Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

I should probably clarify that I knew of Social Darwinism as a justification for exploitation. What I didn't know was that people openly believed murder should be legal to kill the weak and create a stronger gene pool. I guess I just kinda forgot about the "soft" social Darwinism for a second when talking about the full on, edgy, might makes right version.

3

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

What I didn't know was that people openly believed murder should be legal to kill the weak and create a stronger gene pool.

Yeah, Nazis and Eugenicists exist :P

Social Darwinism still isn't a political ideology; no one openly advocating killing off "the weak" is calling themselves a Social Darwinist, they're either calling themselves Eugenicists or are part of some White Supremacist prison gang.

EDIT: Keep in mind that Jreg uses Anarcho-Communism, "Anarcho"-Capitalism, Nazism, And Marxist-Leninism as the physical embodiments (the be all end all) of each political quadrant for the sake of satire, so anything that goes farther beyond those would be considered "off-compass".

Expanding beyond those ideologies would put Social Darwinism and IngSoc in the authright and authleft respectively.

4

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

Eugenicists and Nazis only think murder should be legal when targeted against a select group of people, the Darwinists I'm referring to think murder should be legal as long as it is targetted against everyone. They don't like racism because it protects the weak of the aggressing race and if your eugenics isn't involving every person then it's trash. Heck, these dudes are pretty anarchist up until the point that the "strong" has proven their ability to force their will on others, otherwise they don't like states, government, or authority because those things, again, protect the weak.

3

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Eugenicists and Nazis only think murder should be legal when targeted against a select group of people

Nazis would definitely kill "weak" white children, they hate every white that rejects their ideology just as much as they hate non-whites. You think they didn't "euthanize" so-called "Aryans" with disabilities? Come on, a cursory glance would tell you that they did.

Eugenicists are ableist by definition; they'd absolutely sterilize or murder people in their in-group with disabilities.

They don't like racism because it protects the weak of the aggressing race and if your eugenics isn't involving every person then it's trash.

Nazis just assume that "weakness" is the default mode of existence for "non-Aryans". They don't disregard the notion that "Aryans" can be "weak".

Eugenicists promote "improved genetic quality" which has historically been taken up by racists, but doesn't necessarily have to be by definition. Social Darwinists promote "survival of the fittest" which also doesn't mean that they're racist by definition, but historically, many racial supremacists have embraced Social Darwinism.

Heck, these dudes are pretty anarchist up until the point that the "strong" has proven their ability to force their will on others, otherwise they don't like states, government, or authority because those things, again, protect the weak.

If you're willing to also call AnCaps "pretty anarchist" for the exact same reason, sure. How many of self-identifying Social Darwinists have you actually talked to?

5

AnarcheAmor OP wrote

Question: what are we disagreeing on? Nothing you're saying is incorrect or wrong but I think you think that I'm denying that Fascists are Social Darwinists. I'm not because I'm not talking about Social Darwinism. I'm talking about Darwinism without adjectives, "true" Darwinism as it were.

These people don't believe that weakness is an inherent trait that can be erased but rather a trait proven by the fact that you're dead. It doesn't matter that you're poor or disabled, it just doesn't help your chances that you are. Eugenicists and Nazis are weak to Darwinists because their Social Darwinism is just some softcore perversion of real Darwinism to them. The only people who Darwinists respect are Cult Darwinists because they literally worship Darwinist principles and will do anything to see them through.

And the "pretty Anarchist" bit was because, yeah, they're pretty Anarchist compared to Nazis. Their recognition of authority is conditional: if you're strong enough to rule then you have the right to do so for as long as you maintain that strength but if it can be contested then contested it shall be. I'm not saying that they are anarchist because they're just conditional archists. And yes I've talked to Social Darwinists before, the ideology isn't lost on me but, again, I think we're talking about two different things.

2

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

Question: what are we disagreeing on?

Nothing until you said that Social Darwinists were "pretty anarchist" (I'll get to that later), I'm just criticizing Social Darwinists.

I'm not because I'm not talking about Social Darwinism. I'm talking about Darwinism without adjectives, "true" Darwinism as it were.

There is no real distinction to make there; "Social" Darwinism is just trying to apply the misinterpretation of "survival of the fittest" to human society, Darwinism is just the scientific theory of natural selection and evolution. What you're calling Darwinism is literally just Social Darwinism; the people calling themselves Darwinists just want to distance themselves from the label, but there's no significant difference there; it's a split between Anti-government Social Darwinists and statist Social Darwinists. Same end goals and ideals, different means of achieving them.

These people don't believe that weakness is an inherent trait that can be erased but rather a trait proven by the fact that you're dead[...]

I'm aware of what they believe. I don't buy the idea of them claiming that they aren't bigoted makes them "more Anarchist" than Nazis. And deeming the dead "weak" means nothing, because death is unavoidable and very much out of human control. Applying human concepts like "Strength" or "weakness" to a universal concept like "death" is fallacious.

And the "pretty Anarchist" bit was because, yeah, they're pretty Anarchist compared to Nazis.

They're every bit as authoritative and submissive as Nazis and are about as anarchist as Nazis are. There's nothing anarchist about being submissive or permissive of power and authority; the only defense that they have is that they "don't see color or creed, only strength" and means fuck all to me. Their "ideology" still reifies power, is an incoherent mess that would descend into fascism if some strongman managed to gain enough power and install a state, and it's still just a corruption of a scientific theory.

TLDR; I don't disagree with you, I just disagree with the haunted mess of an "ideology" of Social Darwinism.

2