Why do we pretend social Darwinism does not exist?
>we aim to be the best student
>aim to get into the top colleges
>aim to get the highest paying jobs
>aim to get a qt 3.14 partner
>aim to surround ourself with the best friends
>watch and support sports and celebrities who are at their prime and best at what they do
And if we fail at any of the above, we get exiled to /r9k/.
Hitler was not perfect but atleast he did not kid people with fairytales of egalitarism.
Discuss.
It has to do with the fact that democracies are founded on the ideas of John Lock
Very few have realized it but Darwin created a huge crisis for the entire first world. The very philosophical ideas that support democracy and egalitarianism have been refuted. They only make sense if Tabula Rasa is true, that people are born completly blank and can become a genius or fool based on nothing but their upbringing. If everyone has equal potential they should have equal rights. But genetics destroyed that idea. We now know people do not have equal potential.
The Leftists are aware of this and want to 'force' us to all have equal potential by handicapping the strong with legislation. Those that succeed should be punished and those that fail should be rewarded to create 'balance'.
The anti-racists want to just pretend Darwin never happened and genetics don't do anything.
Basically ever since Darwin people have been scrambling to justify our most basic rules. While people who were ahead of their time like Hitler realized we needed to completly re-write the laws.
The point is this an absolute crisis, the only egalitarianism still exists is out of custom. None egalitarian principles, like what Nietzsche are far easier to explain philosophically. As technology advances the Darwinian nature of reality will become more appearent. The 'strong' will keep getting ahead and the weak will keep falling behind (can you imagine what genetic alteration or robot slaves will do?). Given I don't think equality is going to last all it needs is a good push in the right direction and an Ubermench to execute the master plan
>>327636
>hitler was not perfect but at least he believed in social darwinism
you are a retard
>>327636
all those things don't exist in a vacuum.
did Hitler really agree with social Darwinism, he was pro trade unions and government ownership.
>>327933
> They only make sense if Tabula Rasa is true, that people are born completly blank and can become a genius or fool based on nothing but their upbringing.
Really?
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Social Darwinism is existentially terrifying and people tried to force it along by "artificial selection" (Nazi genocide, eugenics) at a time when genetics wasn't well-understood.
I'm tired of retards such as >>327933 confusing equality before the law with social and economic equality.
To your point, OP, there's a difference between Social Darwinism and Capitalism.
Just because you aren't the best of the best inside of your contained capitalist system, does not mean you are doomed to an /r9k/existence. The very mechanism that allows the best to succeed is built on the middle and lower classes who may not necessarily be the best.
>>327636
Yeah but he fairytailed them with other things.
How's 16 treating you, OP?
Even as an atheist you can take the position of Hobbes, who viewed the state as a social contract. It's better than the state of nature.
>>327933
This is why no one likes you /pol/, because you unironically use words like "anti-racist."
>>328165
/pol/ boogeyman
>>328207
Oh c'mon m8 pull the other one it has bells attatched
>>328207
ur mum lel
>>328103
Read the first line. Men are not created equal at least not on any physical/genetic level. The alternative is that they are equally spiritually. The idea that rights come from a divine source also depends on there being a certainity of a divinity. Even Deism would suffice. Needless to say Deism much less other types of religions are not as philosophical statable as they were before.
My point stands. The philosophical reasons for equality are shaky at best.
>>328123
But law directly relates to your social and economic life. Legal equality is put in place for the purpose of creating a more 'equal' social system and it can even take on roles of trying to equalize economics, this is what social programs do.
What I am saying is the philosophical reasons to treat people equally before the law are gone. Tabula Rasa is dead and the idea that we are 'spiritually equal' is falling apart with the death of God.
I'm not advocating for or against democracy. I'm commenting on the state of it from a philosophical perspective.
>>328154
Social contract is a weak position. Hobbe's idea about how early humans were was completly wrong. He assumed society did not exist until a formal agreement for people to subject themself to an absolute monarch happened. This being the natural course of society is supposed to show the existence of the contract. But we know that's not how societies form, we didn't start with absolute monarchy and it was just a gradual extension of the family. The first tribes were extended families living together. Tribes beyond that were grown by conquest. There's nothing volintary about being invaded.
The state institutions keep their authority not because we all love them so much but by simple power structures. We both know the reason crime is controlled is not because everyone believes in some non-existant contract but because there are cops and the penalty for getting caught by one is severe.
>>327636
I'm not even a proponent of it, but I have been thinking exactly this over the last few weeks OP. Competition is all around us its crazy. Social Darwinism, for all its flaws, at least captured something of the character of the time we live in. Nowadays nobody talks about it, unless we're talking about the competitiveness of sports....though I guess people do talk about the extreme competitiveness of applying for college.
hitler was a beta loser. there's a book by his best friend who knew him when he was late teens early 20s and it shows hitler to be absolutey r9k-tier.
and nazis weren't social darwinists. social darwinism would have accepted jewish over representation among the elites as a good thing.
>>328076
>did Hitler really agree with social Darwinism, he was pro trade unions and government ownership.
Social Darwinism is a very vague term. It can be used to justify anything from socialism to fascism to colonialism to racism
>>328269
>I can well imagine what Adolf's Christmas Eve in the year 1907 was really like. That he did not
want to go to Raubal I could understand. I could
also understand that he did not want to disturb
our quiet little family celebration, to which
I had invited him. The serene harmony of our home would have made him feel his loneliness even more. Compared with Adolf, I considered myself fortune's favourite, for I had everything that he had lost: a father who provided for me, a mother who loved me and a quiet home which welcomed me into its peace.
