Are Social Darwinists psychopaths?

[Randsbeik]

"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

Realizing that the division of labor is more efficient than every person living on precarious subsistence isn't a strictly socialist (or capitalist) idea. It's common sense.

[Arashi Shoujo]

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.

By voting for people who espouse that kind of agenda, they kind of are.

[Azurius]

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.

I would agree here, yes would. Since no one seems to realize that the entire topic itself is pure nonsense. Just like with Adam Smith, most people who are the most outspoken supporters of Darwin, literaly never read him, nor understood him, and just regurgitate the common oppinion about him from others.

Darwin himself actually made it clear that: Humans do simply not fit in his sheme of Darwinistic evolution, he said himself that the human doesn´t fit any evolutionary law that he made up until that point. Humans in many ways are totally different from any animal speciess. And Darwin actually like many people these days, acknowledged that, and made it clear that his social Darwinism goes for any creature except the human which is the only flaw in his theory. Which is also why it remains a theory, unlike evolutionary law which long has been acknowledged as fact(which indeed is similiar to Darwins model, but that´s it, since Darwins model included flaws which are based on a lack of understanding of biology in his times. They simply didn´t have the knowledge nor the tools and labs we have today. Things like racism in humans was also believed in these times, until biology later could dismiss this theory as false, just like it could dismiss social darwinism).

It is both amusing as well as sickening to see people discuss over social darwinism and put out his theory completely false, even worse that no one seems to make any effort to actually read on Darwin themselves but instead just regurgitate common oppinion from others. It is somewhat amusing though, since people fight over false preceptions or maybe windmills you can say(discussing over facts that don´t even exist and never did) which is indeed amusing to a degree.