Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Jordan Peterson Reacts To Emoji Skin Colour Rules" video.

Andy Mann You're doing it again. "tying yourself in knots". Nice one. Am I supposed to conclude that I have no idea what I'm talking about and that I should be pitied? Oh yeah, you've already said that. I don't care what colour emoji you use. Neither does Peterson. That's why he said that he would use a black emoji and why not. He knows what people would say or react. Just like you did. "He stinks". Everything is about denigration and sneering backhanded insults. Also, I used multiple examples of the mindset of progressive politics and here you are, trying to use it on me....again. Why don't you try to address his ideas instead of your insults. That way we could have a REAL discussion instead of this nonsensical dialogue that we're having now.
6
Andy Mann He's not upset about emojis having different colours. He's decrying those who use them to browbeat others and telling them what colour they MUST use. You're engaging in standard reductionism to avoid the truth of a situation or idea.
5
Andy Mann This entire thing started over people complaining that the emojis were all white. That this reflects a racist mindset. That this happened is indisputable. I could care less what colour emoji a person uses but don't try to gaslight me saying that if I, a white guy, used a black emoji, that I wouldn't be accused of some kind of cultural appropriation or something similar. Peterson is all too familiar with that mindset. He said that the use of compelled speech had the potential for misuse and everyone cried "No way" until a court, in Canada, forced a man to use compelled pronouns or face legal reprisals. The same thing is happening with the teaching of CRT in American schools. "We're not teaching CRT. You're lying". Yet the largest teachers union in the US voted to continue teaching it even if it was declared illegal and contravened the Civil Rights Act. So, cut the gaslighting. We've run into your types of arguments enough to know not to fall for it, anymore.
5
Andy Mann Gaslighting is when you try to convince someone that he or she is going insane for the things that they believe. It's based on the movie "Gaslight" starring Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. You want me to name someone that used those emojis as a way to denounce people, knowing full well that you've set me on an impossible task. That's the gaslighting. However, I gave you examples of gaslighting, including ones that included the way Peterson was treated over compelled use of pronouns. You pretend that my examples are irrelevant by ignoring that this is a very valid mindset. Justin Trudeau is doing it right now to validate his high handed approach to the Ottawa protests. No valid argument? No problem. Just call them racists and transphobes. Also, Peterson isn't angry about coloured emojis. He's disgusted on where he sees this going. That it's going to be used as a trap just as his claims that compelled pronouns were to be used as a trap. Lindsey Shepherd's experience at Sir Wilfrid Laurier University shortly afterwards validated that prediction. So yes, you are gaslighting me. You're trying to paint me as delusional but I'm not buying it and I see right through your gambit.
5
Andy Mann I realise that I should have been more careful and use one more word. ONE more word and, not realising that I was dealing with a "legal" mind, and everything would be different. I should have added the word "could" so that it would have read "could be used to browbeat people". Now you, being the legal whiz kid that you are, centred in on that one misstep and are gripped onto like a dog on a bone. I've run into that legal trickery before when I had to be a witness in court. The lawyer would always zero in on one little phrase and then try to trap into saying something that would damage my meaning, somehow. I never would allow it then and I won't allow it now. Like claiming that I said the emojis were racist. I NEVER said that, NOT ONCE. I tried to further explain my original statement but that doesn't matter. One little misstep and I MUST be held to it. No wonder you're ignoring the over 70 examples that I've given in my comments and my link of how people use ridiculous things to prove racism. It doesn't matter to you what I really meant in that original statement. It only matters that you think that you have me. You're a shyster and a compelling reason why lawyers are held in such low regard.
5
@XeLYoutube Humans have been eating the corpses of animals for tens of thousands of years. It's within every part of you and you wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the eating of meat in our history. In spite of your belief in your moral superiority, it's actually a reflection of just how intolerant you really are. Pride is considered one of the 7 deadly sins for a reason.
4
Andy Mann Another gaslight. Trying to get me to believe that I'm gullible, that I've fallen for his latest strawman. Peterson sees how the use of coloured emojis has the potential to be used as a trap. That's why he went with the black emoji. He's owning it. So you have to change your tactic. You have to convince others that what he says isn't so even though this has happened time and time again over the last 6 or 7 years. It's happening again to Joe Rogan. He had the nerve to have Dr. Robert Malone on his show, a man with top notch credentials and he was outspoken on his stance on mandates. Can't have that. Rogan is getting too dangerous. So they dig deep and they find a time, years ago, when he used the N-word in a quote. The verbal trap. Now they think that they have him. Trudeau is doing the same thing. He doesn't address what the truckers are protesting about. He just calls them all racists because of a couple of dubious pictures of a swastika. He took it so far as to insult a Jewish member of Parliament. Why did he think he could do that? The trap. He has the picture of a swastika and now he's painting them all as Nazis. Now, we have the coloured emojis. Hell, I may have already fallen into the trap by my use of the word "coloured". Amy Comey Barrett fell into the trap in the Supreme Court hearings. She said that she would support anyone's sexual preference. The trap. She said "sexual preference" and that's become offensive. What a surprise. Now, you're trying to tell me that the use of a coloured emoji doesn't hold that potential. You're trying to gaslight me with your sneering insults, trying to get me to think that I must be crazy to think these things. I'm not buying it. I've seen it way too often.