>But he? Where should he have gone that Christmas Eve? He had no acquaintances, no friends, nobody who would have received him with open arms. For him the world was hostile and empty.
>So he went -- to Stefanie. That is to say -- to his dream.
>All he ever told me of that Christmas Eve
was that he had wandered around for hours. Only towards morning had he returned to his mother's home and gone to sleep. What he thought, felt and suffered, I never knew.
>>328269
>>328154
Also. even if we take Hobbe's view there is no justification for egalitarianism in it.
The path with the least philosophical objections IS social Darwinism. I can't even think of a proper refutation that doesn't relay on anything other than personal feelings of those that it would disadvantage...and that's not a good argument it's just losers afraid of losing.
Egalitarianism is dead in philosophy after Nietzsche and Darwin. To give you an idea of how screwed the position the best defense we got in favor of equality was from Karl Marx and we both know it's far too radical and a complete train-wreck every-time it's actually applied.
>>328255
Have fun refuting spinoza
>>328305
>Also. even if we take Hobbe's view there is no justification for egalitarianism in it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690609/
Human nature
>>328404
>animals are naturally fair and nonviolent
But that's wrong. Chimps, one of our closest ancestors, are fucking monsters. They will stick to their tribe and will fucking murder people from other tribes. And if history has shown anything it's that egalarianism is a recent ideas, the early and majority states of humanity have been the least equal. There was a caste system in Egypt, Mesopatmia, India, Greece, all the ancient civilizations and slavery was a natural part of it.
Fuck man we don't even have a philosophical reason to be against slavery anymore other than 'mai feels'.
Spinoza's ethical positions I have not read. What's his reasoning for egalitarianism?
>Hitler was not perfect
Ya lost me.
darwinism is limited by survival
once you have enough money to survive only a few people are still willing to dump the stuff
>>328484
Dude. Evolution isn't just about survival that's the first step. It's continually improvement.
Because of leftists, the biggest threat to mankind.
>>328490
Is that why humans are the only sentient species in the galaxy? over 99% of physical matter does not place itself in sustainable scenarios.
>>328281
True. True.
>>327933
Start reading... ooh, looks good.
See word leftist... no....
Anti-racists... No....
While people like Hitler... NNOOOOOOO!!!!
>>328434
Because Social Darwinism is an appeal to nature. Opressed people wont simply accept their fate and be subservient forever.We have intellect and can reason that inequality is a shitty thing for them.
>>327636
There's social Darwinism and there's meritocracy, what we have is a very crude meritocracy.
What distinguishes these is that the point isn't to weed out the weak from the strong and punish the weak accordingly, it's to try and organize people into positions suitable to their abilities in a way that somewhat benefits everyone.
>>328528
>wont simply accept their fate and be subservient forever
They were (slaves) for thousands of years before modern democracy outlawed them because of muh feels
>>328511
>Anti-racists
This is u
>>328568
>organize people into positions suitable to their abilities in a way that somewhat benefits everyone.
Yeah, this is what exists and this is what everyone agrees should exist. We just conflict as to what positions people should be in. Deciding who should do what requires a large amount of callousness.
>>327636
Because there is a distinction between darwinism and "applied" darwinism. People who bring it up usually imply the latter which leads to eugenics and brute power politics. The funny thing about darwinism is that there's never an opposite to begin with, it just is, so why is this even a debate?
>>328528
>We have intellect and can reason that inequality is a shitty thing for them.
And what's the philosophical reason for giving a shit about them? Surely you can't go around giving pity to everyone. "Pity for all would be tyranny and harshness for your my dear neighbor"
You are just falling back on the standards and expectations of your society, there is no philophical basis. We could just as easily go for the crueliest form of social Darwinism and there would be objection other than 'mai feels'? This is why egalitarianism is on a death-clock.
>>328576
^this
Slavery was outlawed based on several ideas that are now dead.
Tabula Rasa was one
so was the idea that we are all "equal in the eyes of God"
Those reasons are gone. We could easily return to slavery if it was deemed economically feasible.
This is the legacy of Darwin. The only reason we can fault Hitler is he made his decision with poor knowledge of genetics....oh and of course he hurt a lot of people's feelings....that's really the only excuse that's left.
>>327933
Sounds crazy, but it's not far off. I'm Swedish, shit's basically Harrison Bergeron. Ability grouping in school is illegal, they tried to get rid of university grading(top grade 75% score now) and so on. Measures of social mobility is exactly this
>The anti-racists want to just pretend Darwin never happened and genetics don't do anything.
They never look at the quality of the people making up the groups examined, and act outraged as if it's some unfathomable evil that the inbred retard kids of rednecks or pakis can't get jobs. After they've failed out of school and gotten themselves criminal records.
>>328606
Egalitariantards can't debunk this.
>>328606
Except Darwin's theory was about the fitness of a species for its environment, not how strong or weak it was. Social Darwinism is nothing more than a misunderstanding of Evolution and natural selection. Besides, your obsession with genetics is some hardcore biological determinism bullshit.
And we fault Hitler for being a mass-murdering fuckhead, just so you know.
