthumb a comment without replying to it. It's like saying 'I disagree with you... but I'm not quite sure why'.
Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White.
The most self-evident truth of our times.
MarkMuses 2 months ago in playlist More videos from NXSchell
Well maybe if the USA's economy crashes all of those poor inner city parasites will die of starvation. I mean I am not against poor people who strive to better themselves and indeed do so, but the majority are fine with being parasitic criminal scum.
lildread1 6 months ago
@lildread1 If you ever run for an office, you have my vote.
PolacsRarseholes 1 month ago
Black countries for the Blacks,
Asian countries for the Asians,
Isreal for the Jews and only the Jews or you are an anti-semite,
and of course every White country and only White countries are for everyone or you must be a evil racist.
Anti-whites say they want "diversity" but what they are really supporting is the genocide of MY race since they only want it in every white country and only white countries.
anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-white
PakehaRabbit14 7 months ago 5
If there is one more thing I hate more than racism, it's political correctness.
Freedom of speech must be absolute, even if you dumbasses are preaching primitive ideas of racial purity and whatnot, you have every right to preach them.
CvijaFaQ 10 months ago
tolerance= approval of others.
BOGZASV8MA 11 months ago
people are so worried about not offending people and being tolerant, nothing can be done.
lvsoad22 11 months ago
Remember.. Nowadays, disagreement = hate!
best1089 1 year ago 2
@best1089 - It's only hate when you disagree with the 'intellectualization &
materialization' mantra.
Most intolerance is saved for those who believe in god. Believe that the
American system, although not perfect, is the best. And the 'knowledge
of the heart is equal to knowledge of the mind'. Also there is anti-blue
collar attitude, 'intellectuals' hate work. They would prefer to camp out
all night and take from others,what they personally don't deserve.
Most looters are intolerant,
fntime 4 months ago
In essence what I get out of this is that you reserve the right to hate. Got it.
Shubael1809 1 year ago
@Shubael1809 No, it says that one reserves the right to disagree, without hordes of hypocrites like you crying your usual buzzwords.
best1089 1 year ago
@best1089 Ah "buzzwords". What is it, pray tell, that makes you so uncomfortable about treating others UNLIKE YOURSELF with common decency and respect? You're whining about not being able to bitch about people whose lives do not impact yours. I could bitch about people like you and be just another jerk in a line of jerks. It occurs to me there are more pressing and positive things in this life worth doing, eh what? You appear to want to reserve the right to be hateful. Odd that.
Shubael1809 1 year ago
@Shubael1809
Seems to me you're the one bitching and whining constantly because you don't get an automatic right to approval. You're talking about respect, but people like you have none for those who disagree with them. Don't be such a hypocrite and stop parrotting your mainstream crap. "the right to be hateful"? ?? I don't need to "hate", to disaprove.
TCPPacket 1 year ago
@TCPPacket You can feel any way you like but if you feel THIS threatened over simply the behavior of others I suggest you look to your own behavior and evaluate. There are many more worthy places (of course in my view) where you could positively exert your energies. Again in my view, this video (for all the times folks who think as you love to assign the word "whining") is the very definition of whining. Get on with life. You're missing one incredible experience called living.
Shubael1809 1 year ago
@Shubael1809
Please stop ascribing things to others that exist only in your imagination. I don't have to feel "threaten" to disagree with you. You tolerate my views and I tolerate yours. There is no need for hatred, nor for any of us to feel "threatened" by the other. And don't worry about me and my life. I'm doing just fine.
TCPPacket 1 year ago
@Shubael1809 "Ah "buzzwords". What is it, pray tell, that makes you so uncomfortable about treating others UNLIKE YOURSELF with common decency and respect? "
-To assume makes an ass out of you and me.
best1089 1 year ago
@best1089 .... well you're half right anyhoo ;-)
Shubael1809 1 year ago
The red army is still being glorified in the media, but it's the most murderous army ever. What does that tell you?
RKO1990 1 year ago
Our nations are already actually communist states. What they did in the Soviet-Union will be nothing compared to what they are about to do on global scale. They said it themselves.
RKO1990 1 year ago
Typical communism/marxism. Go along to get along. Do as we say not as we do. Don't question us. We might throw you in jail for it. Take lesson from Ernst Zündel. Don't be a 'hater' and 'anti-semite' like him. Just watch your favorite soccerteam on television, and everything would be fine.