4
Andy Mann You're absolutely refusing to acknowledge every example that I've brought up to show how words are used as traps to embarrass or browbeat people. Right from the start when I gave the example of compelled pronouns and Peterson predicted how that could be used against people. Everyone said he was wrong and that could never happen.....until it did happen. He's not going to be dragged into a mess like that again. He smells a rat and he's not stepping into the rat trap that this could possibly be. He doesn't care about the coloured emojis. He cares about how this could be used against people. Maybe it won't happen but he's not going to be fool enough to find out the hard way. If you had any kind of honesty, you'd discuss the examples that I've given and why anyone would be suspicious of motives. You won't though. You just say the same thing over and over. One question. Are the examples, that I've given true? Did they happen? A simple question that should be easy to answer.
4
Andy Mann I told you more than once. I don't care about the colour of the emoji. I'll say it again....I don't care. It's a non-issue. Also, regarding my first statement, how could I know if Peterson had been browbeat about it? He never mentioned it. It was a very short comment and I didn't express it the way that I wanted to. Quit playing lawyer games with me. It's dishonest. Once again, I've made my position quite clear, after that, not realising that I didn't relay my meaning the way that I wanted or should have. I just realised it and admitted it in my last comment and again now. However, you will not allow me any further explanation. It MUST be that or nothing. What's even the point in speaking to someone like you? You won't allow further explanation. You don't address the points that I've made. You won't accept that I've acknowledged an error of expression. You ignore my examples. I doubt that you've watched the video that I recommended. You keep insisting that I called the emojis racist which I never did. It's all obfuscation and verbal trickery. I realise that you're not a lawyer but that lawyer mindset has sure rubbed off on you. We're not getting anywhere in this conversation as you won't address anything that I've said. So, just go away. If you really want to talk, no problem but if you won't advance the conversation, you're wasting both our times.
3
Andy Mann POTENTIAL. Do you not understand the meaning of the word? I'll give it to you. Potential: having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future. (The online dictionary.) I've given MULTIPLE examples of how words and symbols have been used on the unwary. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." He's not going to dragged into a "potential" trap. It's happened to him before and to lots of others. I never said that there was anything wrong with coloured emojis or that it was racist. What I said was that there was a potential for some to use them, in some manner, to browbeat others for using them in what they could claim to be offensive. I don't know how many times I've used the word "potential" but it's doesn't seem to be sinking in. How can I give you an example of something in the future? All I can do is to give examples of similar incidents in the past, but you keep ignoring those examples. It's as if you don't understand what examples even mean. "You have convinced everyone that what YOU say is not true." Another example of gaslighting. basically telling me that everyone thinks that I'm wrong so smarten up. I don't care what others think so it won't work. I've seen how people react to some of the most mundane things and I can see the potential here, as well. Governor Newsom, when asked why people are leaving California. "They're racists". Asking to show IDs at elections. That's racist. You want to see MORE examples of crazy claim of racism? Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-mV2pANrmk&ab_channel=TimcastIRL If all these stupid things can be used to prove racism, are you still going to tell me that this doesn't have that same potential? I don't know how they'd do if they do but I'd never have predicted that stupidity of what is shown in this video, either. I'm not good at bad logic.
2
@CJ-wh3zy I should of used the word "could" in that sentence so that it would say "He's decrying those who COULD use them to browbeat others and telling them what colour they MUST use." If you read the rest of my comments, I've given dozens of examples where people have used innocuous words and phrases as ways to browbeat them and that he likely sees their use could be used to trap the unwary into some kind of racial wrongdoing. That omission of that single word "could" changes the flavour of what I was trying to say. Peterson has reason to be wary. They've taken things that he's said out of context numerous times to denigrate him. Why would he not be wary of it now? Any rational person would use previous experiences to know what to look out for in the future. I wish that I'd used that word "could" all along. I've considered editing it but then I might be accused of using tricks to win an argument. So I'll let it stand...warts and all.
2
@CJ-wh3zy She made it quite clear why she was leaving. We all kinda laughed, shrugged our shoulders and went on with what we were doing. I assume that it's an admonishment for many reasons. My past experience with vegetarians and vegans and the manner in which the statement was made, as if the conclusion should be obvious to all. It's the spirit in which the comment was presented. It's as if I'm hearing directly out of my cousin's mouth, a comment brimming with contempt. If you and I are in a discussion about a topic, I have no problem with differing opinions. It's how a person learns. However, when it becomes insistent, dripping with sarcasm, out of context and injected into every topic, all the time, you get tired of it. It doesn't matter whether it's politics, religion, food preferences or any other pet issue one might have, one dimensional conversations become increasing tiresome and irritating. I don't like to have an enjoyable day ruined by someone who will always be on their evangelical pulpit. Most people that I know are the same way. I'll get back to you on your comments. I'm making shepherd's pie and it needs my attention.