>>328610
I'll also add to this.
The only decent arguement for how society should be run now is going to functionalist. People should only be treated equal if it produces a net gain compared to treating them different. We can treat them as different as we want provided it has a positive gain.
The death of all these philosophical ideas is actually a great thing. It allows us an enormous amount of freedom in how we can organize the country. We can basically take any action in the name of helping the group: we can give different rights to different people, we can deny people citizenship on any grounds, we could invade other countries and take whatever loot we want. The only real limit is we can't complain when other countries do it otherwise we are hypocrites....of course if another country does invade we would have unlimited warrant to nuke them off the face of the earth.
I really don't see major problems with the death of egalitarianism. Just because we can return to slavery doesn't mean we will, it's not longer an economically viable option. And a certain amount of rights and comfort being given to people helps society. On the other hand it means we can sweep away cancerous elements whenever we want. While hyper-egalariainism leads to a slow death as the least usful members of society leach off the most usful and we openly invite our enemies to destroy us...anti-eglarianism which is based purely on functionalism will lead to growth and prosperity for the nation.
I think anti-racism and all other forms egalarianism are doomed but it's imperative that their deaths be accelerated...it could be that the ideas only die after our countries decay and rot out. Their festering corpses serving as a warning to other nations about what happens when they stay too egalitarian for too long.
>>327636
>aim to get the highest paying jobs
do you need darwinism to explain why we want to have a good life?
>aim to get a qt 3.14 partner
What you think is "qt" may not be "qt" for others. I guess Hitler sent many qts to the chambers.
>aim to surround ourself with the best friends
I wont be your friend desu.
>watch and support sports and celebrities who are at their prime and best at what they do
I guess Hitler would throw that sick weak boy named Bethoveen into a pit.
>>327636
>Hitler was not perfect but atleast he did not kid people with fairytales of egalitarism.
I think you're misunderstanding Hitler big time if you think he advocated individualism in the sense of aiming to be the best for personal gain. Hitler believed in a quasi-Darwinistic struggle between ethnicities. (Ethnic) National cohesion was most important to him and the one who acts in an anti-social fashion - even if he happens to be very successful from an individual point of view, e.g. in terms of monetary success - was considered to be eroding that national cohesion. Hitler was by no means a "might make right" type individualist who would grant people the right to do whatever they please simply because they could due to their economic or physical prowess. In Hitler's view, the people had the dictatorial right to enforce their will upon others and make them do what they considered best for everyone - which of course also included what their chosen considered best for everyone.
Stop arguing on an anime imageboard and go work for my wellfare, Mr. Overman.
>>328661
>Besides, your obsession with genetics is some hardcore biological determinism bullshit.
I don't even need that. If we can show that people are even slightly influenced by their genetics in their mental facility than you have lost your Tabula Rasa and thus the entire basis for treating people equally.
You are now required to explain why we should treat unequal people equally...I think Aristotle said something about how foolish this was.
>Hitler for being a mass-murdering fuckhead, just so you know.
It's within a state's authority to kill...they make the laws. And unless you can prove that inalignable rights exist without relaying on a diety (remember these are God given rights...no God means no rights) than the government can kill as many people as it fucking wants. Of course there is no reason why the citizens cannot protest and destroy their government as the French did, it's not slavery to the state. It's just accepting the state kills
>Except Darwin's theory was about the fitness of a species for its environment, not how strong or weak it was.
You are right strong and weak are relative. In humans case they are strong or weak based on situations. For instance, physical strength matters less than it used to because now our armies are supplemented by guns, tanks, and jets. What we need more than ever is mental strength to do certain jobs.
You have no philosophical basis to say why these people that have better mental strength...and are thus more suited for our enviroment, cannot and should not be treated different than the usless members of society.
You said it yourself, Evolution is about the environment. If we do not need say...the mentally retarded in our environment why not remove them?
>>327636
Social darwinism is a complete bastardization of Darwinism. First of all, it assumes that nature and ethics are intertwined, and secondly, it assumes that darwinism can even be applied socially.
The most ironic thing about Hitler sympathizers who advocate for darwinism is that Hitler lost to the greater forces, therefore, he was the weaker one on the social darwinistic game of war.
>>328577
not him, but your apology for hitler is so retarded. he practiced a ridiculous form of social darwinism, in my view at least. races aren't organisms, they consist of people with no discernible difference except for phenotype. The way to "perfect" the aryan race like he tried to do was based on arbitrary standards. The whole nazi system wasn't even geared toward producing intelligent individuals but stunted ones indoctrinated with nazi pseudo science from birth.
>>328706
> If we do not need say...the mentally retarded in our environment why not remove them?
Will you kill your parents once they get old to serve our environment?
>>328706
Nobody cares why they have rights, it doesn't matter. People not being equal before the law will result in a complete legal clusterfuck, far worse and more bloated than that of the US. It'd also make trust in the law and government plummet, and make for some very easy to propagandize discrepancies.
You sound young, like you just figured this shit out. Utilitarianism is a steaming turd of a tautology. Whatever's best is best, well no shit but there's no feasible way to find what actually is the best. Pretty much all you need to do to solve this horseshit we've got is scrap the moratorium on disparate impact legislation and the rest will sort itself out. And abolish universal suffrage, but that's unfeasible and you won't have any luck with it before the world's gone boom. Again, it's not like the status quo ever lasts forever.