RKO1990 1 year ago
Tolerance is a tool used by the intolerant ones,who use it to commit crimes against Humanity!
011jaffa 1 year ago
Tolerance is a tool used bu the intolerant ones, who use Tolerance to commit Crimes against Humanity!
011jaffa 1 year ago
Tolerence is a tool that it used by those who are intolerent, who take an advantage of it !
011jaffa 1 year ago
Fuck the Holocaust deniers!!!
011jaffa 1 year ago
tolerance toward whom? are Jews included in that category?
What a Nobel deed !!!
011jaffa 1 year ago
@011jaffa Tolerance towards all! (Except for those pesky dissenters.)
best1089 1 year ago
@best1089
Tolerance is over-rated, when you were hit by 9-11 did you have tolerance
Tolerance is Naivety , and that will take you back to the Dark Ages of Muhammad,
and straight to Sharia Law, women beating and murder!
I would like to be tolerant, but naive,No!
Tolerance is a myth, it is political correctness, but not stupid correct ! stop being
so blinded by tolerance! don`t be so righteous, it will come to bite you !
Tolerance,yes, to the one`s who deserve it!
011jaffa 1 year ago
I wonder why the "tolerance" hypocrites avoid this like a plague.
best1089 1 year ago
Why on Earth do you keep putting the Statue of Liberty in your videos ------ it is more of a symbol of immigration into the United States, than a symbol of liberty, especially with the inscription at its base, written by a Jew.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer I believe the inscription was added later. It's still a symbol of the concept of 'liberty', one of the few symbols we have.
Rather than discard a debased symbol, is it not better to revive its true meaning?
Real liberty is being eroded by the very people, as this video shows, who claim to support it. They don't want true liberty, because that means people can dissent.
shockadelicaustralia 1 year ago
Unity through Nobility
Aryanism . Net
SenatorGrimshaw 1 year ago 4
The New Tolerance is nothing but fascism.
olga2415 1 year ago 5
@olga2415 The New Tolerance is a movement of hypocrisy, mudslinging, and.. well, intolerance! LOL.
best1089 1 year ago
@best1089 We're on the same page! lol
olga2415 1 year ago
Good video, would have been common sense 150 years ago.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago 4
Tolerance and apathy are the first signs of a dying society. Aristotle
itz the result of allowing Nation wrecking jews to rape the
kultur and minds of host people.
"Tolerance is the virtue of men who no longer believe in anything." G.K. Chesterton
NiveusStolz4 1 year ago 8
@NiveusStolz4 i think its the last virtues of a dying society
yleisknx 1 year ago
5/5
MustaGayFagaturk 1 year ago
Great video!!!
DetroitZooKeeper 1 year ago 3
ver y strong song
holgerhoja 1 year ago
Excellent post! 5*
ValueFreedom 1 year ago
see this not going to end the way they think, more like Yugoslavia, it is just about all in place to fall
bohemianh 1 year ago
The trouble is certain groups dont want "tolerance" they want total acceptace and for everyone to celebrate them and their life choices as totally valid and great as a 'normal" lifestyle
pyloric66 2 years ago 10
Ha hah .. Intolerance will not be tolerated.
Danmagorez 2 years ago 4
The intolerance of the multiculturalists on display in our country.
bertly71 2 years ago 20
Fine video! Thanks to Obozo, we now have a bill that has been signed by Obozo that makes sodomites more of a person than I am. Pretty soon, I will not be able to argue against climate change, holohoax, and anything the government deems. I will be as useless as a European pretty soon. Sucks to be European and now sucks to be American.
MrHurricaneIKE 2 years ago 6
NXSchell you are a genius. We need people like you to run the country, any chance of running for president/prime minister somewhere?
conger66 2 years ago 51
This has been flagged as spam show
you barely know the guy, you're ready to give him a blowjob just because he makes good videos..
Kensei1234 2 years ago
Kensei I barely know you either but I'd lick and kiss you all over too just for the snarky comment. The videos are excellent and we need people like this with some common sense, fairness and insight to run the country otherwise we are doomed
conger66 2 years ago 5
Once again, you've nailed it.
TheAmericanMirror 2 years ago 4
NXSchell, all the videos you make are awesome. great video 5 stars and love the Rammstein song =]
SaraCHA88 2 years ago 6
It should be renamed....Toleranth!
