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.
Read more!

Dr. Feser defines "woke" out of existence, part 1

In a not-so-recent post on his blog, Dr. Feser attempted to define the term "woke".  Unsurprisingly, he made several mischaracterizations, of which I will address a few.

We can begin in the very first sentence:  A common talking point among the woke is the claim that “woke” is just a term of abuse that has no clear meaning.  The correction would be:  “Woke” is just a term of abuse among right-wing commentators that has no clear meaning, but refers to any policies/facts/lesson plans about minorities that they don't like.  Feser proves the latter to be true in his attempt to defend the former.

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, which would be something like:  recognition that there are many ways, some not obvious, that oppression can manifest itself.  

It would be unfair to not include his definition:  "Wokeness" is a paranoid delusional hyper-egalitarian mindset that tends to see oppression and injustice where they do not exist or greatly to exaggerate them where they do exist. By this definition, no straight, while, cis, etc., male (such as me) can be "woke" because, regardless of how much we agree that society is fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., it favors me.  Feser would consider me pronoid instead, meaning I can't be "woke".  It's  a measure of Feser's privilege that he seems to think everyone who shares some common characteristics with him must agree with him.

Next, he gives  several examples of "wokeness", all of which are laughable. 

• Characterizing as racist “microaggressions” behaviors that in fact are either perfectly innocuous or at worst just ordinary rudeness; -- people exhibit much more "ordinary rudeness" to those they consider (perhaps subconsciously) of a lower social status, and in particular toward black people.  It's both day-to-day rudeness and racism working in tandem.
• condemning some economic outcome as a racist “inequity” despite there being no empirical evidence whatsoever that it is due to racism; -- to offer one example, racism dictates and has dictated where we live, with all the differences that creates in the ability to generate wealth through home ownership, environmental pollution, educational quality, availability of good food, etc.  where we live affects every facet of our life, hence, racism does by this facet alone.
• condemning as “transphobic” recognition of the commonsense and scientific fact that sex is binary; -- any time Feser can't justify a position, he calls it "common sense" as he does here, when the scientific fact is that there are multiple ways to specify sex, and any combination can be present in any individual; however, Feser seems confused by multi-factored analysis (as can be seen in his linear notion of causation, e.g., his hand-stick-stone argument for a first cause, when causes are more like lattices).
• condemning as “racist” the view that public policy should be color-blind and that racial discrimination is wrong whatever the race of the persons being discriminated against; -- Feser seems unaware that this claim is used by people who want to engage in de facto racism while maintaining de jure equality.
• condemning as “antigay” the view that it is not appropriate for grade schools to address matters of sexuality in the classroom without parental consent; -- matters of heterosexuality are discussed all the time in grade school classrooms, and Feser would eagerly join any protest if all depictions of heterosexual couples were banned, but he chooses not to be honest about others expecting equal treatment.

Feser does not adress address the scholarship behind these concepts.  By failing to do so, he renders his attacks on the people who know the scholaship irrelevant, and those who acknowledge the scholarly consensus are neither delusional nor paranoid.  Feser's definition of "wokeness" has no greater correspondence to reality than the definition of a jackalope; his definition of "wokeness" has no existence.

Feser nevertheless goes on to slur "wokeness" for a couple of paragraphs.  He touts two books, one his, one by two other conservatives, none of whom are trained in the study of sociology.  I guess when conservative lawyers pass for experts on evolution or climate change, this is right in line with the trust conservatives place in ignorance of the topic at hand.

I think this is a good stopping point.  In part 2, we'll see how Feser accuses the "woke" of several habits of poor thought, but succumbs to everyone one of them, a case of the pot accusing the table of being soot-stained.
Read more!

Heard on a train

I hate driving. About two years ago, I changed jobs to from working at a Metro East hospital to working for the WashU School of Medicine, which is on the other side of the river from me. Since my day job is more than a half-hour drive from where I live (we moved from O'Fallon to Belleville late last year, but it didn't help), I ride the train to work. It's a great way to catch up on my sleep (I have alarms set to wake me before my stop). So, yesterday afternoon I was on the train as usual, when suddenly there was some loud banging along the bottom of the carriage, between the Memorial Hospital and Swansea stops.

I never found out what caused the banging, but it damaged the train, which almost immediately came to a hard stop. The operator tried to get it moving a couple of times, but the train only went a couple of feet, shuddered slightly, and stopped again. A couple of passengers muttered about getting out and walking, but I knew that was not going to happen (Metro St. Louis would never allow it). The conductor got out and looked under the train. A few minutes later, the train going in the other direction passed us in the tracks for the opposite direction. Then, after a few minutes more, a train going in our direction also passed us on those tracks. I wasn't watching the clock, but since the trains come every 12 minutes, and there would be delays from cross-tracking, I knew we had been stuck for at least 15 minutes.

Then a woman walked by me, talking about how her three-year-old might get stuck at home by themself. I believe she was the only one who actually asked the conductor to be let off so she go get to her child, but she was told no. She walked back to her seat.

The conductor went to the back of our car to try something, and we moved backwards a little, but that was it. She returned to the front. Another Metro employee appeared on the walking path a few yards from the train, on the other side of the fence. She couldn't reach us, of course, but she and the conductor exchanged a few words. Two more trains passed us, one in each direction. It had been close to half an hour now.