>>328715
I'll answer your retarded question.
The answer is that my parents will most likely not be harming the environment when they get old. They are probably going to go out into the country and retire.
That's a lot different than say allowing millions of people harmful to the country to enjoy more...if not greater rights than anyone else and than giving than encouraging them have more useless children.
Social Darwinism is the single most functionalist view of society and you simply cannot argue against functionalism without an extremely strong philosophical argument set in something 'above' man. That's what Tabula Rasa was supposed to be but Darwin destroyed it!
>>328749
wtf? we cant have our racist utopia with sentimental fagoots like you. Once your parents get old and are not usefull anymore they should be erased progress need that piece of the country, and the air old people use.
>>328715
Parents fill am essential social role. Faggot.
In old age or not.
>>328749
We're going to have genetical engineering kicking off in a generation or two so Eugenics would be pretty pointless, not enough time to see any significant results. Shit's gonna make dumb luck look just plain dumb.
Unless you're Dr Strangelove tier crazy, and want to outlaw natural childbearing, start mass harvesting eggs and base your entire population on surrogate babies of extreme outliers at like 160+ IQ.
>>328766
Utopia = no implied struggle
No struggle = no innovation
No innovation = failure
The only reason I like the Third Reich is because they took a whole and total basis in Natural Law.
That and space colonization.
God bless Warner Van Braun
>>328706
We do treat the mentally ill differently. But minute differences in inherent intellect aren't a mental illness. Besides, you act as though intelligence is the single defining factor of a person's ability. It isn't.
Your point about hitler is just fucking stupid. If the state wants to kill you for no reason, would you protest?
As for your last point, see the other anon's question. If your parents were a drain on the environment, would you kill them?
Honestly, you sound like a first year philosophy student with no understanding of the way the world works. "No philosophical reason" is not the same thing as no reason.
>>328742
>People not being equal before the law will result in a complete legal clusterfuck,
Well the old governments which operated on caste systems had simpler legal code because the vast majority of people had less rights than now. The fact that people have so many rights is actually what extends the legal code, it's difficult to decide how they overlap. It's what leads to legal grid-locks where you have to stop for months to figure out who can do what to do when.
>Utilitarianism
You do realize what I have been arguing is highly Unitarianism? Unitarianism is just 'mai feels' where which ever side screams the loudest and has the biggest crowd wins.
>abolish universal suffrage
Isn't this you agreeing with me? Giving different rights to different people. Not everyone should be allowed to vote?
>you won't have any luck with it before the world's gone boom
This is what I'm worried about. Even your idea of scrapping disparate impact is something I don't think can ever be done from inside the system and frankly I think we need more....can you imagine trying to pass a bill that limits voting rights?
Our old model has every reason to be scrapped and replaced with something better but I can't see that happening peacefully. You'd need a direct confrotation...or for the country to collapse and to build the new way onto of the rotting corpse of the old. But that basically requires we face the worst case scenerio: we let the crazies win and destroy the country so we can rebuild it.
Something radical is the only solution and it needs to be done sooner rather than later. The thing is I have no idea how it could possibly happen? That's why everyone is hoping we just magically elect a Hitler that will reform the law in a major way.
>>328772
not really once they get old they just distract our productive people, thats why we send them to the rest home. Progress is all we need.
>>328791
>people had less rights
Define "rights" and where do they come from?
I had significantly more freedom if i were to be born before the French Revolution than after.
>>328791
Know how I know you're a kid? You want to elect a Hitler. Fuck up, reject, drug addict Hitler. The Hitler who got elected off some admittedly good PR ability, and then proceeded to completely fuck things up for his country with a constant string of boneheaded decisions. Get off the internet. Go outside, meet actual people. Hopefully that will get you out of your little >muh philosophy bubble.
>>328800
Progress is an arbitrary definition. And no, they don't "just distract" they fill very essential social roles.
Guidence, interaction, history, etc.
Stop being a moron.
>>327933
Perfect explanation
Good to see people don't shy away from real conversations here like they do on other internet forums
>>327933
/pol/ plz
>>328805
M8. Look at Germany today.
Hitler did a damn fine job.
>>328806
>Progress is an arbitrary definition.
thats the point of my sarcasm. ;)
>>328809
>Good to see people can say retarded shit here behind a veil of anonymity
>>328806
Not only is an arbitrary definition, people think about prgress for the sake of progress and forget about the people. Like is a new god.
>>328791
>You do realize what I have been arguing is highly Unitarianism? Unitarianism is just 'mai feels' where which ever side screams the loudest and has the biggest crowd wins.
It's the same tautological horseshit.
>Isn't this you agreeing with me?
Yup, never seen the sense in it myself.
>Well the old governments which operated on caste systems had simpler legal code because the vast majority of people had less rights than now
The old governments also changed every fortnight, heads rolling, as soon as the cities got large enough like in France.
>The thing is I have no idea how it could possibly happen?
It will. Just arm yourself, do yourself good and leave a legacy and pray you die before it happens.
>>328821
Progression is a leftist term. It implies that as long as we go on, it's good, not ground in any ability greater than *clap*clap* tolerance!
Anyway, it's better to focus a nation on capability and unity.
Your reddit tier sarcasm didn't do much but make you look like an idiot.
