Matt Kroc Transitions to Janae Kroc

What if someone loves America? What if an American does think he or she is superior to non-Americans? Is there something wrong with this?

What if I think I am superior to someone else? What if I think someone is superior to me? And there are indeed people who are superior to me and I don’t think they should feel bad about this. Should they go out of their way to mistreat me? Morally speaking, no. But I don’t think some athletically or intellectually gifted or particularly industrious individual or group (gasp) have to feel any sort of apologetic or humble feeling because they are so!

If I observe life in Queens and note that northern Asians have traits that help them succeed as individuals and groups, this implies that they are better in some areas–yes, better– than others in some areas. What’s wrong with this observation? They might even have collective flaws that others don’t as well.

Thanks for the post. I will try to address some other points.

2 Likes

It’s a tangent but speaking of the Obama administration and guns. Did you guys see this?

Coburn has been peddling this ‘Federal gun/ammo stockpiling’ conspiracy for years now. Even Breitbart–not exactly a bastion of liberal sympathy or thought–called him out on it:

Thanks. That article in today’s WSJ was the first I’d heard of it. Yeah, I don’t get my news form Breitbart. The Breitbart article is 3 years old, and it talks about the over-estimation of rounds of ammunition purchased, and some of the gun purchases but doesn’t address all the added police, increase in armed personnel at some of these agencies, and militarization of some of the college police. Huh… I’d expect WSJ to do some fact checking on all of that. I guess we’ll hear more about it if this is a deal. I had read some articles about the increased militarization of local police forces. It sounds like Bernie has spoken out against that, at least that’s reported in the WSJ article.

I’m going to speculate no. I have been trained since birth to live and think as a female, but doing work that allows me access to people’s thoughts and feelings allows me to know that I am less emotion-driven than many men and more logical and sequential. If you take away the interactions I have been having my entire life that support my female tendencies:

-“What a pretty dress!” throughout childhood = love to shop for clothes…is it any wonder?
-The pursuit of men in contrast to the childhood warnings about their ominous intentions re: my honor has made for a cat-and-mouse dynamic
-The willingness, as noted in another thread, of my fiancé to blithely put his life at risk and tease about my worry, while at the same time fretting over me when I happen to be out late and any distance away, or when there’s a storm and he’s not here to insure…whatever it is he’s insuring.

I don’t think it would be the same without the bigger/smaller dynamic. I think we’d just be people.

I’m going to take the opportunity to once again point out that someone who looks like this:

Isn’t having the formative experiences I have. What is gender like for her? What was it like in childhood?

[quote=“countingbeans, post:2092, topic:210559”]
Acceptance, tolerance and celebration are three different things. You can demand tolerance, especially seeing as an individual’s gender issues aren’t harming any other individual, but the other too have to be left up to the individual, and can’t be forced. [/quote]

I agree with this.

The coexist bumper stickers never fail to irritate me. I’m not sure why - I guess I envision a smug, hypocritical liberal tree-hugger and “tolerance” demander who doesn’t hesitate to spout anti-conservative, anti-Christian sentiment. And I always sort of want to kill those people when I encounter them.

For the record, I don’t read @EyeDentist that way at all, though I think some people in this thread have been reacting with the same visceral antipathy I have for the above-noted sticker-havers. But while the above is intolerant-but-dressed-in-tolerance-clothing, I see ED as having more integrity than that.

2 Likes

This, from upthread:

I’m wondering what people consider themselves for and against. This would seem to be a way to clarify that you either would like government intervention to encourage a more collective mindset on various matters or you would not. You are for opening the Olympics to all comers, TG or not, or you are against that.

The Socratic method, which is often employed here and certainly has a place, can at times be confusing. I suppose due to the number of participants and conversational threads.

I’m not sure if you’re expecting a response from me regarding this particular statement, but if you are, you’ll have to unpack its meaning further for me before I can.

It’s actually not quite so dichotomous as that.

Anyway, as I understand them, the IOC rules concerning the participation of TG athletes seem reasonable.

@countingbeans Yes, you are correct regarding what I stated.

@EyeDentist I can’t say whether there is less racism in America according to your definition of racism because I have no idea what the heck is going through people’s minds and you stated that racists are people who “think their race is superior to others”. You never stated whether you include people who are pretty much minding their business, obeying rules and laws, attending work, and raising families but manage to segregate themselves from those of others races all while not mistreating anyone! As I said, I know many people who think their race is superior to others. I should know, considering that there are plenty like that of my own kind, those that consider themselves to be literally “chosen” over all others. But despite their ethnocentric feeling, many employ plenty of people not of their kind and don’t mistreat them. Do you have a problem with their thinking?!

