My Plight: Burning Hours to Dissect Dumb Ideas with Precision

Claire Lehmann is Editor of Quillette. She nailed it in the Tweet below.

The Woke movement (she terms it "post-structuralist" thought) is a fermenting vat of vague, self-contradictory claims, much of them unhinged from the analytical evidence-based Enlightenment tradition that has proven itself by sending people to the moon. Wokeness functions as a Trojan horse; it looks like something good, but functions to disarm skeptical analytical thought. It functions much like fundamentalist religion, elevating raw feeling above analytical thought.

We need to meet Wokeness on its own terms if we are to show where it has gone astray. The challenge is that it requires a substantial investment to become fluent in Woke. Further, fully engaging seems like a non-ending exercise, given the continuous propagation of new ad hoc Woke concepts. Is it even possible to have a conversation where one side disparages analytical thinking, self-critical thought and even mathematics? It's the equivalent of sending a time-traveling Enlightenment thinker back to the Dark Ages to discuss the scientific method with Middle Age Church leaders.

I'm looking for the sweet spot--enough familiarity that I can demonstrate to timid outsiders that the Wokeness is drenched in destructive anti-intellectualism. Woke thought is also sprinkled with some salient legitimate concerns and emotionally-charged factual accuracies, however, so one needs to read and listen carefully.

Much of the danger can be nullified by putting the definitions of key Woke terms under the spotlight, terms such as "anti-racism, "critical," "systemic racism" and "gender."  Modern Discourses has compiled an excellent encyclopedia for understanding the origin and meaning of these terms by the Woke, as well as additional commentary.

In the meantime, how does one most efficiently convey this danger of Woke thought to the great majority of Americans, who are quietly hunkering down, waiting for this wave of socially-reverse-engineered thought to pass over? How does one best warn that this wave of anti-intellectualism and stifled inquiry will be around for a long time, given that a loud (but relatively small) mob of Woke activists has cowed the two key institutions that should be fighting the hardest against it (media and universities)?

That is our plight.

Continue ReadingMy Plight: Burning Hours to Dissect Dumb Ideas with Precision

Undeniable Research: Cities Are Safer With More Police Officers

What is the relationship between the numbers of police on the street and rate of violent crime? In a recent Vox article, "The End of Policing left me convinced we still need policing," Matthew Yglesias offers some real numbers to counter rampant speculation we are hearing from the many people who are understandably upset with police misconduct. His conclusion: "One of the most robust, most uncomfortable findings in criminology is that putting more officers on the street leads to less violent crime.” Therefore, if you want to increase violent crime in rich and poor neighborhoods alike, simply remove police officers. Here are some specific cases summarized by Yglesias:

"Klick, John MacDonald, and Ben Grunwald looked at an episode when the University of Pennsylvania had its campus police increase patrols within its defined zone of Philadelphia, and used a regression discontinuity design to discover that crime fell about 60 percent (this time with a larger decline for violent crime) where the extra officers went.

Stephen Mello looked at a huge surge in federal funding for local police staffing associated with the 2009 stimulus bill. Exploiting quasi-random variation in which cities got grants, Mello showed that compared to cities that missed out, those that made the cut ended up with police staffing levels that were 3.2 percent higher and crime levels that were 3.5 percent lower — again with a larger drop in violent crime.

John MacDonald, Jeffrey Fagan, and Amanda Geller looked at a program in New York called Operation Impact that would surge additional officers into high-crime neighborhoods and found that a wide range of crime — assaults, robberies, burglaries, violent felonies, violent property crimes, and misdemeanor offenses — fell in response to the surge.

Richard Rosenfeld’s field experiments show that “hot spot” policing, where extra officers go to specific high-crime locations, not only reduces crime in the hot spots but reduces crime (in this case, specifically gun assaults) citywide.

Patrick Sharkey, a Princeton sociologist who is clearly sympathetic to the goals of the defunding movement, writes in a Washington Post piece arguing for a greater role for local leaders and communities in containing violence that “those who argue that the police have no role in maintaining safe streets are arguing against lots of strong evidence."

Continue ReadingUndeniable Research: Cities Are Safer With More Police Officers

A Moment of Unity Slipped Through Our Fingers

I feel like we let a moment of unity slip through our fingers. It seems that when we collectively watched the killing of George Floyd, we were all horrified. I have friends across the political spectrum, and even those I most disagree with – the die hard Trump supporters – were as outraged by that murder as anyone. And then came the first peaceful protest, and it seemed that everyone was absolutely behind it. For a moment.

Protesters gather in downtown Minneapolis. Unrest in Minneapolis over the May 25th death of George Floyd.

Then on the fringes of the peaceful, heartfelt protests came the fringe elements – the violence, vandalism, looting. Even then, for a moment, it seemed that the facts and the narrative were that this was a few bad actors and a few bad cops causing a disturbance at an otherwise peaceful demonstration.

And then very quickly our politicians and the media, jumped in to divide us again. Inadvertently perhaps, but now we're not just divided, we're fractured. Now there are multiple "camps" within the left and right, all disagreeing with each other.

I believe this is because we have gotten so accustomed to having quick, easy answers to what's going on. We need to determine, before we have any facts, who is responsible for the rioting and looting. We demand to know and the media is compelled to fill the airwaves with something, anything, to fill our need to know. And politicians are eager to point blame at whatever entity will help to score points with their base. We collectively want to blame one group of people for this, and assign a single motive. That makes it easy.

  • Angry black people fed up with the way they're treated
  • White people who want to instigate and turn the protest violent to make black people seem out of control
  • Undercover police who want to further the narrative that these protesters should be handled with violence
  • Opportunistic people of any race who want to take advantage of the situation for whatever reason<
  • Radical left wingers who want to destroy our country
  • Radical right wingers who want to destroy our country

Maybe it's all of the above. Maybe there are far more reasons for it than we've heard. But it's still a small number of people amongst the masses of peaceful protesters. But now, because our focus is on the violence, that's the narrative. Now when we say "protester" we think burning buildings and looting. That's so not fair.

