Social Darwinism

[conodont]

Social Darwinism is the belief that natural selection should apply to different groups of people, and that some people are objectively better than others. Which people are classified as "better" or "worse" varies between supporters of the theory, but there is a general belief that the "better" should see their power increase and the "weaker" should see their power decrease. In some cases, Social Darwinism is used to justify a free market system where the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Social Darwinism was also used to justify several genocides, with the Armenian Genocide occurring as a result of the CUP's belief that there was a life or death conflict between Turks and Armenians, and one would need to be eliminated. More notably, the Holocaust was also justified using Social Darwinist rhetoric.

Due to its association with propaganda, scientific racism, and eugenics, Social Darwinism has been largely discredited in modern times. Despite its bad reputation, I don't think Social Darwinism is, by itself, completely false. Some people are clearly better than others, and people who don't make meaningful contributions to society or are mentally ill are less likely to reproduce. Many neurocognitive (Huntington's disease), neurodevelopmental (some forms of autism), and neuropsychiatric (some forms of depression) disorders are hereditary, and would reasonably be expected to impact a person's fitness. While I don't think there's a life or death conflict between races or that rich people are objectively better than poor people, there is some truth in the discredited theory.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Social Darwinism is prime candidate of something that is objectively true but people try to villainize due to having bad implications. Though you could argue that the people doing it have ulterior motives.

The big issue with discussing it is that the people usually invoking it are sub human parts of their group.

 

[Nomadic Snake Hunter]

"There is nothing deadlier for a nation than the fear of growth." -Atsız
Neither men nor nations are created equal.

 

[conodont]

Social Darwinism is prime candidate of something that is objectively true but people try to villainize due to having bad implications. Though you could argue that the people doing it have ulterior motives.

The big issue with discussing it is that the people usually invoking it are sub human parts of their group.

"Lesser people" are a common scapegoat brought up by unsuccessful people. The greatest strength of all is realizing that the reason why your life is horrible is because of you. That's the key to self-improvement, the key that unlocks all other strengths. We need to stop seeing Social Darwinism as an ideology, but as a fact.

 

[Internet Wizard]

Due to its association with propaganda, scientific racism, and eugenics, Social Darwinism has been largely discredited in modern times. Despite its bad reputation, I don't think Social Darwinism is, by itself, completely false. Some people are clearly better than others, and people who don't make meaningful contributions to society or are mentally ill are less likely to reproduce. Many neurocognitive (Huntington's disease), neurodevelopmental (some forms of autism), and neuropsychiatric (some forms of depression) disorders are hereditary, and would reasonably be expected to impact a person's fitness. While I don't think there's a life or death conflict between races or that rich people are objectively better than poor people, there is some truth in the discredited theory.

To even give social darwinism an ounce of credibility you would have to be so far up your own ass in thinking that sociocultural issues are caused purely by racial/social/physical/class differences and inferiority and that by eliminating, by nature or racial hygiene/eugenics, lesser peoples society could be made "better". And better for who? It was always an idea posited by rich fucks who thought the poors should starve because they didn't work hard enough or weren't as lucky as them, when society itself relies on lower classes to function. Never mind the fact that this is basically purely a hyper individualist libertarian capitalist line of thinking, saying fuck you to any ideas of collective responsibility within the state, sharing wealth and productivity, and other core tenets that a country needs to survive.
It's not surprising that Thunderdome retards would love this line of thinking though

 

[conodont]

To even give social darwinism an ounce of credibility you would have to be so far up your own ass in thinking that sociocultural issues are caused purely by racial/social/physical/class differences and inferiority and that by eliminating, by nature or racial hygiene/eugenics, lesser peoples society could be made "better". And better for who? It was always an idea posited by rich fucks who thought the poors should starve because they didn't work hard enough or weren't as lucky as them, when society itself relies on lower classes to function. Never mind the fact that this is basically purely a hyper individualist libertarian capitalist line of thinking, saying fuck you to any ideas of collective responsibility within the state, sharing wealth and productivity, and other core tenets that a country needs to survive.
It's not surprising that Thunderdome retards would love this line of thinking though

You seem to have not read anything that I wrote. I'm not saying that social and cultural issues are caused by 'lesser people', but that some people are objectively better than others. That's pretty much what my entire post was saying.

 

[Internet Wizard]

You seem to have not read anything that I wrote. I'm not saying that social and cultural issues are caused by 'lesser people', but that some people are objectively better than others. That's pretty much what my entire post was saying.

Better is too broad of a descriptor, what defines better?
Are the "rich" better than the "poor"? From a purely physical standpoint I don't see what makes Elon Musk any more fit than your average ironworker

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

In some cases, Social Darwinism is used to justify a free market system where the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.

Any retard can flourish with inherited wealth, and the poor have very little actual upward mobility, so it seems dumb for the term to apply since it implies superiority in some way when it's actually often entirely circumstantial.

While I don't think there's a life or death conflict between races or that rich people are objectively better than poor people, there is some truth in the discredited theory.

There is a life or death conflict among races if you look at interracial crime statistics, but rich people definitely aren't objectively better than poor people, perhaps with the few exceptions where the poor become rich, but that's more often through luck than outstanding competence.

 

[Audit]

Any retard can flourish with inherited wealth, and the poor have very little actual upward mobility, so it seems dumb for the term to apply since it implies superiority in some way when it's actually often entirely circumstantial.

This is more or less the issue with applying social darwinism to individuals. It's not just a bad system, it actively rewards the degeneration of successful demographics by rewarding their worst representatives while universally punishing all members of the unsuccessful demographics.

Social darwinism, at best, can only be applied at a civilizational level to justify the conquest of lesser civilizations. Even then, it rewards mindless conquest that ultimately results in a collapse after overextension and disintegration of the resulting empire back into its constituent parts (e.g. Ottoman empire, Mongol empire, Alexander's empire, etc.). There's just not really a benefit to forming master-slave civilizations. The masters always import too many slaves to increase their own power until eventually the nation is better defined by the slaves than the masters. The longest lived and most successful civilizations are notably homogenous and find their diversity over laughably small distinctions that a foreigner would struggle to notice. Compare Western countries importing infinite browns to China. Taking in outsiders and enslaving them is a stupid plan that doesn't work.

Curiously, there have been many ideologies (e.g. mercantilism, colonialism, and neoliberalism) that seek to achieve the redistribution of resources between civilizations without bringing the enslaved population to the master's homeland. This has even been quite successful for a time when the inferior population cannot threaten the ruling population and maintaining the trade difference is profitable.

 

[Kovachs]

Social darwinism here is too broadly defined. It encompasses anything from believing in existential conflict between groups, to believing that differences in character and behavior across groups/individuals produce different life outcomes. What does it even mean to claim social darwinists think some people are "objectively" good? This is so fucking retarded.