>>328840
>u r le leftist redditor XDD
>>328840
>capability and unity
>facist spanish propaganda
you are the idiot.
>>328822
Better than a PC circlejerk
>>328837
The point of universal suffrage is that limiting the vote risks concentrating power in the hands of those who control suffrage.
>>328847
(You)
>>328848
(You) (You)
>>328852
Yes, those right wing circle jerks are so much better.
>>327933
>The Leftists are aware of this and want to 'force' us to all have equal potential by handicapping the strong with legislation. Those that succeed should be punished and those that fail should be rewarded to create 'balance'.
Both the political left and the political right is in on this.
The whole Liberal ideology (and this means classical liberal rather than what uneducated Americans consider "liberal") is based around the idea that a man can be educated and his success or failure largely depends on his individual effort, which means that the successful man has "earned" his wealth and it is not immoral for him to keep it for himself.
If however the individual's fate is largely determined by the genetic composition then you cannot blame the poor any more for their fate. They're not just not trying hard enough, not working hard enough, but they merely don't possess the skills a first-world society rewards.
>>327636
This guy understands market processes. Just because you are not at the pinnacle doesn't mean that you are doomed. There are diminishing returns to time and effort so no one person can do everything. There is always a place for one more person to labor and provide something. If they do no provide much that is demanded then they do not earn much, but such is life. Darwinism implies that the strongest will survive, but market process capitalism implies that the most efficient processes of production will survive, but less productive people are not necessarily weeded out.
>>328255
>philosophical reasons to treat people equally before the law are gone.
The philosophical reasons might be gone, but the economic ones are not. Predictability and efficacy of truth seeking are the two most important staples of a legal system from the economic prospective. Giving certain people, or classes of people, an inherent advantage in the legal system (it is argued) will compromise those two points. Also, systematic advantage of certain groups leads to rent seeking redistributive policies, which are inefficient regardless of which group the money is going to.
>>328858
>>328861
>left right paradigm based on shit that happened two hundred years ago
>>328856
Good defense mein freund. You showed those leftist redditor untermensch who's boss. *tip*
>>328861
right. fun fac classical liberals are against inheritance, since a sucessful man dhoulf earn his wealth and not inherit it.
>>328742
>Utilitarianism
This is just 'mai feels' but whoever can scream the loudest and in teh biggest crowd wins.
>abolish universal suffrage,
Good idea. This is my point about getting rid of equality. But this will never happen from within the system. That's what's scarey. The chance cannot come without some pain. It must be a direct confrotation. The worst case scenerio is our nation needs to die first and a new non-equal one to be built on it's ashes. That's we all want a Hitler to come up and change things from within quickly and painlessly.
>People not being equal before the law will result in a complete legal clusterfuck
You just argued against equality...also more rights si what makes the legal code harder to figure out. Legal gridlocks happen because there are so many rules about what you can do and how you can do it, when you can do it and to who you can do it.
>>328766
Here in America there is plenty of land that no one can sell. It's put at basically zero but there's no reason to develop there. It's only good for retiring old people. So your point shows you don't understand how resources work.
>racist utopia
Also on the day of the rope you will be the firs to be hanged :^)
>>328774
Once we get Ubermench babies we will want to embrace the Darwinistic nature of reality even more. Do you think 160+ iq super babies should be punished and we should give 'affirmative action' type things to the lesser ones? Shouldn't we actually try to move people away from the inferior babies?
Also is "Children of Zarathustra" a good name for a company that sells genetic engineering services? I might copyright it.
>>328881
FACT*
should*
>>328853
Assuming anyone does, you could have a firm and unchanging set of criteria.
And not doing so guarantees you'll see it decided by the dumb, pervasively manipulated by media. Don't see why one's supposedly so awful, and the other so great, when it was already used to great success.
>>328840
Real fascists are future-minded even if they appear superficially conservative. They don't worship a "golden age" or want to "go back" to anything but mobilize the masses for a new modernist society free from the flaws of the past such as anti-national aristocracies and fiefdoms.
Egalitarianism doesn't win out in terms of some philosophical bullshit, it wisn out because it delivers results.
We're sitting in the most egalitarian societies in the world and arguing that our superiority is somehow the result of something other than all the forced opportunity we got. That should really show you how succesful it is.
>>328887
it makes sense, it is a fact that classical liberals (such as Buchanan) were proponents of 100% death taxes. Their reasoning was that a successful man should earn his wealth.
[spoiler]This was actually not true for Buchanan. He thought that the rich might not save their money in a bank, and would instead sit on it, reducing the money supply[/spoiler]
>>328879
>No rebuttal
>le epic you never responded to me lelelelelel /sarcesm XD
>>328894
Hence the failure of Mussolini in revitalizing Roman culture.
Fascism usually turns out to be technocracies, semi-auturky, and grounded in principle.
>>328910
Another fine, well crafted comeback. You're on a role today 2bh pham. Doing the cause proud.
>>328891
The problem is, and always will be establishing those criteria. Besides, if dumb people and media manipulation are problems, why not invest in better education?
>>328910
>Mussolini
>revitalizing Roman culture
>>328815
lol, the only reason that germany wasn't glassed was because the americans needed it as a bulwark against commies in the coldwar
>>328916
Are americans always this stupid?
>>328786
>>328786
> If the state wants to kill you for no reason, would you protest?
