"Social Darwinist" groups are all dumb

I miss when it was just fetish threads; you fuckers gave me a ton of fetishes and now there's nowhere to find them.

Seems to be the only one who understands OP's point. Factions and characters who subscribe to "survival of the fittest" don't actually understand what it means.

There's a reason it's such a popular mantra with school shooter types and it's got nothing to do with science

Dude, he's watched every episode of Bill Nye Saves the World and Smoke DeGrasse Tyson's Cosmos.

nah, we shipped off the fetish threads and games to other boards and generals. You'll have to deal with five servings of /pol/spam.

>All the big powerful dinosaurs die

Uh.....

You didn't though; the precise blend of Veeky Forums elements and fetishes is lacking, at best a small scent can be detected every so often.

You didn't ship them off, you cast them to the four winds. And for what? Elf threads and /pol/bait.

yep!

There is a difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism and the example you give would be one pertaining to Darwinism, so not only are you retarded but you're missing even the point of your own thread.

I assume that’s why it’s called “Social” Darwinism. Meteors don’t really fall under that umbrella. That’s just regular Darwinism.

See now if OP had evolved from something like goid English stock rather than poor Slavic or German st9ck, he may have been able to cimmun8cate it effectively...
Is what I would say if I was an idiotic Social Darwinist who didn't get that survival of the fittest was about being able to adapt and thrive and not some thing on strength.

>the weak little shrew things survive, filling the world
Mammals: 5,500 species alive in 2018
Dinosaurs: 10,000 species alive in 2018
Who was the winner again?

>The meek shall inherit the earth, but not its mineral rights.

...

Fuck off Morgan, you were worst faction of the origionals.

>Fuck off Morgan, you were worst faction of the origionals.

Social Darwinism is shit because the most Darwin thing for people in a society to do is to work together--or, at least, to more of an extent than Social Darwinism ascribes.

Wrong board, not my dude.

From my experience most "social Darwinists" have no idea what "survival of the fittest" actually means, either.

Yes, even more annoying than the University.

I miss the weekly smut thread.

Most "social darwinists" aren't social darwinists. Like capitalism, "trickle-down economics", "anti-life", and globalism, these are terms mostly used as ridicule by political activists to straw-man their political opponents' beliefs.

t. weakling

You are not going to make it.

>Public education at it's finest.
>it's

>kropotkin
my nigga

GTFO you civilised moralist cuck

Read might is right and then come back here.

>"The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance, even as it was the heritage of previous generations. This 'condition of combat' may be disguised with the holy phrases of St. Francis, or the soft deceitful doctrines of a Kropotkin or Tolstoi, but it cannot be eventually evaded by any human being or any tribe of human beings. It is there and it stays there, and each man (whether he will or not) has to reckon with it. "

>"Great and powerful governments, Commanding Peace, come into existence only in ages of decadence; when nations are on the downward grade. If the human animal lives a natural, cleanly life, out on the plains and forests away, where oceans rollers crash along the shore, or on the banks of the pouring rivers he requires no police-force to 'protect' him — no usurious Jew to rob him of his harvests — no tax-gathering legislators to vote away his property, and no 'priests of the Idol' to 'save' his soul. "

You don’t know what you got till it’s gone...

Got that right, Mega-Satan.

WST was great. Pity faggots abused it.

MUTUAL AID is much more important for survival and stability of an ecological system than competition.

Social Darwinists are fucking idiotic but they make great villains because they have some kind of recognizable ethos, letting you make them honourable, but also clearly need to be stopped.

Gonna need entertaining anecdotal examples or this is just bait. Is your table full of chaotic neutral murderhobo edgelords?

this is machoistic nonsense lmfao. the natural human is some cavemen working in proto-communist solidarity to pick berries and hunt the occasional deer. get rekt brainlet

this guy gets it

>ragnar redbeard
>trusting a larping snownigger to not spout nonsense

Ayyyy

HAHAHAHA

He actually believes the propaganda that caveman were communists egalitarians! HAHAHAHAHA
t.inferior civilised mediterranean mongrel

Cavemen probably didn't have enough of a formalized ideology to be called "egalitarians," but the evidence does seem to indicate that they looked after their disabled and elderly, and until the neolithic revolution, they wouldn't have had enough surplus for the emergence of class systems to be economically viable, meaning that yes, they would have lived in stateless, classless societies. Which meet the definition of communism.

>Biggest, meanest survive weakests die! We Strong, you week!
>he thinks this is what survival of the fittest means
First off: What does this have to do with traditional games? It seems like you just came to bitch for no particular reason. Second off: If by some miracle this actually relates to a game you're playing then the """"Darwinist"""" you're playing with is doing it wrong. Survival of the fittest isn't "be strong or die", it's "learn to adapt or die". You either figure out a way around a problem or you're fucked. This can apply to both a survival setting and in a social setting.

>Kropotkin
>injecting your political preferences into your science isn't science

One example of a disabled man in a cave does not prove that they looked after disabled and elderly. modern day tribes kill the weak and sickly babies, the strong survive.