As for racism lessening, I highly disagree. I believe race and gender and orientation relations are worse than they ever were. If race relations were so damn great now, then I wouldn’t turn on a television or radio and hear almost nothing but, “race, race, race” and "gender, gender, gender!"I turn on The Call on NY1 every other night: “race, race, race” and “gender, gender, gender”.

Do you ever get into discussions on voting with people not of your kind? I have… many times. They vote based on race! That is, although there might not be a candidate who shares their ethnicity, they vote for a candidate that will do for them specifically. And when someone does something for one group, it comes at the expense or ignorance of another group considering that different groups want and value different things!

@anon71262119 I’d say inherent concern for safety is not a “lower function” but rather a necessary mechanism that natured imbued upon us for our survival. Some of those who believe that they can circumvent or ignore this mechanism to become “enlightened” or have conversations–called dialogue-- with “unenlightened” and “undemocratic” people and “backwards” people in other parts of the world have wound up in big trouble at best or dead at worst. Liberal news reporters and naive vacationers have paid a hefty price for their naiveté and silly ideas of trying to converse with and visit people who largely do not give a damn about what they have to say and hate them: severed heads, kidnapping, and sexual assault come to mind. And to tell you the truth, although I do feel sorry for the deaths of innocent people, it is at times VERY difficult to have sympathy for grown adults who at their age should have realized that there are people on this crowded earth who hate them and don’t care what they have to say and to go over to their turfs where they like to run things their way is actually pretty nervy!

Besides this world will never be a pink-and-blue padded nursery room despite the fact that Americans have deluded themselves into thinking so because of overabundance of time, wealth, and comfort. That’s exactly why we can mush our brains around with purely abstract ideas! And if someone thinks that waving a flag of their homeland is a sign of ethnocentrism of a feeling of superiority then that’s his or her problem! I don’t say this to criticize you, but this ridiculous “make nice” sentiment is reaching a stupid, suicidal degree and no group, no nation survives without a feeling of community or duty and such a feeling is expressed by the example of waving a flag.

Regarding incessant bitching and moaning, we can go back to the original topic of the thread, people like Kroc, who continue to post angst-laden sentiments about how Western society is continuing mistreating him and “boxing in” him and his kind. You don’t like Western society’s way of doing things, I got an offer for ya: try pulling the same angst-laden, weepy shenanigans in other parts of the world and see where it gets ya! Then you’ll really see what it’s like to be “boxed in” alright, in an actual box that is, what we call a coffin… or perhaps hanging from a rope or wearing and dying by a burning rubber tire around one’s neck in public! Northern Europeans used to drown homosexuals. In Ancient Judaism, the punishment for homosexuality is stoning, just as it is in the Middle East today (or being thrown off a building).

Instead of saying, “Hey, I am grateful that in this day and age and country, in American and most other Western societies, I can and did reach all my aims. I served in the Marines and got to meet our President, became a well-paid pharmacist, got to pursue my hobby and passion at an elite level (and with that, consumed all the food and other modern chemical aids to do that that I wanted to), got to travel, and on top of that, am now even allowed to pursue my desire for a sex change using modern technology invented by mostly Western people! Apparently I was never ‘boxed in’”. I’m sure Kroc and others like him are grateful for such gifts and luxuries, but to then have the nerve to top if off with “society” mistreating them is damn disingenuous. And let’s get this straight. Just who is referred to as “society”. Most people in our society are working, earning a living, raising families, and are concerned with their own families and well-being. Just who out of these benign people are mistreating or “boxing in” anyone?!

In a sense, there is less institutionalized racism or anti-homosexual workings because we now have multi-millionaire gay and diverse individuals, not to mention the millions who are living ordinary middle-class lives, many of whom I work with. And if Western society is so damn oppressive, then why not get the hell out? See what other place will suit your tastes and needs. Good luck! And people who feel so damn guilty about the Indians and cry “this land belongs to the Indians” (according to who?) and about having been defeated by Europeans, do me a favor: turn in your home, your cell phone, your car, your surround-sound entertainment system, medicine, and whatever the hell else you use that was created by Europeans or Northern Asians or whoever and get the hell out if you’re so guilty! You sure will start to cry real tears and your bleeding heart will in fact start bleeding real blood with your weepy shenanigans!