2
@CJ-wh3zy You're correct....why not? But Peterson snickered as he said it. Why? Simply because he knew that there could be the potential for some kind of backlash there. His experiences have shown him that this possibility is real. So, we have a situation in which the question "why not?" should be moot but it's not. That's why he snickered and appeared cynical of the motives of those that have, and it seemed intentional, completely misrepresented what he's said in the past. It's why I gave almost 80 examples of instances of where the mundane has been turned into some kind of racial, transphobic dog whistles to entrap those they don't like. If there are 80 examples of this weird phenomena, why would anyone, who's been at the butt end of these weird ideas, be cynical of any new thing that has some racial overtones to it? I'd say it would be exactly how any normal person would react.
1
@CJ-wh3zy I was referring to his idea that eating meat would be at the heart of his recent health problems. It's a type of finger wagging at in which he sees himself as a medical and spiritual superior being. I find it condescending as if to say that he's now evolved into a superior being from his ancestors and people who still eat meat. If he doesn't like meat....don't eat it. If he doesn't like broccoli....don't eat that. Don't attach some significant meaning to it in which he'd be the icon to admire. I'd say that he's not and that he might be suffering from pride or narcissism....at way to boost his ego through criticism.
1
@CJ-wh3zy My pronouns all referred to Gabriel, although that could be a woman's name but my meaning wouldn't change even if that were true. I was responding to Gabriel's earlier comment which is dripping with arrogance. I have a couple of vegans in my family and maybe that's what's behind my response. Both of my family members are intolerable, with their constant remarks on how they've evolved beyond the barbarian appetite for meat. Most of the family doesn't even want them around anymore. It's like having a religious fanatic at the dinner table, constantly reminding you that you're on the road to hell. It gets to you. Gabriel reminds me of those vegan family members.
1
@CJ-wh3zy Thanks. I don't mind talking to honest people, either even if I don't agree with them. As for that comment from Gabriel, I've heard it many times, or variations of it from my 2 family members. If someone is sick and we ALL get sick, it's "maybe if you'd not eat meat you'd be healthier' and always said with a haughty sniff. One of them, at a barbecue no less, informed us that we're all disgusting and then got into her car and left, hinting that she just couldn't tolerate our company any longer. "I just can't stand this" were her exact words. When a person's first and only reaction to the health problems of someone else is a backhanded admonishment, I don't think their heart is in the right place. One can believe as they wish. However, when that belief is used to express their own feelings of moral authority, they're stepping over the bounds of common courtesy into rudeness.
1
@alymaple8936 Thanks. You're absolutely correct about this comment thread. I have to mention something about your name "Aly". It's how my mother spelled her name and I don't believe I've seen it spelled that way anywhere else, except for my sister who spells it the same way. It was nice to see.
1
Andy Mann You're so small and one dimensional. You seem incapable of understanding a WORD of what I'm talking about. Either that, you don't want to acknowledge any of the other stuff that I've talked about. This is MORE than just about emojis. If that was all there was to it, this discussion would have never even started. I'd use an analogy but I doubt that you'd get it or you'd pretend not to. It's like talking to a recording. I expand the conversation and you respond with a "Emojis aren't hurting anyone". I try to to explain nuance and once again "Emojis aren't hurting anyone" or a variation of that sentence. I've showed you at least 80 different instances similar to this emoji stuff and you respond, AGAIN, with "Emojis aren't hurting anyone". If that's all you have to say, why are you here? Surely, you have more than that going on in your little brain.
1
Andy Mann This isn't about "white" people. This is about an ideology that's using identity to turn us against each other. It's why skin colour is so important to them. Not because they care about skin colour but because they believe that they can use melanin as a tool for their revolution. They use gender, too and feminism and sexuality. It's to set us apart. It's NOT the emoji that's the problem. The problem is how these ideologues COULD use them, just like they've used other identifiers as ways to set us apart. I tried to illustrate that with all the examples that I've given but you've chosen to ignore them or even discuss them. It's like putting peanut butter in the mousetrap instead of cheese. It's STILL a mousetrap. Peterson has fallen into those analogous mousetraps before which is why he snickered when asked about the emojis. It's not about the emojis and the emojis isn't why he snickered. He knew that no matter how he answered it, it could be used against him.....and guess what? Here we are. You laughed at him and used his response against him. He seen the trap and set it off and YOU did EXACTLY as he implied you would. You're showing your ideological bent with your comment about "white" people. Racial identifiers and he turned it on YOU and you're not smart enough to see that he said what he did to expose people with your mindset. You don't even realise that he was describing people like you.
1