It is not fair to anyone, and detrimental to our unity, when we see some photos of white looters, and conclude that all the looters are white. It's not fair to anyone, to see images of black people looting and decide that all the looters are black. It's not fair to see images of cops being brutal to peaceful protesters and conclude that all cops are out of control. It's not fair to see images of some police kneeling with protesters and conclude that all cops are good and want to connect with their diverse communities.

All of that is happening, all at once. We have to open our minds to the idea that this is not something that we can wrap up in a neat package, put a label on it, and feel good that we have the answer. We don't. None of us do. This is complicated. We need to unify to resolve it.

Continue ReadingA Moment of Unity Slipped Through Our Fingers

How the Lack of Money and Power Corrupt the Message of People Trying to Protest the Murder of George Floyd

Here’s how I would explain the violent George Floyd protests to a Martian anthropologist.

The U.S. Constitution gives a theoretical “right” to free speech but not a real-life ability to speak powerfully or widely. Whereas money and power give rich people many ways to blast out their messages, ordinary Americans wanting to get out their messages often get eaten in the public square by street vultures. Consider these two examples.

When Donald Trump wants to make an announcement, he commands dozens of types of federal military and police organizations. This allows Trump to calmly walk up to a podium or stroll down the street in order to tell Americans what a smart man he is, or how religious or healthy or whatever. While he stands up there flatulating these lies, no one interrupts Trump because he controls a massively expensive and well-armed system of law enforcement officers and they extend their perimeter so widely that unfriendly others can’t get close. If any protestors try to get close enough to interrupt Trump’s bombastic bullshit, Trump’s police officers and soldiers throw their asses into jail.

Compare this to the George Floyd protests, where many thousands of ordinary Americans took to the streets, but they were then on their own. Ordinary Americans don’t control law enforcement. They cannot control their perimeters in order to safely deliver their message without interruption. As we’ve seen over and over, as soon as the heartfelt protestors get started delivering their messages in the public square, the area becomes an undefended magnet for uninvited masses of miscreants: anarchists, vandals, arsonists, inciters of violence and many others who clearly don’t give a shit about George Floyd. Virtually every time ordinary people gather together by the hundreds or thousands, their message gets corrupted because ordinary Americans do not have the money or power to hire hundreds of law enforcement officers to control their perimeter. Their message gets diluted by broken glass, thrown bricks and burning businesses, as well as horrible injuries, shattered dreams and gruesome deaths. Following this widespread mayhem, the heartfelt protestors get blamed for something they never planned or intended. The many people who simply wanted to bring attention to George’s Floyd’s murder are accused of intentionally destroying America’s central cities. The photos appearing in the mass media are Exhibits A-Z.

That’s how it almost always ends for those without great amounts of money and power. That is how it is in this Land where everyone only has the right to pointlessly yell out their grievances in their own living room or from their front porch. This is the Land where people of modest means can no longer assemble in peace to deliver stinging rebukes to corrupt politicians because they do not have the money or power to control and deliver a message in the public square, no matter how important that message is.

Continue ReadingHow the Lack of Money and Power Corrupt the Message of People Trying to Protest the Murder of George Floyd

Martin Luther King Opposed Riots. Full Stop.

The death of George Floyd was horrific and revolting, as was the purported "cause of death" contained in the criminal complaint. A newly released private autopsy now verifies what we all saw with our own eyes: George Floyd was murdered by the police. And now, riots are spreading across the United States.

Reading social media over the last few days, one would get the impression that Martin Luther King would approve of this destructive rioting we are witnessing in Minneapolis and many other American Cities.  What I am seeing on social media is that rioting is justified because it supposedly results only in property damage or that insurance will pay for all the damage. Here is the money quote in which MLK purportedly justified riots: "But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard."  Even MLK's son Martin Luther King III deceptively uttered his father's quote and he was promptly corrected with much vigor on Twitter.  The pro-rioting crowd is unhinged. As though it is necessary to destroy property, livelihoods and even lives in order to exercise the First Amendment. As though "rioting is speech" any more than "money is speech." As though destroying businesses, burning the property of innocent third parties or smashing the skulls of human beings constitutes speech any more than funneling corrupt money to political candidates.  For these folks, why stop at riots? War is now speech too, right? It appears that left now meets right: we've politically come full circle.

Along with the riots, we are thus witnessing selective and deceptive quote-mongering in an attempt to turn Martin Luther King's teachings upside down. He never condoned rioting and he opposed riots for specific carefully articulated reasons. Here are MLK's 1967 and 1968 statements on rioting:

It is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met.

. . . .

Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.

. . . .

And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non­violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years.

. . . .

Finally,
Now what I'm saying is this: I would like for all of us to believe in non-violence, but I'm here to say tonight that if every Negro in the United States turns against non-violence, I'm going to stand up as a lone voice and say, "This is the wrong way!"

If you really truly believe that riots are justified in response to the death of George Floyd, let's not pervert the teachings of Martin Luther King in the process.  You are not preaching violence in kinship with MLK.  If you are reveling the ongoing joyride of violence through America's city centers, stop (if you can) to remember that facts are not negotiable.  For his entire life, MLK never wavered from the path of non-violence. He never approved of rioting, even where the injury was egregious, as it was in the case of George Floyd.

I was provoked to write this article after reading an article on the same topic. See "No, Martin Luther King Was Not Pro-Riot" at the National Review.

Continue ReadingMartin Luther King Opposed Riots. Full Stop.