Newcomers do not merely “coexist” alongside you. They form political coalitions. They vote.

Even physical space in a city is to some extent zero sum. The old burger joint is either a burger place or it’s a halal shop. It can’t be both at the same time. And if the burger shop becomes a halal shop, then it’s not coexisting with the burger shop.

A city will have a character. It will look like something. The buildings will look like something. The buildings will contain various kinds of activities and if they contain those specific activities, then they don’t contain other activities.

Norms, too, compete. There will be rules around queuing, as in England. And as the English are finding out, people either queue or they don’t. You can’t have a situation where the people who queue coexist alongside the people who don’t.

What you see in our discourse is that wherever White norms come into conflict with immigrant or minority norms, the elite consensus is that the White norms are stodgy and oppressive and should just simply give away to the black and brown norms, which are superior.

These are all random examples, but this plays out in every detail. Immigration affects the most significant features of a culture’s ethos, its spirit, all the way down to its most trivial aesthetics.

If you change the people in a society, then you change the society. And you don’t just change it in random ways. You make it more like the people you’re bringing in and less like the people who are already there, proportionally.

Later in the thread, Cathy pivots to the empty truism that, well, you know, cultures change over time. What are you going to do? You can’t stop it.

But this is the position that because cultures sometimes change in ways that are unpredictable and difficult to control, we should not be allowed to prevent ours from changing in predictable ways that are really quite easy to control.

This is like saying, well, sometimes marriages drift apart naturally, honey, so I don’t really see why I shouldn’t be allowed to move my girlfriend into the house. 

If the word irretrievable sounds too emotive, consider the practicalities in the bus stop video. How does the customary courtesy prevail – how does it reassert itself – against a jostling mass of rude people? People whose attitude is screw the rules – and by extension, screw everyone else.

The considerate, including the elderly or frail or physically unimposing, will either have to start jostling too, or just stand back in muted dismay and wait for the next bus. Probably in the hope that the same thing doesn’t happen, or happen quite so badly.

So, one more time. Some things, when lost, may be irretrievable.

With such levels of unrealism and contrivance, such practised not-noticing – say, the claim that people in general are somehow unconcerned by “whether their children are genetically theirs” – it’s not altogether clear where one might begin.

We have arrived at the assumption that a primal, root-level motivation found across species is somehow absent in human beings – for no clearly stated reason – despite all appearance to the contrary, across continents and centuries, and despite the fact that human offspring are unusually dependent and require an uncommonly prolonged and costly investment by the parents.

Presumably, we should ignore studies confirming the correlation of parental investment and physical resemblance, i.e., relatedness, and the statistical preference among adoptive parents for children who could pass for their own biological offspring. Likewise, the lower aggregate levels of investment by stepfathers, noted many times.

And I’m guessing we’ll have to ignore the entire history of human courtship, a great deal of which has been geared towards ensuring genetic relatedness – and to avoiding cuckoldry. The cuckoldry that Mr Decker claims will somehow improve the world.

And remember, the targets in the videos above – the unimposing, the elderly, the disabled – are chosen deliberately and with glee. Because that’s who they are, these mighty warriors of the Cluster B Tendency. Malevolence is their aphrodisiac, their euphoria. It’s how they feel important. It’s how they process the buzzing noise inside their own heads.

The threat of catastrophic injury would, I suspect, be the only language such creatures are likely to heed. It’s certainly hard to imagine them being swayed by appeals to logic, reciprocation, or basic decency. I see no evidence of a better nature to which one might appeal.

I mean, once you’ve chosen to spend your afternoon menacing the elderly and disabled precisely because they’re unlikely to give you the vigorous kicking you deserve, you’re pretty much beyond any negotiation or genteel outreach project.

The attitude implied by the above would, I think, explain many failures on the progressive partner-finding front and the consequent “stepping away from dating altogether.” Though possibly not in ways the author intended.

Before we go further, it’s perhaps worth pondering how the conceit of “emotional labour” is typically deployed by a certain type of woman. Say, the kind who complains, in print and at great length, about the “emotional labour” of hiring a servant to clean her multiple bathrooms. Or writing a shopping list. Or brushing her daughter’s hair.

The kind of woman who would moan about the chore of choosing a holiday that her husband is paying for. And for whom explaining to her husband the concept of “emotional labour” is itself bemoaned as “emotional labour.” The final indignity.

The kind of woman who bitches in tremendous detail about her husband and his shortcomings – among which, an inability to receive instructions sent via telepathy – in the pages of a national magazine, where friends and colleagues of said husband, and perhaps his own children, can read on with amusement. The kind of woman who tells the world about how hiring servants is just so “exhausting,” while professing some heroic reluctance to complain.