Yes but I wouldn't pretend that there is some magical natural right that says they are not allowed to do it...or I might but I'd be lying to save myself.
I'm not saying the state should go unquestioned, just don't pretend that you have "god given rights to live" natural rights only make sense with a deity and good luck arguing that in court!
>If your parents were a drain on the environment, would you kill them?
Why would I care? Whether they are a drain on society makes no difference to me, it makes a difference to society and they would make the choice. If we really are in a world where resources are so scarce that keeping two old fucks on a farm alive is going to cause trouble than we would be living in some sort of crisis scenario (it would have to be something like the fucking plague to make a difference) and drastic times call for drastic measure. Remember when we had to ration food to win a war?
Also my grandmother did become a 'drain' when she had horrible Alzheimer, I would be ok with putting her down than.
>"No philosophical reason" is not the same thing as no reason.
I never said we had no reason. We have legal reasons for equality. But that's not going to last. With no philosophical reason people will question why we have the laws some day. That's why everyone wants to say genes don't matter and it's all environment...it's a lie but the lie needs to be told to keep the laws making sense. The alternative would an outright race war and I want the transition to be more smooth.
>>328801
Rights are laws from legal documents that tell you what you can and cannot do. And no unless you were a noble you had shitty rights before the revolution. I'll also add this, before we made up law rights didn't exist. In the jungle there are no rights, only actions.
>>328924
Exactly.
He tried, and it failed completely. Other than that his pre-war policies were pretty good.
>>328897
This. The fact is, egalitarianism lets us draw from a wide variety of talent pools by attempting to give a greater number of people access to the tools that will let them succeed and unlock said talents.
>>328934
I had more freedom, sure less "rights" because "rights" implies entitlements to them. Rather than earned by either me, or those before me.
>>328939
>wastes resources in the name of equality
>good
We didn't get here by egalitarianism. We're allowed to be egalitarian as a product of our wealth.
Egalitarianism has accomplished nothing.
>>328805
I'm almost 30 and I'm not saying I want to elect Hitler I'm saying people want a big guy to come in and fix everything. I don't 'want' anything I'm an observer. Also if you think Hitler was some sort supervillain your an idiot.
>It will. Just arm yourself, do yourself good and leave a legacy and pray you die before it happens.
I'm a beleiver in the Great Man theory myself. I think there are 3 ways it can happen
1. We get a Great Man from within the system he makes the changes and it's a smooth trasnsition
2. Direct confrontation: could be a war or a simple take over. Less smooth.
3. Country collapses because it refuses to change, the new path is built on the old one's grave
>>328871
I agree equality is good to a certain existent economically. But total equality is terrible. Poor people shouldn't vote, neither should women, or any man under 25. And I wouldn't be against removing certain people from the country it wouldn't have to involve gas chambers, whatever is the most smooth way.
>>328932
Ad hominems now? And I'm not even American.
>>328948
A massively educated population that lives longer and healthier lives has accomplished nothing?
The ironic stupidity of the supposed biological determinism / egalitarianism dichotomoy is that egalitarianism is by far the best mode of society for promoting biological determinism.
If people have equal opportunity from birth, then their natural ability will be the only things that wins determines where they wil end up. In your system, people should have different rights according to arbitrary definitions set up BY SOCIETY, not by nature. It doesn't get further from biological determinism than that.
>>328955
Why should women and poor people participate in your state then?
>>328965
I think I'm conflating egalitarianism with things like affirmative action.
And you're simply meaning equality of opportunity.
Anyway, egalitarianism is quite literally impossible. And we didn't get to the society of today because of it.
>>328934
Your points about laws being manmade are fair and I agree with them. Where we differ is the conclusions drawn.
So if we're not at the point where we have to kill your parents, why should we euthanize the mentally ill? We're not that hard up for resources yet.
You say we want to pretend genes don't matter, but at the same time you try and pretend environment doesn't matter. It does little one, it does. And we not only have legal reasons for equality, we have practical reasons too. We can't look at a person's genes and say, "That person is x amount smarter than this person" or "That person can play the trumpet x points better than this person." Not how it works. Not how it will ever work. So egalitarianism aims to give the widest variety of people access to tool that will let them unlock whatever talents they might have. Your twisted, incomplete version of Darwin's theories relies on the idea that we can determine a person's use to society through genetics. We can't.
>>328955
Not gonna argue with you but just wanna say that if you're 30 and still don't know the difference between your and you're, then you're a fucking idiot.
>>328955
>Great man theory
Wow, you really are an idiot. Why don't you just head back to /pol/ now, it's clear that's where you get all your garbage ideas anyway. Go on, shoo shoo. Back to containment with you.
>>328983
Of course I mean equality of opportunity.
But equality of opportunity requires a degree of equality of result.
Otherwise you'd lose out on a massive degree of talent because poor people couldn't send their kids to school, or the doctor, or couldn't use roads.
And the wealthy would then lose out on potential customers.
>>328967
This change is going to happen gradually and universally. Think about how we moved away from absolute monarchy and into democracy. We started with a few tweaks, the nobles got rights but no one else. Than democracy exploded with the French and American revolution happening within a close time frame.
There is no one central way for how it could happen. We could scrap voting altogether and go into any number of other systems. The point is egalitarianism is not going to last the philophical basis for it is dead and the only reason it's still afloat is the general public hasn't caught up yet with how unequal we actually are. If eqularianism is still around when we start making test-tube super babies the people that still think you are 'born about equal' will be in for a shock.
