NATION

PASSWORD

Are Social Darwinists psychopaths?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Petrolheadia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5042
Founded: May 02, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Are Social Darwinists psychopaths?

Postby Petrolheadia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:14 pm

NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT ANYONE, I'M USING THE WORD "PSYCHOPATH" STRICTLY IN MEDICAL TERMS.

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.

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.

This leads me to thinking that if even if Social Darwinists aren't psychopaths, they at least show they're close to it.

And what do you think? Is Social Darwinism tied to that medical condition?
We are not Albania and I am not Albanian, FFS!
Male, gearhead, gamer, left-leaning centrist.

Quotes:
"Democracy is the worst form of government on Earth, except for all the rest" - Winston Churchill
"If a Porsche owner treats it like a bicycle, he's a gentleman. And if he prays to it, he's simply a moron." - Jan Nowicki.

Where you can talk about cars!

User avatar
Vince Vaughn
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: May 05, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Vince Vaughn » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:17 pm

No, they're cynics.
Work ethic. Work ethic.

User avatar
Petrolheadia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5042
Founded: May 02, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Petrolheadia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:21 pm

Vince Vaughn wrote:No, they're cynics.

Cynics rather seem to have the "que sera, sera" outlook. Social Darwinists actively encourage competition.
We are not Albania and I am not Albanian, FFS!
Male, gearhead, gamer, left-leaning centrist.

Quotes:
"Democracy is the worst form of government on Earth, except for all the rest" - Winston Churchill
"If a Porsche owner treats it like a bicycle, he's a gentleman. And if he prays to it, he's simply a moron." - Jan Nowicki.

Where you can talk about cars!

User avatar
The Batavia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1163
Founded: May 08, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Batavia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:23 pm

Basically the "Only the strongest survive" mentallity, right?
Screw NS stats, don't use ehm.
OFFICIAL ANTHEM, Dear godmodders...
Have questions about my nation?
Why is everybody gay lol

User avatar
Petrolheadia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5042
Founded: May 02, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Petrolheadia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:24 pm

The Batavia wrote:Basically the "Only the strongest survive" mentallity, right?

Yeah.
We are not Albania and I am not Albanian, FFS!
Male, gearhead, gamer, left-leaning centrist.

Quotes:
"Democracy is the worst form of government on Earth, except for all the rest" - Winston Churchill
"If a Porsche owner treats it like a bicycle, he's a gentleman. And if he prays to it, he's simply a moron." - Jan Nowicki.

Where you can talk about cars!

User avatar
The Batavia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1163
Founded: May 08, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Batavia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:26 pm

Petrolheadia wrote:
The Batavia wrote:Basically the "Only the strongest survive" mentallity, right?

Yeah.

I personally think that metallity is bullshit. Although I won't say humans are all that civilized, we're not wild animals.
Screw NS stats, don't use ehm.
OFFICIAL ANTHEM, Dear godmodders...
Have questions about my nation?
Why is everybody gay lol

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 82413
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:32 pm

They're not psychopaths.

They're just naïve.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Olerand
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10824
Founded: Sep 18, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Olerand » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:32 pm

Yes. Psychopaths lack a conscience, feel no empathy, no sympathy, no commonality with other human beings who are not themselves. Social Darwinists (including but not limited to libertarians, extremist liberals, etc.) fit that to a t.
Last edited by Olerand on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
French citizen. Still a Socialist Party member.

Qui suis-je?:
Free Rhenish States wrote:You're French, without faith, probably godless, liberal without any traditional values or respect for any faith whatsoever

User avatar
NewVinlandia
Attaché
 
Posts: 74
Founded: Apr 07, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby NewVinlandia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:37 pm

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


Your question is far too broad to be of much use; you need to be more specific in what you're asking. There is no way to answer yours with anything other than 'no' because there is such a wide range of beliefs and perspectives within SD, some quite reasonable, some extreme. A better q. would be 'at what point do ideas re: SD become pathological?" I could only say personally that any worldview or concept is pathological when taken to an extreme. Even altruism can be incredibly destructive to self and other when it goes too far even though it's a noble idea. For ex: when trying to support someone struggling with addiction turns into enabling. This being said, I think also that when in balance many of the principles associated with SD are absolutely vital to allow the individual and their society to achieve their maximum potential.

