Can anyone here explain to me why Social Darwinism is always looked down upon?

It's not a description of reality, it's a polemic against cooperation.

>Social Darwinism can go along strongly with sexual-evolution
Are you implying that the death of families is a good thing?

>It's a valid theory
That's the thing - it's not. Firstly because its entire ethos unravels the moral fabric of society by throwing solidarity through a window, which is what gives it strength and makes life in it bearable. It lowers people to beasts locked in a struggle for survival - survival they could easily ensure through cooperation. You want social darwinism? Read up on why Arabic NCOs are so terrible. Exactly because of the intense competitiveness which makes them into enemies, preventing them from helping each other learn and irreparably ruining the esprit du corps. What you propose is complete societal collapse, you blind idiot. Secondly, because the genetic variability between different bloodlines isn't nearly prominent enough to justify basing an entire ideology solely off it. Thirdly, it is deeply unethical and shows callousness toward human life which cannot be forgiven.

> I am looking at you communists.
I am not a communist. I have strong socialist leanings, but no love for the ideological tenets of communism.

>You can still argue social-Darwinism in a communist society.
Hardly, for it would be imposing ideology upon each member of the society, which communists would consider oppressive. Not to mention how easy it would be to make a connection between that ideology and the arguments the bourgeoisie uses to legitimize its position.

Because it's an extrapolation of one causal principle in nature and then trying to justify your own shitty behavior with it.

There is no antagonism between competition and co-operation. Literally read Piaget and Bakunin.

Sorry, meant Kropotkin of course.

>We choose our partners for characteristics such as intelligence for reasons

except you can never quantify them, just I LOVE SMRT PEOPLE LMAO JUMP ON BOARD MUH IVORY TOWER PLS PLS PLS

Literally not a single argument against it ITT other than feelings and moralisms and literal name calling. lmao!

I'm not bumping you anymore.

Social Darwinism is in conflict with our understanding of morality.
I find it useful to note, that you can actually see social Darwinism in action within other social species; e.g. a troop of monkeys abandons a crippled infant. This is owed to to the species' simpler, utilitarian approach to such matters.

*gets rounded up and executed for being a mongrel*
Sorry no hard feelings just weeding out genetic inferiors, you understand.

>Are you implying that the death of families is a good thing?
holy moly you like putting ideologies into a small little box don't you?

>Hardly, for it would be imposing ideology upon each member of the society, which communists would consider oppressive. Not to mention how easy it would be to make a connection between that ideology and the arguments the bourgeoisie uses to legitimize its position.
You are looking at this from a purely political perspective. The reason why I brought up the sexual selection in relation to intelligence is to think of those who are unable to adapt as unable to adapt to the ever-changing culture. For instance, if less intelligent people are more likely to die off because they commit more crime and thus are unable to reproduce, well guess what? That gene pool will be heavily restricted. Not everything has to be boiled down to a little box where everything is black and white

>holy moly you like putting ideologies into a small little box don't you?
I misread your statement as 'sexual revolution'.

>The reason why I brought up the sexual selection in relation to intelligence is to think of those who are unable to adapt as unable to adapt to the ever-changing culture. For instance, if less intelligent people are more likely to die off because they commit more crime and thus are unable to reproduce, well guess what? That gene pool will be heavily restricted.
So, what exactly are you advocating? Status quo? Because in the status quo, that is the unintentional effect of creating families or of punishing criminals. That is, it is in no way a product of the social darwinist program or ethos, and I can't possibly see why you would bother bringing it up. It is also minor enough to be negligible.
You also failed to adress the rest of my points.

Some people vastly overinflate the importance of "good breeding" and there is a reaction against that. Humans are also social animals who conflate inferior ability with inferior social status or fear others will. This motivates them to deny, diminish or misinterpret the scientific fact that they are inferior, that they are subhumans, that passing on their flawed genes is immoral and so forth. These things have to be done by force or they at least need to be excluded from the future elite society that genetically modifies its children, most people want what is best for their egos not future generations.

Because if an idea is used to justify shitty behaviour even once, that idea is a social pariah forever for everyone (looking at you, National Socialism)

>So, what exactly are you advocating? Status quo?
This is why I said you are purely looking at it from a political perspective. All I am saying is that there is some merit to Social-Darwinism as a theory, what-ever comes as a consequence of accepting it as truth becomes political. What I wanted to stress is that social Darwinism in its entirety isn't wrong because you have communists saying only the super rich want it to be true or that racists once believed in it to justify racism. There is a lot more to the school of thought than political nonsense.