So it's not a question of 'if' we get rid of egalitarianism it's a question of when. Sooner is better than latter because SJW crap is the end-game of egalitarianism....we don't want to have to end up like Sweden. It's also a question of what will replace it. I don't have much of an answer for that other than it will be less equal than before. If I knew the answer I'd be the next Robespierre.
>>329026
> we don't want to end up like Sweden
You are aware that people are migrating to Sweden because it's one of the best places in the world to live, right?
Like, better than America by practically every measurement?
>>329036
>Like, better than America by practically every measurement?
lol.. even if that's true it's going to change soon once mohammed and dindu get settled there.
>>329036
It's also become the rape capital of the world because of it's immigrants.
>>329026
I don't think egalitarianism is the way to go either but for different reasons.
A modern first world country will have less and less need for those of below average intelligence since there simply isn't enough menial work and service to be done.
The illusion that with better education and stricter regulations when it comes to welfare, the unemployment problem could be solved is foolish. People will have to realise that a significant part of the population is unnecessary for everything to work. And people will have to ask themselves what to do with these people. Holding their inability to be a functional part against them when it's not their fault won't hold forever, and create more and more social unrest so at some point people will have to realise that these people will have to be fed without expecting anything in return.
Thinking that you could murder them is utterly foolish, since the world would never stand by idly, so you have no other way.
And the problem won't solve itself either - e.g. by getting rid of welfare. People are resilient and they're good at surviving. Even the more stupid people. They'd simply resort to crime, informal settlements, etc. and create third world conditions in a first world country. If you want to maintain first world living conditions you have no other choice but to give them handouts.
>>329026
Alright, tell you what. If we're any closer to whatever bullshit dream you have in your little philosophy bubble by the time you graduate high school, and you haven't been killed for being a drain on society, I'll buy you a beer.
>>329026
You are truly a troubled individual with a myopic, "black and white" view of the world.
Sometimes I pity you /pol/ tards...
>>329055
You realise the city of Malmo, now has regular grenade attacks right? Name another first world country where that happens.
>>328255
>Read the first line. Men are not created equal at least not on any physical/genetic level.
You are completely mistaking something being descriptive and something being prescriptive.
Men are not equal genetically or physically, this is true, but for the purposes of government, they are, hence equality before the law.
We are equally valuable as human beings, but we are clearly not equally valuable in different arenas in life.
But this has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism means you structure society so that only those who are merciless and powerful are the ones who win.
>>329073
If you're going to be universalizing an entire country based on one selective reading of an overblown statistic you took from some hatesite, please go to /pol/.
That way of arguing is simply too retarded.
>>329085
How is it generalising?
They have had multiple grenade attacks, on multiple occasions. It sounds like you aren't willing to face the facts of the situation.
>>328490
>It's continually improvement
Evolution in not a chain which gets better with time.
Evolution is about surviving the environment through diversity and selection pressure.
>>329122
>muh diversity
do you really believe in this meme?
I just had one of the biggest epiphanies in my life after this film
>>329130
genetic diversity you moron, as it relates to evolution
so the species can survive any change in it's environment, I'm not talking about leftist memes and AA, just clearing up some misconceptions
>>329137
>A Hollywood movie gave me an epiphany
I remember when i was 12.....
>>328910
he only failed cause he joined wwii. there were a lot of innovative art movements that he presided over actually
If you mean social stratification then it certainly exists, but Social Darwinism does not if you go by the biological definition of evolution. In America a redneck living on welfare has no more difficulty passing on his genes than an Ivy League graduate, reproductive success is almost independent of any racial or genetic background in the current world. So why people insists on calling "social stratification based on genetic differences" Social Darwinism is beyond me.
>>329112
not generalizing, univerzaling.
You're the one who's bringing it up, so you tell me what it means, how often it happens, who does it and what's behind each and every individual occurence. Setting up some silly story you read on Jihadwatch as if it's going to mean anything is beneath everyone's dignity.
>>329157
>I Care
>>329176
No. That only happens in America. Not in European countries.
Sweden used to be one of the safest countries in all of Europe, now go look up their rape statistics, and also who is committing most of the rapes.
>>329176
Most of these gun massacres are caused by black gangs threatening the police. And when the police fight back in self defence, suddenly they are the bad guys. You liberals are so high up in your castle you can't even tell reality from fantasy anymore.
>>329137
>omg guise the government isn't there to help me
>>329060
I'm not saying we should murder the useless lower class. We should stop having them exist. You can do that without killing them. For instance we could pay them money to not have children. This would reduce the amount of usless lower class works by a considerable among. We can than replace them with machines.
>>329061
I think I've said it about 5 times. I don't actually have a 'plan' or 'dream' I'm talking about a historical problem that is going to happen in the future. But you can't seem to grasp this. Also I'm probably twice your age. Fucking illiterate child.
>>329067
Black and white world view is saying that it's either "equality" or "you're a Nazi"
That black and white world view is exactly what we need to destroy if we want to move forward.
>>329077
And as I have been trying to hammer into the brains of idiots like you a system can only last so long without a philosophical backing until people start to question it. We only got to 'equal' before because of Tabula Rasa and the idea that a God of some kind had made everyone equal in spirit.