This is one way in which the world works that people seem to be forgetting around here: when two groups are sharing the same space, the more dominant, powerful group ALWAYS mistreats the weaker group! Good luck trying to change this phenomena. We can fuck around all day with abstract, make-nice sentiment, but it doesn’t change anything–the sort of sentiment that echoes, “we are failing as a human race,” “ewww, human beings are terrible,” blah, blah, blah, weep, weep, weep! Do me a favor: don’t include me and other civic-minded people who are not mistreating anyone into that supposed failure. Liberals have goddamn nerve when they freely bark, “You’re part of the problem.” ME, I’m part of the problem–someone who minds his business, treats people with courtesy and respect (unless reason for otherwise), married, paying my bills, saying money, wanting to raise a family, and so on. Yes, people like me are the problem. THANKS!

To think that dialogue will work on about 320 million Americans or seven billion people on earth–most of whom do not give a rat’s ass about our ideas or what we have to say–is likely the tallest order of all mankind, and it won’t be done! And why should it?!

As for American women who continue to moan about mistreatment, try elsewhere too! There are only a few places you can get away with this on earth and instead of being grateful, they continue to complain. I mean, there is so much mistreatment that we now have female millionaires, female celebrities who get paid millions for existing and breathing, CEO’s, female teachers, female nurses, female LEO’s, and so on and so forth. Some mistreatment, not to mention legions of desperate men who salivate over and worship females on social media. How terrible!

I’m done for now, but there sure is a foolish and ungrateful lot amongst us in America. My opinion.

By the way, I do not mean to insult anyone here, and if people prefer that I don’t share my feelings and views, then I will stop. But I am making no apology for reflecting on real life.

3 Likes

[quote=“EyeDentist, post:2132, topic:210559, full:true”]

I’m not sure if you’re expecting a response from me regarding this particular statement, but if you are, you’ll have to unpack its meaning further for me before I can.[/quote]

Some of the posters in the thread seem to believe that “liberals” would like there to be one shared reality, so uniformity of thought in addition to legal protections that amount, if I understand what they’re saying, to special privileges. I suppose I’m asking what your end goal would be, if you ran the world.

I had to look them up and found them reasonable as well. Here they are:

[quote]In this spirit, the IOC Consensus Meeting agreed the following guidelines to be
taken into account by sports organisations when determining eligibility to compete in male and female competition:

  1. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the
    male category without restriction.
  2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the
    female category under the following conditions:
    2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The
    declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum
    of four years.
    2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum
    has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first
    competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on
    a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12
    months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in
    women’s competition).
    2.3. The athlete’s total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10
    nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the
    female category.
    2.4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the
    event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition
    will be suspended for 12 months.[/quote]

Frankly, I find this answer defensive and disingenuous. Why? In part, because of what you write in the very next paragraph:

So in one paragraph, you can’t say whether there is less racism, but in the next, you offer a strongly-worded opinion that there isn’t. I’m not trying to play ‘Gotcha!,’ but you have to admit these assertions are incongruent.

In contrast, I find all this dialogue (there’s that word again) concerning race, gender, etc, to be a very positive sign that progress is being made re these issues.

Then let me clarify: If these individuals operate under a belief system wherein their race is considered intrinsically superior to others, then yes, these individuals are racists. They have committed no crime, and should be subject to no legal or civil penalty. But they are racists.

Religious conviction does not constitute racism (as witnessed by your pivot to the notion of ‘ethnocentrism.’)

This will come as a surprise to the millions upon millions of white Americans who voted for Obama.

If only.

In a sense, you are correct because of the way I wrote. I think racism goes beyond people thinking they are better than other races. There are people who simply don’t want to deal with other races, and questions of superiority or inferiority don’t even cross their minds. In addition, some others have resentment towards other races, but don’t necessarily think they are better than others. So when I said that racism lessened, I wasn’t solely referring to people who simply think they are better than others.

I also asked you a question before. It seems you have a problem with someone thinking they are superior to someone else. Is there something wrong with this? Do they have to be worked over with dialogue? How will we know just who is thinking they are superior. If you don’t have an issue or problem with people thinking so, then I will take it that you are simply observing and conversing.

Jews are a mixed racial group, not just religious adherents. Anyway, are you OK with feeling superior based on religious adherence or just feelings of racial superiority?

Of course there are whites who voted for Obama, including people I know. What does that have to do with me asking if you’ve had conversations with many voting non-whites and their motivations in voting choices?