>All I am saying is that there is some merit to Social-Darwinism as a theory
And I have told you why it isn't.

a)Its ethos has a deeply negative impact on social cohesion and solidarity, which in turn has a deeply negative impact on the society itself and all its members

b)The genetic differences between bloodlines are nowhere near important enough to base a whole ideology off them.

It is an idea that belongs in the pseudoscientific dustbin of the 19th century.

but to respond to your points here
1)irstly because its entire ethos unravels the moral fabric of society by throwing solidarity through a window, which is what gives it strength and makes life in it bearable. It lowers people to beasts locked in a struggle for survival
this is solely from a communistic political perspective which I addressed already. It seems that you are saying that we are taking away the only thing that makes the classic Marxist struggle truth. What I am thinking of is Social-Darwinism is the biological influences that may in-fact determine birth rates, incarceration, mortality rates, and so on. It doesn't have to be restricted to an economic struggle(hence why I knew the communists would be an annoyance here)
2)
>You want social darwinism? Read up on why Arabic NCOs are so terrible.

Again boling it down to a little box

3)secondly, because the genetic variability between different bloodlines isn't nearly prominent enough to justify basing an entire ideology solely off it.
for fucks sake you are only thinking about this in a political perspective. It's like you didnt even read my first post
4) Thirdly, it is deeply unethical and shows callousness toward human life which cannot be forgiven.
Bruh

no you're entire argument is basically
>muh racists
>muh class struggle
>there for all of it is untrue

noooooo for fucks sake it means that you are boiling it down to eugenicists. Again the slow but hopefully steadily of less intelligent folk is a product of social-darwinism. Much of evolution is done on a social-darwinist perspective. Oh so you don't want to cooperate with the tribe? You don't think chips didnt exile members of their own tribe?Guess what, you can go out and live by yourself and see how that goes. Say goodbye to your gene pool and anyone else who follows in those shoes. That right there is just a simple proof of social-Darwinism.

>position that some social groups flourish more than others because of nature
>advocate unrestricted violence and genocide

why do leftists always insist on strawmanning so hard?

protestants aren't Christian

>this is solely from a communistic political perspective which I addressed already. It seems that you are saying that we are taking away the only thing that makes the classic Marxist struggle truth.
It has nothing to do with communism or the communist way of looking at things. Have you no knowledge of sociology? Do you not know the meaning of social cohesion? Do you understand my assertion that extreme competitiveness harms progress?

>What I am thinking of is Social-Darwinism is the biological influences that may in-fact determine birth rates, incarceration, mortality rates, and so on.
You are going to have to be clearer. It is obvious that birthrates and lifespans are influenced by biological factors. What does that have to do with social darwinism? And I really want to see the study proving a link between genetics and incarceration rates.

>It doesn't have to be restricted to an economic struggle(hence why I knew the communists would be an annoyance here)
I haven't seen anyone bring up economics in this thread.

>Again boling it down to a little box
What, substantiating my claim that extremely competitive environments, which form the basis of the social darwinist ideology, are inherently flawed and inefficient is "boiling it down to a little box"?

>for fucks sake you are only thinking about this in a political perspective. It's like you didnt even read my first post
WHAT. ARE. YOU. ARGUING. FOR. Do you even know what social darwinism is? The ideology is based on the belief that there is a huge difference between the 'quality' of bloodlines. How is disputing that claim thinking in a 'political perspective'?

>Bruh
>Arguments from ethics aren't valid arguments

Your reading comprehension is not very high, eh? I don't recall mentioning racism or class struggle anywhere.

Besides,
>29 posts
>16 posters

>Have you no knowledge of sociology?
> not related to communist philosophy
idiot

>You are going to have to be clearer. It is obvious that birthrates and lifespans are influenced by biological factors. What does that have to do with social darwinism? And I really want to see the study proving a link between genetics and incarceration rates.
There is a very strong link between intelligence and crime and mortality. look it up yourself. high intelligence also leads towards suicide which can also be looked at from a social evolution perspective.
>"boiling it down to a little box"?
that muh capatlism and racism is bad
>WHAT. ARE. YOU. ARGUING. FOR. Do you even know what social darwinism is? The ideology is based on the belief that there is a huge difference between the 'quality' of bloodlines. How is disputing that claim thinking in a 'political perspective'?
Because quality of bloodlines goes beyond race which is heavily entrenched in politcal perspective. Listen kid I can already tell you're very left wing and you are pretty much ignoring reality at this stage. You aren't even arguing anything

So you attribute human qualities entirely based on birth and not based on culture, social conditions, or childrearing, why?

