Dr. Feser defines "woke" out of existence, part 2

In a not-so-recent post on his blog, Dr. Feser attempted to define the term "woke".  I discussed the first part of the post earlier, so now I'll move on.  As before, I will use "woke" in quotes when talking about how right-wingers use the term, and remove the quotes when using the term as I would.

Feser goes to list characteristics of his claimed "woke" mindset that are indicative of some psychological disorders (later identified as "depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders", still later referred to as "delusional paranoia", and compared to the full-blown schizophrenia of John Nash).  He has assembled quite a list of traits.  Amusingly, he succumbs to every item he accuses the "woke" of.

• emotional reasoning, or letting our feelings determine how we interpret reality rather than letting reality determine whether our feelings are the appropriate ones; -- Feser has a strong emotional reaction to depictions of homosexual or trans people, to the degree he can't stand having children exposed to the concepts, much less studying them
• catastrophizing, or focusing obsessively on the imagined worst possible outcome rather than on what the evidence shows are more likely outcomes; -- I really don't have to look further than identifying the mindset of "woke" people as "delusional paranoia", but I can do even better, such as when he refers to protestors as "tyrants" because they resist being tear-gassed, pull down statues dedicated for countering civil rights, feel free to protest vocally, and criticize people on the internet 
• overgeneralizing, or jumping to sweeping conclusions on the basis of one or a few incidents; I didn't find an example here, but neither did Feser describe "woke" people of suffering from this.
• dichotomous thinking, or seeing things in either-or terms when a more sober analysis would reveal more possibilities; Feser, when disagreeing with the existence of microaggressions, offers an either-or explanation when the reality is the effects combine (see part 1 for slightly more detail)
• mind reading, or jumping to conclusions about what other people are thinking; Feser's entire post is an exercise in mind-reading, and he misses the mark widely
• labeling, or slapping a simplistic description on some person or phenomenon that papers over its complexity; Feser's use of the term "woke"
• negative filtering and discounting positives, or looking only for confirming evidence for some pessimistic assumption while denying or downplaying confirming evidence that things are not in fact so bad; Feser's ignoring decades of research on racism is due to negative filtering
• blaming, or focusing on others as the sources of one’s negative feelings rather than taking responsibility for them oneself.  Feser projects his own negative feelings onto the "woke"

To paraphrase Feser, looking at the world through his ideas about "woke" leads him to be blind to oppression and injustice even where they do exist, to feel strongly aggrieved at the woke who point out this oppression and injustice, and then to treat the narrative of grievance that results as if it were confirming evidence of the unreality of the very real oppression and injustice.  It distorts his reality.

In the next paragraph, he refers to the confidence of the woke (not surprising given the decades of studies), but also refers to their supposed tendency to attack critics, apparently not realizing that Feser and his ilk are doing the attacking.  When you deny the reality of the trans existence or deny the daily, lived experience of another as some sort of delusion, that is an attack on a fundamental part of someone's identity, a part that they already suffer oppression from. 

Ironically, Feser opines:  Hence it would, for example, be unjust for a government to protect the lives, liberties, and property rights of citizens of one race while not doing the same for citizens of other races.  This would be a clear case of an unjust inequity.  Again, Feser ignores decades of studies that citizens of different races do not receive equitable protection of their life, liberty, and property.

Again, Feser opines:  What I am calling hyper-egalitarian is the tendency to suspect all inequalities of being per se unjust – for example, to suppose that if 10% of the population of a country is of a certain race yet less than 10% of the stockbrokers in that country are of that race, this amounts to a “racist” inequity that cannot be given an innocent explanation and must somehow be eliminated by governmental policy.  Feser does not present an alternative explanation, for example, that Hispanic people are over 12% of the population but less than 6% of stockbrokers.  With over 43,000 stockbrokers, The probability of this being due to random chance is effectively zero.  Feser needs to offer an explanation not rooted in racism to make his point effectively. 

To paraphrase Feser again, I am not saying that Feser is as insane as the John Nash.  Nor is Feser even as shrill as commentariat.  Like other forms of delusional paranoia, denial of oppression comes in degrees.  But if you think that views like Critical Race Theory, Gender Theory, etc. are so obviously wrong that no decent and well-informed person could possibly support them, and find it at least difficult calmly and rationally to engage with anyone who thinks otherwise, you in denial.  And precisely because you find it difficult calmly and rationally to entertain the possibility that you are part of the problem, your attitude is paradigmatically irrational.