- 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. SophieWilder 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Was good article until the ending bit of bias.
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: 188.8.131.52 / 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)
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: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs
- Possibly the part where SDists tacitly supported genocide, and nearly all moralities would oppose that action? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Walter Block from the Ludwig von Mises Institute should be added as a supporter
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
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.
Being a biggot against classic liberals, and acusing free market of not reducing poverty when it actually does it better than redistribution?
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: 220.127.116.11 / talk / contribs