>idiot
What, you consider sociology a communist conspiracy or something?

>There is a very strong link between intelligence and crime and mortality. look it up yourself. high intelligence also leads towards suicide which can also be looked at from a social evolution perspective.
I'd prefer if you substantiated those claims. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how that is related to social darwinism.

>that muh capatlism and racism is bad
Not once have I mentioned either of those. Kindly learn to read.

>Because quality of bloodlines goes beyond race which is heavily entrenched in politcal perspective.
I never mentioned race. I asserted that the difference between familial bloodlines is negligible. Again, learn to read.

>Listen kid I can already tell you're very left wing
I could hardly be called that.

>and you are pretty much ignoring reality at this stage. You aren't even arguing anything
You haven't given me anything to argue against. As a matter of fact, I don't even believe that you have read any of my posts. There isn't even a point to this anymore, I'm bailing.

OP HERE
so whats the difference between this and eugenics? Is it just eugenics on humans with a fancy name?

Because the poor/stupid aren't just going to lie down and starve, content that the free market has decided that they should die.

Providing the poor with the bare necessities needed for survival is much cheaper for a society than facing rampant crime and a constant threat of popular revolution.

so its sort of something you'll only "imagine in a perfect world" kind of stuff, completely irrational?

Not to mention the poor still need to work in order for businesses run by the rich to continue (for now)

It's definitely a possibility if all working class jobs are lost to automation, an inevitability if those robots get conscious AI

This is still putting social Darwinism purely in an economic sense with the ol muh poor vs rich struggle. Social Darwinism can be argued on multiple different angles

"In The Social Organism (1860), Spencer compares society to a living organism and argues that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

also you are forgetting that communists can also argue a form of social evolution using the dialectic. They also believe in an evolving culture that eventually leads to communism.

Literally where did he mention communism

Because his whole argument is centered around that there is no relation between economic status and Darwinism in terms of survival. Which I am saying is not what social Darwinism has to entail, hence why communists generally believe in it with the dialectic. I'm flipping the same argument on him

>letting brown people starve because of their own stupidity
>the West is wealthy enough to afford the luxury of political liberalism

>free market has decided

YOU FUCKED UP

>Because the poor/stupid aren't just going to lie down and starve, content that the free market has decided that they should die.

They can if you kill them from the inside or brainwash that they are getting a good deal.

>muh leftists

Always funny to see someone accidentally reveal their own ideology when they try to smear some imaginary opponent.

what is my ideology? Hating reds is not an ideology.

You did it again

Talking about misconcpetions.....

Every argument is born out of feelings and morals, doesn't matter how well structured it is.

Who is this Semen Demon, Jizz Genie Baby Batter Bringer Cum Caresser Lovegoo Lass Sperm Summoner Ejaculate Empress Mayonnaise Maiden Jizz Jockey Spunk Monk Sperm Worm Sodomy Sentinel Penile Perpetrator Erection Confection Salami Tsunami Boner Condoner Fluid Druid Urethral Umpire Wang Wizard Knackers Knight Prick Pirate Dong Dominator Cock Khan Stiffy Sultan Sausage Sergeant Middle Leg Major Pole Privateer Shaft Specialist Pecker Prodigy Boner Benefactor Baloney Poney Behemoth Dick Juice Masseuse Tallywhacker Smacker Man Muscle Steam Shovel Baby Batter Bladder Willy Ghillie Butt Hut Glans Fans Spooge Scrooge Ejaculate Advocate Skeet Treat Wang Wrangler Jism Prism Smegma Savant Anal Aficionado Testicular Temptress Spunk Trunk Nut Slut Cum Chum Testicle Vestibule Dick Duchess Cock Sock Testicle Tamer Cock Clairvoyant Scrotum Totem Mattress Actress Prostate Magistrate Penis Machinist?

because in the survival of the fittest is about cooperation for us humans
this is why we populated the planet so well, advanced in technology etc