KalkiReturns 2 years ago 12
every none whites screams racisme when beging arrested by cops
davevl1983 2 years ago 38
I like the expression, "Their are none so intolerant, as those who preach tolerance". That sums it up nicely. I also like the way Dershowitz and Foxman are depicted as being exactly like this. These two epitomize the tolerance/intolerance games.
joe80dman 2 years ago 7
anyone the name of the song and artist?
gtavsmsg10 2 years ago
I meant does anyone know the name of the song and the artists singing it?
gtavsmsg10 2 years ago
Here is an example for you Hooya,
The liberal abuse of the race card is why the imaginary case of the Duke lacrosse teams rape of a deranged negro crack whore received 10 times more attention and indignation from the news media and the political world than a real case of car-jack/gang rape/12 hour+ torture/murder/extensive postmortem mutilation of a white couple (Christopher Newsome and Channon Christian) by a gang of depraved negroes.
shellcracker7 2 years ago 3
Shell, who exactly was abusing the race card in your example? Did one group try to cover the Newsome story, but stop when another group accused them of racism?
I'll agree that race was likely a major driving factor in the relative news coverage of the stories, but that has nothing to do with abusing the race card. If anything, news channels were being racist by excessively covering the white crime, and you, by pointing it out, are playing the race card--correctly and fairly.
Hooya2 2 years ago
We are living in an age of decay and hypocrisy. The great master of the lie is brainwashing the masses with this anesthetic called democracy. And the sheeple are drifting away to the slaughter house.
TheSycal 2 years ago 6
***** Freedom of Speech !!! No restrictions under the jewish smokescreen of "hate laws".
mickiandalusia 2 years ago 2
Liberals are motivated to silence dissenting opinions, because they usually have insufficient logic and/or reason to back up their stated viewpoints. They typically avoid provable facts and instead lean upon hysteria, denial of reality, thought control, name-calling, and projection of guilt.
shellcracker7 2 years ago 8
Thats just a sweeping generalisation. I have been in debates with conservatives who do just that aswell. Don't generalise. There are assholes on both 'sides' of the political spectrum.
glenn85uk 2 years ago 3
Fox news, not all the time, but quite frequently would be a prime example of everything you just tried to blame on left wingers.
glenn85uk 2 years ago 2
I'm saying that its surreptitious when you have politicians and political activists, relentlessly playing the race card as a political tactic to discredit their opposition by labeling them as "racist" or "bigoted". This is unfair because it allows them to relegate their opposition to "morally inferior" racists, who should not be accorded a place at the discussion table of American politics. Additionally, the accused racists are not racist! This is a tactic I have observed used by the left.
strong8action 2 years ago 3
Third, what are you even talking about with the race card? Can you give specific examples of this?
Hooya2 2 years ago
Sure, there are countless examples.
strong8action 2 years ago
nice video *****
strong8action 2 years ago 2
We can state with absolute certainty the same ideological parasites who conquered the Russian people in 1917 (They are free now thank the Lord) with racial equality are the same "intellectuals" who are conquering America with the same ideological poison. Basically, communism and capitalism see man in a purely economic or materialistic sense, with humans being interchangeable.
GlobalMinority 2 years ago
Hay mucha verdad en lo que dices. El hombre medio es de por si una nimiedad, pero con una vuelta de tuerca más, se le intenta convertir en un necio fetichista idólatra del oro, un hombre sin profundidad, sin orgullo, sin grandeza. Estoy contigo.
fernanditosant 2 years ago 2
top hole; bang! bang! bang! -no fluff, just straight to the point. Bullseye!
NoPrivacyANYMORE10 2 years ago 2
Your finest yet!
steve0281 2 years ago 3
what music band is this ?
thank you !!
perfect video !
heil to the heretics !
judicial-inc org
napajedlacek 2 years ago 2
sounds like rammstein
DecimusAquila 2 years ago
Rammstein - Wo bist du?
DerVolksSturmer 2 years ago 2
I don't really make tolerance or intolerance claims about people. It does little to further the debate. But I will say that a person who is going to force others to live differently than they choose is being intolerant. :)
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
Let us rain down our fire upon this new tolerance. Hail to the New Heretics.
Er sorry, getting carried away again...
NickDiPerna 2 years ago
awesome video. Personally liked it a lot more than your last one,
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
You're the best channel on YouTube.