User avatar
Great Nepal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28599
Founded: Jan 11, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Great Nepal » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:38 pm

No, they're merely silly who somehow believe just because it is something that happens in nature means it is something that should be replicated in societal context and an type of naturalistic fallacy.
Last edited by Great Nepal on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by Great Nepal on Sun Nov 29, 1995 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

NEPAL AIRNEPAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

[b]Defcon Level
: 5 - Peacetime training
Member of Steel Pact.
New Hayesalia wrote:JWs told him that IVF babies weren't real babies and only naturally concieved babies were. Then he told 'em by that logic Jesus wasn't a real baby. Then they walked off...

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 90131
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Farnhamia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:38 pm

Petrolheadia wrote:NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT ANYONE, I'M USING THE WORD "PSYCHOPATH" STRICTLY IN MEDICAL TERMS.

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.

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.

This leads me to thinking that if even if Social Darwinists aren't psychopaths, they at least show they're close to it.

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

First, tread very, very carefully here. Second, I'm sure you mean "lack of empathy" and not "lack of contempt."
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickels
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
RIP Dyakovo, Ashmoria | In support of Arch
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy

User avatar
Hydesland
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14604
Founded: Nov 28, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hydesland » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:41 pm

More or less, yes.

User avatar
Nulla Bellum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 948
Founded: Apr 24, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Nulla Bellum » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:10 pm

Social Creationists are worse. ;)
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." - Frederic Bastiat, The Law

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50397
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Genivaria » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:15 pm

No they are just extremely ignorant on how evolution actually works.
What they are trying to apply to society is completely ass backwards in biology, if anything if you were to try to somehow apply evolution to society then it would be in trying to make your society as adaptive to change as possible, not strict, homogeneous, and unchanging.
Just another cynical liberal.

User avatar
UniversalCommons
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1181
Founded: Jan 24, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby UniversalCommons » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:15 pm

No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do. Strength is not always an adaptive trait.

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50397
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Genivaria » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:17 pm

UniversalCommons wrote:No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do. Strength is not always an adaptive trait.

Precisely.
Just another cynical liberal.

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50397
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Genivaria » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:17 pm

Nulla Bellum wrote:Social Creationists are worse. ;)

That's not a term.
Just another cynical liberal.

User avatar
Nocturnalis
Diplomat
 
Posts: 716
Founded: Mar 24, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nocturnalis » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:48 pm

No, not psychopathic at all. Why should those unable to adapt and survive be allowed to survive off the work of those better adapted?

Social Darwinists do have empathy and remorse, as most humans do. They're just folks who'd rather not be forced to sustain those who cannot sustain themselves. Belief in Social Darwinism is not a sign of psychopathy. (Psychopaths being more drawn to Social Darwinism, however, would be a more interesting and debatable topic).

UniversalCommons wrote:No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do.

They are not misguided, because that is literally what "survival of the fittest" means, as coined first by Herbert Spencer in Principles of Biology and acknowledged by Darwin in the fifth edition of The Origin - the species better suited to the local environment (read: the species better able to adapt to changing conditions) survives or, as it turns out, people better suited to a local environment thrive while those that aren't die out.

That is, of course, unless people are ridiculous enough to allow the unfit thrive by sustaining their existence and reproduction, which is exactly why Social Darwinists oppose welfare and such things: fit populations are artificially weighed down to support the existence of populations that would normally die off.
Last edited by Nocturnalis on Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:55 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Proud member of The Anti Democracy League
Self-sufficiency is the greatest of all riches.
"Man must have an unquenchable thirst for self improvement, always looking for more, reading, playing instruments, practicing sports, looking for new boundaries, only to break through them, with nothing but the sheer willpower of the soul, overcoming any challenges or barriers imposed by nature with nothing but determination."

"Those who do not take discipline, self control, self improvement, authority, respect to culture and tradition, willpower, duty and courage as absolute, core values are nothing but parasites to this planet."

