RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Social Darwinism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Social Darwinism/Archive 1

BS[edit]

This is utter bullshit and a slander on both Spencer and Sumner, who were merely classical liberals or libertarians, which I would suppose the author to be.— Unsigned, by: somebody / talk / contribs

it's not slander, it's libel (because it's published rather than said). except that it's not even that, as they're both long dead. I think the word you're after is "misrepresentation"; however that seems to be exactly what the later Social Darwinists did. SophieWilderModerator 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Was good article until the ending bit of bias.[edit]

It was a very good article until the author slammed "the religious right" at the end. Whatever label you give yourself, please get over your own stereotypes because now I cannot use your article in my book which is against the social Darwinists (who do still exist and run our government until we get over their divide and conquer strategies against us and unite to remove them from power and from returning to power) and is from a religious perspective. Christ was not a social Darwinist. — Unsigned, by: 67.5.110.116 / talk / contribs 00:47, 31 October 2014

Firstly, using an article from a wiki, even if it is as accurate as RationalWiki, for an argumentative book, is not an incredibly good idea. You may want to find better sources for this.
Secondly, the author means to imply that racism has also been influenced by religious ideology both now and in the past. As an example, various pro-slavery, segregationists, and anti-interracial marriage apologist claimed there was/is a "natural separation of races ordained by God himself." S/he finds it ironic that the religious right seems to stand against Social Darwinism when they themselves have toyed with similar ideologies. This does not imply all of those in the religious right are racists. Derp cat (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately?[edit]

Not sure what rational basis exists to include the value-laden term"[f]ortunately" here: "Fortunately, most of Social Darwinism’s appeal left it in the early-to-middle part of the 20th century". — Unsigned, by: 71.229.120.254 / talk / contribs

Possibly the part where SDists tacitly supported genocide, and nearly all moralities would oppose that action? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Walter Block from the Ludwig von Mises Institute should be added as a supporter[edit]

See Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Poor_people_should_basically_die_for_the_good_of_the_species And the book in question had a foreword by Rothbard and an enthusiastic preface by Hayek. -- JorgeP (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

new section request[edit]

We need a section on how Social darwinism is not contigent upon the theory of evolution. King Crocoduck made a great analogy. Let me paraphrase "Social darwinism is contigent on the theory of evolution the same way atomic bombings are contigent upon Atomic Theory.

By the way, thanks for placing me in the vandal bin again, I'm beginning to hate this site more and more. I'm trying to contribute in a meaningful way but my edits keep getting deleted and I keep getting thrown in the vandal bin. JorisEnterStopBlockingMe (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of your post; good point, I agree!
Regarding the second part; please curb your enthusiasm and focus on only making the useful contributions you speak of (as opposed to whining on talkpages). Doing so will get you out of the bin fairly quickly. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Proponents of Social Darwinism are deluding themselves.[edit]

In a true battle royale free-for-all survival of the fittest situation most of these twits would likely get their asses handed to them. Comrade GC (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Being a biggot against classic liberals, and acusing free market of not reducing poverty when it actually does it better than redistribution?[edit]

Well, what's exactly the point of attacking free market ideas in a social darwinism's article? No other than arbitrary bs from some random biased moron, certainly. — Unsigned, by: 190.19.13.247 / talk / contribs

Other meaning[edit]

Why have I heard people talk about Social Darwinism meaning when morons get themselves killed? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)