Are Social Darwinists psychopaths?

[Infected Mushroom]

No?

They just want to see the strong survive?

[Imperializt Russia]

They allowed WWI to go forward, so probably.

In fairness very few had anywhere close to an idea of what was about to happen, and even they couldn't imagine the sheer scale of death.

They absolutely did, to both.

[The East Marches II]

In fairness very few had anywhere close to an idea of what was about to happen, and even they couldn't imagine the sheer scale of death.

They absolutely did, to both.

Thats just wrong and you should feel bad for being wrong. Everybody assumed a quick war. The only exception was Kitchner but he wasn't in a position to foam at the mouth for war.

[Sanctissima]

In fairness very few had anywhere close to an idea of what was about to happen, and even they couldn't imagine the sheer scale of death.

They absolutely did, to both.

That's... not true at all.

Both sides were expecting a very quick and rapid victory.

Each expected to steamroll the other, with the Germans in particular looking forward to a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War on the Western Front. It wasn't until nearly a year had passed and trench warfare developed that both sides realized it would be a long, drawn-out war.

[Great Minarchistan]

I'm halfway to psycho (Neuroticism 15 out of 100 in BigFive) and I comprehend the reasoning behind Social Darwinism.

Idk if that counts tho.

[Aroostook-Penobscot]

Social Darwinism is an ideology, according to which, in general terms, society should be based around competition and nobody should receive entitlements. Those who lose in that model should not be pitied, as they deserved their fate.

Could you give a more specific definition of what you believe Social Darwinism to be? If I'm not mistaken, it is not a single ideology with totally clear cut political stances. Some Social Darwinists might advocate something like getting rid of welfare, while others might suggest state-sponsored eugenics. The later of those things, I believe, you would find much more distasteful.

However, that lack of contempt for the worse-off is disturbing, as it eerily aligns with some of the main signs of psychopathy, namely, a lack of empathy and remorse.

I think the connection you're making here is rushed and unsupported at best, and a gross misrepresentation at worst.

And what do you think? Is Social Darwinism tied to that medical condition?

I've seen no evidence to indicate that people with psychopathy are attracted to the ideology of Social Darwinism, or that Social Darwinists are predisposed towards being psychopaths, so I'd have to disagree.

[Gauthier]

There are no poor Social Darwinists.

[Genivaria]

I should point out that in Hitler's final hours he declared the German people to be weak and inferior for having 'failed him', and that the Soviet Slav must be the superior race.

[Gauthier]

I should point out that in Hitler's final hours he declared the German people to be weak and inferior for having 'failed him', and that the Soviet Slav must be the superior race.

Sore Loser In A Bunker.

[Genivaria]

I should point out that in Hitler's final hours he declared the German people to be weak and inferior for having 'failed him', and that the Soviet Slav must be the superior race.

Sore Loser In A Bunker.

Found the quote.

If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue even a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves, because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation (Russia)[1]. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have all been killed.
To Albert Speer (1945), as quoted in "Defeat of Hitler: Enter the Bunker" (2010), The History Place.

This line was paraphrased in the movie Downfall.
Good movie, go watch it.

[Stormwrath]

No, but they seem to have got Darwinism wrong. You don't help natural selection trod along by actively working for the extinction of a perceived weaker people.

[Genivaria]

No, but they seem to have got Darwinism wrong. You don't help natural selection trod along by actively working for the extinction of a perceived weaker people.

Ironic isn't it?
Biologically speaking genetic diversity is FAR superior to genetic 'purity'.

[Keldros]

No. Social Darwinism doesn't necessarily imply actively exterminating the weak. They believe that the success or failure of a nation depends on the quality of the people who make up those nations, and that the quality of those people is determined mostly through genetics. That's why they tend to be immigration restrictionists and oppose miscegenation.

[-Ocelot-]

The term you are looking for is "teenager", not psychopath.

[Alvecia]

The term you are looking for is "teenager", not psychopath.

Teenagers scare the living shit outta me.
They can't care less as long as someone will bleed.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

They absolutely did, to both.

Thats just wrong and you should feel bad for being wrong. Everybody assumed a quick war. The only exception was Kitchner but he wasn't in a position to foam at the mouth for war.

He's half right, half wrong.

They believed that the scale of death would be what it was, or even worse, but they also believed it would be quick. They were wrong about it being quick, right about the scale of death.

The British may have believed the scale of death would be lower than it was, but only because in a quick war the British would not have time to raise a mass army. They fully expected the BEF to suffer enormous casualties.

[-Ocelot-]

The term you are looking for is "teenager", not psychopath.

Teenagers scare the living shit outta me.
They can't care less as long as someone will bleed.

It's okay, believing in stupid ideologies usually goes away after a few years.

[Aroostook-Penobscot]

Sore Loser In A Bunker.

Found the quote.

If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue even a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves, because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation (Russia)[1]. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have all been killed.
To Albert Speer (1945), as quoted in "Defeat of Hitler: Enter the Bunker" (2010), The History Place.

This line was paraphrased in the movie Downfall.
Good movie, go watch it.

Fascinating... today I learned. This wasn't directed at me, but genuinely, thanks for sharing.

[James_xenoland]

So what you're really asking is if nature is psychopathic. But answering that question pretty much makes this one irrelevant to ask.

[Arashi Shoujo]

There are no poor Social Darwinists.

I disagree, I've met a lot of poor Southern conservatives who basically used Social Darwinism in defense of capitalism.

[Triahe Kaoths]

Only edgy, usually underage as well

[Gauthier]

There are no poor Social Darwinists.

I disagree, I've met a lot of poor Southern conservatives who basically used Social Darwinism in defense of capitalism.

They deny being poor, consider themselves Temporarily Embarassed Millionaires.

[Imperializt Russia]

There are no poor Social Darwinists.

I disagree, I've met a lot of poor Southern conservatives who basically used Social Darwinism in defense of capitalism.

No, they agree with what is pushed as social darwinism (it's not worthy of being capitalised).
There are no poor social darwinists, that is the people pushing the ideology.

[Randsbeik]

There are no poor Social Darwinists.

I'm lower-middle class.

I've been called a SocDar on occasion (even though I wouldn't really identify with the term) so I'd like to make my case.

I don't believe that the "weak" should be killed off; I just recognize that in nature, the most willing to adapt will survive, and those who are incapable or unwilling will die off, so to speak.

This logic can be applied in many places outside of biology; like in business or in sexual activity (Chad's genes usuaally get passed on). I generally view this sort of natural selection as positive; especially in business where the result is the highest-quality (usually) product for the consumer; those that fail to satisfy are "killed off".

I don't cheer everytime a homeless person dies; I wouldn't get too emotional either way (which is probably more about myself than anything else) - but I know that this is just nature - cruel, unrelenting, and impossible to reason with.

[Imperializt Russia]

"The weak" is not what is meant in the context of "fit".
Social darwinism is basically wrong.

The survival of humans, up to the founding of civilisation, was by us being "fit" through co-operation and mutual support.

True social darwinists would be socialists and/or anarchists