3rdworldinvasion2 2 years ago 7
I always look forward to an NXSchell vid.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago 5
Great video. *****
Alsterwasser 2 years ago 2
great video
Allen58mi 2 years ago 4
Nice music.
Mithras85 2 years ago 2
awesome.....5 stars....nxschell i sent u a pm hope u answer
14Battlecry 2 years ago 2
My sentiments ex-f#$king-actly!
*****
MuhammadVonRaven 2 years ago 5
cool vid, i agree
MrDZUman 2 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
A whole bunch of empty words, with nothing concrete to get behind. What are you talking about? Give us examples.
It's too vague. Your definition of tolerance, for example; what do you mean by 'put up with'? If you mean 'don't kill' then it's perfectly clear that the new tolerance is, in fact, tolerant.
And who the hell is calling people intolerant over simple disagreements? I've yet to hear one senator call another intolerant because they disagree on funding a road project. (cont)
Hooya2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(cont) When I say people are intolerant--and I occasionally do--it's not because we DISAGREE, it's because we disagree on an issue in which THEY'RE BEING INTOLERANT. For example, homosexuality; I'm typically on the pro-gay-marriage side, and I occasionally call people bigots for their desire to restrict gay rights. I'm calling them intolerant because they're BEING INTOLERANT. Under the purview of this video, it seems as though you would call me intolerant for that.
Hooya2 2 years ago
@ Hooya
I you believe that absolutely no one has the right to an opinion different than yours on the issue of gay marriage, I'd say yes, that's being pretty f***ing intolerant.
Does that help?
NXSchell 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, it really doesn't, because you don't explain what 'having a right' means in a practical sense.
If having the right to an opinion means you won't be killed for expressing it, then once again your video becomes nonsense, because bigots aren't killed for speaking bigotry. If having a right means you won't be criticized for expressing an opinion, then true tolerance would make every meaningful discussion of ideas impossible.
Hooya2 2 years ago
"No, it really doesn't"
LOL. You don't have to KILL people to be labelled intolerant. You can insult them (that includes calling "bigots" - you appear to be one too, BTW), assault them, throw shit at them, prevent them from demonstrating, not publish their papers, censor them by invoking "hate speech", etc...Does THAT help, buddy? Because if it doesn't, you should move on to something more appropriate to your level of understanding....
TCPPacket 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm sorry, but if you think calling someone a bigot is being intolerant, then I'm going to say that YOU are the person trying to redefine the term tolerance. Tolerating someone's views is not the same as never criticizing them.
Those other things you mention are all either physical or legal efforts to silence dissent, and I agree that they're intolerant, but no one I know of actually supports them, so once again I have to ask what the hell is the point?
Hooya2 2 years ago
The video is not suggesting that you should not criticize views that you disagree with, but rather, it asks that you NOT silence dissent by serepticously labeling dissenters as being morally inferior. Liberals - and conservatives, but especially libs - tend to accuse white people of being racist whenever they start losing a debate.
strong8action 2 years ago 3
Strong8, bid you just try to equate name calling with silencing dissent? Seriously, what the hell? Have you ever known a person to shut up because they were called a bigot? Most people just talk louder.
The whole purpose in any debate on morality is to establish that your opponent is morally inferior. Making that assertion, surreptitiously or not--BTW calling someone a bigot to their face is in no way surreptitious--is perfectly in the ground of fair play.
Hooya2 2 years ago
freedom for all views no matter how offensive they may be
FinalWar1444 2 years ago 3
Your speculation that "most people talk louder" after being called a bigot is unsound. While some people may speak louder, countless others are pressured into biting their tongues on important political issues for fear of confrontation and being called a racist! This is INSANITY. Morality is herd instinct in man. Not every issue is a moral issue.
Secondly, a debate may have many different purposes other then establishing my opponent as morally inferior. My main purpose could be to seek truth.
strong8action 2 years ago 3
First, it's not speculation when there's a body of evidence to support a claim. You know my evidence; it's simply an observable fact that calling anti-gay rights activists 'bigots' hasn't stopped the movement, for example. What is your evidence that 'countless others bite their tongues'?
Hooya2 2 years ago
Second, what kind of debate are you talking about? Debates are competitions; the goal is to undercut your opponents position. If you go into a debate with the goal of learning about the sides, you're an idiot. If you want to learn about your opponent's position, you're better off just talking about it. If you want to learn about the position you take the side of, you sure as hell won't get anything new from hearing yourself argue for it.