And no, because Tribes have private property, racism, warfare, and family structures. they are anti communist by definition.

>modern day tribes kill the weak and sickly babies, the strong survive.
>And no, because Tribes have private property, racism, warfare, and family structures. they are anti communist by definition.

[citation needed], especially considering that private property is a concept that literally cannot exist absent a state. read a book and learn the difference between private and personal you little dweeb.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Ever heard of hunting grounds used by tribes? Those count as private property you weakling faggot.
Yeah, modern day tribes do kill the weak.

cogently define private property ya brainlet and don't forget, [citation desperately needed]

>the strong survive

Obviously not if they got conquered and subjugated by civilized soyboys who only had guns, society and warfare.

You mad that I've proven you wrong? HAHAHAHA
the strong in their society

Obviously not strong enough to not get destroyed. Not a great track record.

yeah, but they're strongest in their society and their form of warfare.

for example, the SAS are probably some of the best guys in the world at modern wafare, are some of the strongest, etc. Yet if aliens with advanced technology came in and destroyed them with a second, it doesn't make them less strong.

Shown your fucking citations you bone brained sahalanthropus!

you mad bro? show your citations, faggot

Can the /pol/tards raise their hands or something? I can't tell if I can agree with anyone in this shitshow.

Ultimately, fittest means most fit. It's easier to think of it as fitting best within the niche. It's silly to try and make this into some ideological battle. People who developed guns developed a technological adaptation to warfare that made short work of most anything that came before it. Human societies are biological niches. The Geopolitical Climate is a biological niche. We adapt technologically much faster than we adapt biologically, but the adaptation is there.

Welp, you are both absolute idiots. God dammit seeing this kind of shit really hurts.
>modern day tribes kill the weak and sickly babies, the strong survive.
Actually, it's extremely rare for something like that happen, even among most primitive societies. It's definitely not a common practice. If they do "trim out the herd", it's in a very different way and for very different reasons.

>especially considering that private property is a concept that literally cannot exist absent a state.
And this has to be one of the dumbest things I've seen on this site in a good while. And I regularly lurk on /v/, so that is quite the damn achievement. Are you fucking SERIOUS with this shit? Do you actually consider Engels a valid social historian?!

take your irrational hate of the left somewhere else smelly

>Yet if aliens with advanced technology came in and destroyed them with a second, it doesn't make them less strong.
And that strength will mean jack shit if the aliens come.

Just as the tribe's ability to be macho men on the plans with spears and sticks means jack shit today when civilized places have guns and tanks.

No, tribal hunting grounds are not private property.

>Not realizing the whole point of civilization is to maximize reward and minimize risk for maximum yield per effort rate

Burden of proof, disgusting snowback. Go do something productive, like make sure your wife doesn't blow Mohammed while you're at your socialist appointed day job.

That is some pretty weak bait, dude. If you are going to pollute the board with shitposts, at least put some damn effort into it.

How could they be anti-communist thousands of years before communism was formalized as an ideology?
I'm not saying they were ideologically communists, I'm saying they had no ideology and defaulted to behaviour that aligns with communism.
You describe them as reactionaries, but that's absurd, given that there was not yet anything to react against.

>I'm saying they had no ideology and defaulted to behaviour that aligns with communism.
That is factually wrong and the fact that people still peddle this kind of insane bullshit almost hundred years after it was clearly disproven is frankly disturbing. Seriously, how the fuck have you managed to avoid learning ANY actual academic studies on primitive cultures in the past hundred years. Did you literally ONLY study communist propaganda materials? How do you even do that in this day and age?

It's actually a solid example of communal property.

Now, to be frank, in a stone age society there really was little in the way of private property, except for what little you could wear on your person.
As for food - without the modern means of preservation, a hunter coming back from the hunt had no way of saving all of an animal for himself, and thus gave what he and his family didn't eat to the rest of the tribe, to avoid it going to waste.
However, there WAS a vague sense of ownership, where everyone kept in mind who shared their spoils with the rest, and reciprocation was expected - therefore it wasn't a truly communistic society where things were shared without question.
An elaborate but uncodified system of favours and support also existed, for example, among European peasants, and still exists very rural communities and tribes nowadays. People help each other and do each other favours (by, say, lending tools and supplies, helping with sowing or harvest, et cetera) with an unspoken expectation of the receiving party returning the favour. Technically quite far from the communist unquestioning sharing, but in practice, resulting in shared resources within a community.

>Now, to be frank, in a stone age society there really was little in the way of private property, except for what little you could wear on your person.
The actual amount of items isn't important, as you correctly identify. Private ownership is perfectly understood, even if there is a wide network of cooperation and sharing involved. As for the food thing: actually it isn't that simple. Most societies that know fire actually do have preservation means, and while sharing with selected other families and groups is common, it's by no means mandatory or absolutely regular. None of this does not even resemble communism either: unlike private properties, communism actually does require existence of state, as well as industrialized society. It's also an ideological concept, not actually behavioral or economic.