If only… Do you know how many non-whites I’ve met and had conversations, sometimes even heart-to-heart conversations, with throughout my life? Let me tell you: A LOT! Why the way, that was a generalization, and I know many Americans have problems with generalizing.

Well, as I stated earlier, I am a firm believer that there is one shared reality. Further, I believe that the scientific method represents our best chance for understanding this shared reality. That said, I would be surprised if anyone insisted on pigeonholing these beliefs as liberal (or conservative, or whatever).

As for “uniformity of thought,” I suppose this refers to what might broadly be called political correctness: Intolerance of contrarian viewpoints, highly-restrictive speech codes, hypersensitivity to perceived slights (eg, ‘microagressions’), and the like. I would agree that, on many college campuses (which is where such ideas tend to flourish), the pendulum has swung too far–that what started as an attempt to foster inclusivity and diversity has tipped into intolerance. However, I tend not to get too worked up over excesses associated with college life because, well, it’s college. That is, colleges have long been a place where ideas get twisted to the point of absurdity, and stretched past their breaking point. I am confident the social milieu on campus will self-correct before too long.

1 Like

So going back to the several pictures of “woman” I have posted, do you believe that they/we share a firm reality? Do we experience the reality of being an American female the same way if we are very ugly or very beautiful or physically handicapped or overweight? Scientific method has its advantages - it can tell us that slender women are offered jobs or proposed to x percent more often than their overweight counterparts, white women x percent more often than African American, very short white women x percent less often than one whose height is average or above, etc. But what does it tell us about the reality of being those women and experiencing their lives?

Whose reality are we using?

I am at a loss re where you got the idea I have a problem with one individual thinking s/he is superior (in the sense of better with regard to x) compared to another. For example, you are undoubtedly a superior squatter than I. (Which is nothing to write home about, so don’t let it go to your head.)

I am not in favor of ‘working over’ anyone with dialogue.

Do I think a belief that one’s affiliated religion occupies a special place amongst the world’s religions is tantamount to racism? No.

Nothing. But it has everything to do with your blanket statement that “[people] vote based on race!”

As this refers to an entirely personal and anecdotal set of experiences on your part, it is of very, very limited utility in a conversation such as this one.

I would say they/you share the same reality, but have each had a set of experiences that resulted in highly divergent opinions regarding how it feels–what it means–to be an American female. I would also point out that these experiences (and therefore opinions) are of necessity irreducibly intertwined and transactional–that is, the ugly women are ugly by comparison to the beautiful women; the overweight are so by comparison to the slender; etc.

In short, it is unnecessary and misleading (IMO) to elevate differences in experience to the level of differences in reality.

People in many places around the world can’t even conceive of my reality, and wouldn’t believe it if you told them.

So I’m not sure I agree that reality is not somewhat malleable.

Until they spent a month or two in the US, after which they would be able to conceive of it just fine. Given this, wouldn’t it be more parsimonious to say their experience changed, rather than their reality?

Sure, fair enough, But I don’t think it matters, because most people will never have their experience changed, and so their reality remains that which they can conceive. I suspect you find me naive, but frankly I find you so, too, in this regard. Empirical data is very valuable, profoundly so, but experienced reality is what most people live and die for. I’m a therapist. Imagine:

Client, unable to look at me: “And then he followed me out of the bar and raped me. I was half in and half out of the car.”
Me, nodding: “Only 17% of rapes are committed by strangers.”

Client, anguished: “I read back through the texts, and it looks like she’s been seeing him since last year.”
Me, nodding: “Women are increasingly more likely to have extramarital affairs - I think the number is around 40% now, though I’d have to check. Researchers attribute the increase to women’s greater presence in the workplace.”

Client, crying: “It happened probably from the time I was 8 until I was 14. He never apologized.”
Me, nodding: “Most molesters have a childhood history of sexual abuse themselves, though of course most people molested don’t go on to offend against others. But if they do, research shows overwhelmingly that they were victimized as well.”

I don’t know how you find empirical to equal real and experience somehow less crucial or weighty. If you want to change minds, I think understanding experience is key. The data is meant to support. Not replace.

Not at all. Really, I just think we’re suffering from a minor case of semantic confusion.

Here’s an example thereof. What you mean by the term experienced reality is what I mean by the word experience. I reserve the term reality to refer specifically to that which exists independent of our experience.

Empiricism is our only reliable tool for exploring reality (in the sense that I employ the word). But that is not to say the sort of personal experience you describe isn’t real.

I don’t. That’s an incorrect inference you’re making (probably due to poor explication on my part).