Hooya2 2 years ago
Yes, one of my highest goals in debate is to undercut my opponents position. Thats the general idea. However, some debates have a larger purpose which has nothing to do with winning a pissing match and everything to do with the acquisition of truth and furtherance of my own knowledge. The purposes of my debates are for me to decide. Of course the majority of debates are competitions, but sometimes the truth transcends both sides. That is where zealously arguing sides can become problematic.
strong8action 2 years ago
Strong, when I asked if there were examples of liberals abusing the race card, I was expecting an example, not merely a repetition of the assertion.
As to the debate thing, I still disagree with you. Yes, truth transcends both sides, and a smart debater will realize when his argument has failed, and should reassess his argument appropriately, but that comes AFTER the debate. Anyone going into a debate who doesn't think his argument is the best shouldn't be there in the first place.
Hooya2 2 years ago
Yes, that may be the case if i'm debating in high school, or in a court of law, where my goal is to win at all costs (typical pissing match). However, I often debate dear friends when no one else is around to witness. In these small moments there is no prize for winning, and like I said, SOMETIMES my debate will serve the purpose of enlightening BOTH parties.
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF MY BREAKTHROUGH COMES BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER!
Anyway, you keep your philosophy and I will keep mine.
strong8action 2 years ago
If your goal isn't to win, YOU'RE NOT IN A DEBATE. If you and your friend get together to talk out your ideas, it's a 'discussion'. No, this isn't a 'philosophy', it's simply the word's meaning. Yeah, sometimes debates can enlighten both sides. So?
When exactly did this happen, ie. people protesting illegal immigration were called racist white mobs? Could you give me a more specific source?
Please, drop the hallmark crap. You've said it before, now stop repeating it and prove it.
Hooya2 2 years ago
hooya,
We agree on a lot, but you are STUCK speaking in strict, WESTERN terms of what YOU THINK a debate should be. I'm speaking more philosophically and subjective, the bounds are endless and less outlined.
You are RECITING the book line.
I HAVE READ THE SAME BOOK.
FOR ME, debate may be analogous to constructing a building, demolishing it too find its weakness, and repeating.
The purpose of my debates is to master weakness by creating the strongest, most stable building I can!
strong8action 2 years ago
Ugh, this whole debate on the meaning of the word 'debate' has gotten to the point where it's just idiotic. Accusing me of using 'western terms' when we're communicating in English--Jesus Christ.
Fine, whatever, I'll drop the point. Debates can be about whatever you want them to be about. However, the debates we're discussing--political debates--are victory-centric. Both sides explicitly want to win in order to enforce their ideologies.
Hooya2 2 years ago
"When exactly did this happen, ie. people protesting illegal immigration were called racist white mobs?"
The fact is that liberal columnists HAVE described white protesters of illegal immigration and health care reform as "racist white mobs".
These so called "mobs" consisted of non-violent, white protesters, exercising their constitutional right to assemble. Unfortunately, Paul Krugman of NY times, has characterized them as "racist mobs"
Would he call hispanic protesters racist brown mobs?
strong8action 2 years ago
When did Krugman use those words? Cite the story; I've spent about an hour sifting through NY Times articles and I can't find it.
I can find times when he's argued protesters may be racist, but so far all the examples include justification. For example, he recently pointed out that many protesters clearly have no idea about even the basics of health care--like not being aware that medicare is government-run--and he argued that their motivation might be race more than ideology.
Hooya2 2 years ago
As for your example, I intended to provide you with one when I suddenly realized how absurd your request was. Why would you be so dense as not to see that liberals play the race card? It is a FREAKING HALLMARK! Just open a newspaper and you will not need me to give you an example! White people who were non-violently protesting illegal immigration are called "racist white mobs" by liberal columnists. Conversely, when Sharpton and company protested in Jena, no one called them "racist black mobs"
strong8action 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I always find it annoying when people downthumb a comment without replying to it. It's like saying 'I disagree with you... but I'm not quite sure why'.
Hooya2 2 years ago
"I always find it annoying when people downthumb a comment"
The solution is simple: don't write poor comments, As of myself, I am responding to your comments AFTER downthumbing them, so don't blame me. LOL.
TCPPacket 2 years ago 5
@ Hooya2
I disagree with you.... and I'm very sure why :D
efilorpnagev 2 years ago 2
Great, efil--then why don't you post a comment explaining why.
Hooya2 2 years ago