The mother of the three-year-old walked by me again, and I heard groans and sighs of aggravation from a few passengers around me. The mother again asked to be let off the train, and the argument was briefly heated. The mother again returned to her seat, accompanied by a couple of more groans, disparaging comments whispered to neighbors, and stares.

Finally, a train pulled up on the opposite-direction tracks, and stopped. We were evacuated onto the second train, and finally on our way again. The relief and anger on the mothers face as she got off at Swansea was easily visible.

I rarely see such a lack of sympathy toward a worried parent. I wonder if it was, at least in part, due to her being black.


Read more!

"I thought she was going to stab me"

There was a disagreement at our worksite at the end of the day. People my company hired to clean up some leaves were blowing onto a smallish vacant lot across the street, and the people next to the lot were highly annoyed.

The neighbors were dressed in worked clothes; perfectly normal people who were angry. However, they were black. Therefore, the white workers were apparently scared the whole time. One of them told me afterward that when the first neighbor left her house, "I thought she was going to stab me".

I'm sure the worker doesn't believe he is racist. He just thinks every angry black person is likely to stab him.

Read more!

My take on the shooting of Trayvon Martin

 There's an aspect of the Trayvon Martin shooting I have not seen discussed much. It's probably due to the limited circle that I read. Most people seem eager to justify Zimmerman's actions, such as The Wagist. He has a theory that Martin actually initiated a first confrontation with Zimmerman, and then attacked Zimmerman when Zimmerman initiated the second. Even if you grant all this, and everything else he proposes, giving Zimmerman every reasonable consideration that is available, it does not change that Zimmerman is a murderer, at least ethically and morally (legally, I'll leave up to the justice system). I'll discuss more below the fold.

First, though, let's be clear: to the degree that race exists at all, Zimmerman is white. Any of his features will be found in people of European ancestry. Hispanic is a cultural background, not a race. He looks white, and gets treated as if he is white by strangers. He’s white in every effective way.

So, Martin was a young black man in an unfamiliar neighborhood in the South being followed by a white man. Martin was alone and unarmed; for all he knew there may have been many people in the car. The first thing that would have come to my mind was being killed (maybe lynched, maybe dragged behind the car, maybe just being beaten). It's not a huge likelihood, but it's a notion you can't get out of your head, either. Martin visibly reacts to the potential threat by pulling up his hood and walking faster. This reaction is visible to Zimmerman.

At this point, Zimmerman knows that Martin is aware of being followed. Zimmerman has deterred the potential (in Zimmerman's eyes) crime, just by making the potential (in Zimmerman's eyes) criminal aware there is a someone watching. Further, a burglar had just been arrested, lowering the chance of Martin being a burglar. Zimmerman has done his duty in the neighborhood watch; there is no reason for him to keep following Martin. Yet, he does keep following Martin.

According to the theory at The Wagist, at some point Martin knocks on the window of Zimmerman’s car and asks Zimmerman why Zimmerman is following Martin. At this point, Zimmerman could say he’s keeping watch, and has called the police. Instead, Zimmerman lies about following Martin. As Martin walks off, Zimmerman then has the choice to stop following Martin at this point. Instead, he follows Martin again. So, if this theory is true, Martin is now being followed by a strange man who has lied to Martin about following Martin. That raises the danger level even more in Martin’s eyes.

Whether the theory is accurate or not, Martin starts running. So, now Zimmerman has actually chased off the (to Zimmerman) potential burglar. Even though he has not seen a crime, he has scared the kid/young man away. In terms of protecting the neighborhood, there is nothing to be gained from further pursuit, because Zimmerman hasn’t seen anything illegal. He’s only seen a kid/young man walking along, and maybe had a short conversation where Zimmerman lied about what he was doing. When you run someone off, you don’t pursue them if you are just trying to protect your turf. You pursue them if you are looking to confront them (at least, where I grew up). Zimmerman pursues. Even if Zimmerman is not intending to confront Martin, Zimmerman is creating a situation where it looks like Zimmerman’s intention is to confront Martin.

Martin has now done everything that can be expected of him to avoid a confrontation. He walked faster, possibly confronted Zimmerman for an explanation, and then ran off. Zimmerman has pursued Martin throughout, never identifying himself as part of the neighborhood watch or anything other than a white man following a black man in the South. So, when Martin sees Zimmerman again, after running off, he has two choices: lead this stranger to his father’s house (assuming he hasn’t got confused in the dark, unfamiliar neighborhood and even knows where it is in his excited state), or confront him directly. We know from the girlfriend’s testimony that Martin yells at Zimmerman a request for why Zimmerman is following him (possibly for the second time). Zimmerman refuses to answer the question (possibly for the second time), and instead demands that Martin has to explain his presence. Maybe Zimmerman didn’t intend that to be a threat, but I would have heard a threat behind it (black men considered to be in places they don’t belong are regularly reminded of such with beatings, and worse). Martin quite possibly responds to the perceived threat by attacking Zimmerman. A fight ensues; the gun Zimmerman brought to the confrontation Zimmerman initiated goes off; Martin is dead.

Of course, if someone feels I’ve overlooked something that would cast things more favorably on Zimmerman, feel free to let me know, and I will amend this post if it is reasonable. However, this description is as much in Zimmerman’s favor as I can reasonably skew this. The end result is that Zimmerman brought the gun and initiated the confrontation; he’s ethically responsible for Martin’s death. Zimmerman hid what he was doing at least once; he’s morally responsible for Martin’s death. As I said, I’ll leave legally for the upcoming trial.
Read more!