Discontinued Lines
“Open borders” advocate Nicholas Decker shares his thoughts on totally progressive fatherhood:
So far, so good. If not exactly newsworthy. Perhaps a twist is coming, some needless contrivance.
Ah.
There we go. Not sure if watching is involved.
It seems we’re expected to follow Mr Decker’s lead, into that glorious tomorrow, where cuckoldry is ascendant, an ideal, and where fathers and their children are biologically disconnected and physically estranged. Because that always goes smoothly. No issues there. There follows a rather flattened understanding of genetics, and much convoluted fretting, but the gist is,
At which point, readers may be wondering if there’s something wrong with Mr Decker. I mean, some debilitating condition that he would rather not pass on.
I sense a looming but.
It strikes me as a little odd, in terms of hypothetical fatherhood, comparing one’s own as-yet-unknown potential in that regard against some entirely abstract ideal, the particulars of which remain unclear. Fatherhood, I’ve been told, more than once, is very much a process of discovery, and indeed self-discovery.
I’m reminded of the boastfully oblivious noises poked at here. From childless progressives who claimed to view any hypothetical parenting on their part, the birth of a child, as some arbitrary occurrence, unmoored from any biological inheritance or preceding events. Childless progressives who were seemingly unfamiliar with the strange pleasure of seeing one’s children develop the features and attributes of oneself, one’s partner, and various relatives.
However,
Bodes well.
He cares quite a lot about other people, you see. Just not his own family. Hence pursuing biological disconnection, the breaking of lineage and ancestry. At which point, any passing psychiatrists are welcome to chip in.
And then, of course, there’s the issue of whether biological connectedness might be statistically optimal in terms of parenting, engagement, avoiding neglect, and so forth. As available data would suggest. And which would seem to have bearing on any child’s odds of flourishing and happiness.
Needless to say, replies to Mr Decker on X have been lively:
And,
Mr Decker tells us he is “presently pursuing a PhD in Economics at George Mason University.” His interests include “reducing poverty… particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
Clue.
It does suggest a theme.
Betting yes on that.
Kinda like a DIY eugenics enthusiast.
It’s weird, no doubt about it. The mentions of his family seem to indicate that he had that sort of upbringing which tends to instil trauma and encourage these kind of terrible ideas.
Man hands on misery to man,
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.
Larkin may have been just as misanthropic. But at least he was wittier than Mr Decker here.
It’s almost as if the goal were to be contrived and impractical, to make things more complicated and less likely to work. While affecting an obliviousness to certain everyday realities.
Which would, I think, fit a pattern we’ve seen before.
I’m just going to leave this here.
In case it should prove useful.
A near universal symptom of a disease we are all familiar with.
It would help (not really) if he even knew what he was on about.
I do believe they tried that in a troublesome European country back in the ’30s and ’40s, blond hair, blue eyes, and all that. It didn’t work out too well in the long run, but who is the arbiter of what is a “better” phenotype?
By his own logic (such as it is), if your family is loons then, as the twig is bent so grows the tree, so will be the luckless offspring.
…and now, the rest of the story…
Just spitballing here, but I am beginning to think he might have an inadequacy complex.
Even better, Social Justice Eugenics, a whole new endeavor.