-Julius Evola

User avatar
HMS Queen Elizabeth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1806
Founded: Feb 06, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby HMS Queen Elizabeth » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:51 pm

As President Bartlet told us, social Darwinism is not an ideology, but a force of nature. Social Darwinism frightens people because it suggests that compassion for the poor is often not actually very compassionate or effective, not because it recognises welfarism as compassion and says we should disregard it anyway.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Centrism is the belief in the expertise of ignorants.

User avatar
Liberated Territories
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Dec 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Liberated Territories » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:04 pm

I can't think of anyone who realistically supports "social darwinism." It is more like a left liberal scare term for free market capitalism.
Member of the Liberal Democrats in the NSG Senate. Join today!
Libertarian, existentialist and atheist. Add 9000 posts.
Save the internet. Oppose net neutrality.

User avatar
Socialist Tera
Senator
 
Posts: 4932
Founded: Dec 23, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Socialist Tera » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:08 pm

Nocturnalis wrote:
UniversalCommons wrote:No, they are just misguided. The strongest don't necessarily survive, the most adaptable and fecund do.

They are not misguided, because that is literally what "survival of the fittest" means, as coined first by Herbert Spencer in Principles of Biology and acknowledged by Darwin in the fifth edition of The Origin - the species better suited to the local environment (read: the species better able to adapt to changing conditions) survives or, as it turns out, people better suited to a local environment thrive while those that aren't die out.

That is, of course, unless people are ridiculous enough to allow the unfit thrive by sustaining their existence and reproduction, which is exactly why Social Darwinists oppose welfare and such things: fit populations are artificially weighed down to support the existence of populations that would normally die off.

Survival of the fittest is not usually the fastest or the strongest, it's the most lucky to adapt to an environment. If there was an event where it favoured weaker or less strong but more intelligent minds, the stronger would die off. A big problem is the group that we assume that strong means burly strong people not people able to come up with genius ideas of survival. Social Darwinism falls flat due to the concept that the people calling for it's introduction may not be the most ideals candidates. Falling from the traditional state of atheism to Neo-Atheism.
This nation has been taken over by Forsenboys.

User avatar
Nulla Bellum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 948
Founded: Apr 24, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Nulla Bellum » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:15 pm

Genivaria wrote:
Nulla Bellum wrote:Social Creationists are worse. ;)

That's not a term.


I know. Humourless leftists prefer to call it social engineering to give it that intelligent design central planning touch.
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." - Frederic Bastiat, The Law

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50397
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Genivaria » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:22 pm

Nulla Bellum wrote:
Genivaria wrote:That's not a term.


I know. Humourless leftists prefer to call it social engineering to give it that intelligent design central planning touch.

^Meaningless word salad.
Just another cynical liberal.

User avatar
Empire of Narnia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5451
Founded: Oct 18, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby Empire of Narnia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:23 pm

Perhaps, but Darwinism is a lie that has been used to justify many terrible things.
Narnia is now a Christian Theocracy that controls the former USA and Canada. It has nothing to do with Narnia.
Mallorea and Riva should Resign
I love telegrams! Feel free to tell me what you think of my nation.

User avatar
Vegaslovakia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 53
Founded: Jan 19, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Vegaslovakia » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:30 pm

Psychopath, although meaning something very specific, does not fit as a 'psychiatric term' as such.
If you want to achieve some point of the world being a better place because of just that, without ulterior motives, you're not a psychopath. Many terrorists are called psychopaths, but it has nothing to do with what somebody actually does, it's just that they only care about themselves. To say that they're emotionless would be inaccurate; they desire to feel joy, and desire in itself is an emotional state. Hell, any kind of consciousness is an emotional state, really, but what psychopaths lack is remorse for their actions and any sympathy whatsoever. They can empathize if you mean 'understand' by that, but they don't have any sort of drive that would make them feel considerate about others if there wasn't already any ulterior motive for them to do so.

tl;dr The short answer would be no because some may think that the weak dying will be beneficial to everyone collectively, but there are also SDs who are psychopaths and I'm not saying that anyone who isn't a psychopath isn't evil whatsoever.

Next

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Anywhere Else But Here, Atsvea, Bakery Hill, Darussalam, Duvniask, Google Adsense [Bot], Heloin, Kenmoria, Mushet, Pasong Tirad, Pilarcraft, The Parkus Empire, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, Trumptonium, Yahoo [Bot]

Remove ads