Every so often, you come across something and the expression, “Peak Boomer,” dances across your mind.

Rejected Parents of Estranged Adult Children

From their welcome page:

Often, a rejected parent has done nothing to warrant an adult child’s rejection.

Really? And how, pray tell, do you know this to be the case?

How many adult children have you followed up with to ask why they decided to sever ties with their parents?

There are so many ways to call bullshit on that assertion, but let’s just stick to one:

Let’s assume that the parents didn’t do anything to warrant an outright rejection from their child. Who is responsible for raising that child to be so weakly bonded to their parents that they’d cut them out of their life for “nothing”?

There is no way to get around the fact that, in general, parents who are rejected by their adult children have set themselves up for this result. Children have their own personalities, and I’m sure it can be a real challenge. Even the most well-behaved child is going to press your buttons, test your limits.

But who made the choice to start this relationship? Not the child. They didn’t ask to be here. They’re only here because of the parent. How the parent responds to the child defines the relationship between them. That fact does not change simply because the child grows up into adulthood.

On a personal note, I would not be surprised if one or both of my parents made the audacious claim that they didn’t do anything wrong. “It was just, well, one day, he just decided to cut off contact with them. No warning! No notice! He just disappeared!”

“I bet it was that PODCASTER”

Right. It wasn’t the years of abuse and neglect. It wasn’t that you seemed bored and annoyed that I existed at all. It wasn’t that, when I brought up how unhappy I was, you made it all about you. It wasn’t that, after I no longer needed you, you somehow really, REALLY started to need me.

It was some stranger who pointed out to me that I didn’t have to put up with people treating me so poorly.

Some time ago, I put in a profile somewhere that “diversity of thought is what matters.” It’s probably still out there. If I find it, I’ll be changing it.

The reason? Well, I don’t think I actually believe in “diversity of thought.”

I started thinking about this after reading a comment on The post-Christian dilemma from Vox Day.

Now, yes: if there’s a problem I’m facing, getting somebody else’s perspective is often useful. At times, it’s even essential. Farming an idea to a handful of people can sometimes be fruitful.

But there is a reason that “too many cooks spoil the broth” is an expression.

Also, it’s rarely the case that the solution is something entirely novel. Usually, it’s something I overlooked, if not some wisdom I conveniently forgot.

Based on how I actually live my life, and how it appears others live theirs, nobody actually believes in “diversity of thought.”

The reason is this: very little is actually new. When something new does emerge, failure is the rule.

We rely on alignment and conformity of thought to go about our daily lives.

Furthermore, the expression, “diversity of thought,” is never an individual endeavor. You could call that “free thinking,” though that has its drawbacks (for one, not everybody can do it successfully or responsibly). No, “diversity of thought” is all about group and committee.

The other thing about “diversity of thought” that concerns me is just thinking about rhetoric. I’m no expert in the area, but rhetoric is about convincing people through emotional appeal.

SJWs love to use “anti-diversity” as a rhetorical attack against whites, particularly white males. They’re calling you “racist” or “sexist” without using those words.

Putting “diversity of thought” out there as a shield or, God help you, a retort against such an attack has got to be a rhetorical fail. Why?

The clearest test is if SJWs are offended by it. “They have to go back,” is very effective. Perhaps I’ve just missed it, but do SJWs even care about “diversity of thought”?

You can also just look at the expression itself. “Diversity of thought” is complex and wordy in a way that “They have to go back” is not. There’s an appeal to dialectic in the former that is going to go right over most people’s heads.

Another problem is that rhetoric need not be entirely true, but it must contain a kernel of truth at its heart. “They have to go back” doesn’t mean we need to expel every foreigner. Foreign guests who remain friendly and respectful of our culture are usually fine. But the vast majority of foreigners who, by their numbers, are changing our culture, need to not be here.

However, as I discussed above, “diversity of thought” doesn’t contain enough truth to be effective. The best you can come up with is that you ought to have some tolerance for new thoughts, but those new thoughts must stand up to scrutiny. Or, it is helpful to have a few different perspectives, as long as they are relevant.