Darwin killed Tabula Rasa and the idea of there being an immaterial soul we can all be 'equal' in is crumbling. As long as we still keep lying that everyone is born and it's "all nurture, not much nature" we can keep the system up. Even the fucking children on 4chan are starting to realize that's not true...once enough people realize it we can no longer sustain equality.
It's the same reason we can no longer have a King rule by divine right. The philosophical basis for it is rejected. It's the same reason we were allowed to have democracy in the first place: the philosophical foundation declared that all bloodlines are equal so a king has no more right to rule than a commoner and than they declared that since we are all equal the only way to measure things is by majority.
Once the philosophical foundation for something collapses the institution is on a death-clock.
>>329187
>https://www.rt.com/news/310757-sweden-malmo-blasts-crime/
>http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0QE09F20150809?irpc=932
Honestly, you are just as bad as the /pol/tards you like to criticise so much. At least be honest with yourself and look at the facts.
>>329204
>And as I have been trying to hammer into the brains of idiots like you a system can only last so long without a philosophical backing until people start to question it. We only got to 'equal' before because of Tabula Rasa and the idea that a God of some kind had made everyone equal in spirit.
No, it's pretty much just you who mistakes people being descriptively equal and prescriptively arranging society so as to make everyone more equal.
There is a difference between trying to make everything in society that is unequal equal, and recognizing that we are all equally *valuable* as humans.
>>329186
People mistake darwinism for a Nietzschean supermanism. That fittest is the popular notion of 'fit' - the most attractive, intelligent, smart, sophisticated. In the natural world and the social world fittest is simply having the most advantageous attributes for the circumstance at hand. Those attributes certainly don't hurt but they are far from the defining variables of one's fitness in a social darwinism context where nepotism, connections, ability to work the system and ultimately the right time count far more.
>>329215
this is what always disappoints me about this discourse.
I keep getting promised "the red pill" and a vision of reality that people have been hiding from me, and "the facts".
What I then get is a single piece of anecdotal evidence completely detached from context.
What the hell am I going to do with this?
>>329200
"no". I'm not saying blacks are innocent, but your explanation is ridiculously cliched, especially considering all the recorded cop shootings this year, where, even if the people weren't innocent, didn't warrant getting executed by a cop without due process.
And I'm not talking about those anyway. I'm talking about the abortion clinic shooting in colorado from a few days ago, where a cop got killed in the gunfire, the r9k shooter, the sandy hook looney, the south carolina church shooter, the list goes on
>>329204
you're an idiot thinking that people even know what tabula rasa is. nobody is going to "wake up" and realize anything. there isn't going to be some wide scale existential crisis. you think that people actually think deeply about such things as "equality" or even "darwinism"? nope. they spout the first one all the time because its a buzzword that they learn in school. they only use it whenever benefits them
>>329228
I don't even go on pol, I don't care about this 'red pill', but man. At least start facing reality. Multiple grenade attacks in a first world European country is something to be concerned about. As is the rape statistics and who's committing them.
But you can go on burying your head in the sand, it's not really my concern. You just look like an idiot is all.
>>329269
>thinking that people even know what tabula rasa
I have a friend who has never read a philosophy or history book in his life and has told me he thinks people are born with nothing and everything is enviroment.
Philosophical ideas penetrate and envelope everyone's mind. He also thinks philosophy is 'meaningless' despite holding Tabula Rasa as something sacred.
>nobody is going to "wake up"
No they won't. But they will be very open to ideas that are not based on equality. It will be an enviroment where a Maximilien Robespierre can easily come around.
>you think that people actually think deeply about such things as "equality" or even "darwinism"
They arn't that's why they can be whipped into a frenzy by future Robespierre's.
>they spout the first one all the time because its a buzzword that they learn in school
Exactly. They are impressionable sheep which is exactly what the future Robespierre's need
All we need is handful of "Great men" to direct the emotions of the sheep. The sheep just need to be in a condition where they will accept the message, in other words we need to reach the point where the average person will not feel butterfly in his stomach when he hears "all men are created equal" once he that statement makes him just a tiny bit suspicious than the Robespierre will come in and mold him like puddy.
This is basically what Hitler did. He found a population that were just a little bit distrusting of the old narrative and whipped them into a storm. It's also what politicians try to do every election!
>>329301
sure, but those grenade attacks have nothing to do with Sweden's immigration policy right now.
They are carried out by gangs that have bene in the country for ages.
Second of all, rape statistics are difficult to quantify, because the definition of rape, and how often people feel that they can report it, is different from country to country.
Like I've said a hundred times. I am happy to listen to your viewpoints, but you need to give me some context, beyond simply your black and white binaries.
>>329200
>Most of these gun massacres are caused by black gangs threatening the police.
Didn't an anti-abortion activist just shoot up a planned parenthood clinic?
>>327636
Not everyone holds themselves to those standards. We're definitely conditioned to crave those things because the system is set up to profit from it but not everyone does. Happiness is where you find it. It's not the same for everyone like we're robots.
>>328587
>2015
>Confusing Constitution and Declaration of Independence
kek
>>329204
>For instance we could pay them money not to have children.
I wish the government would do this to you, you fucking sociopath.
If we're going to do what's best for society, we should go after your kind first.
>>329317
I'm not sure what you're saying though. Robespierre didn't want to implement darwinian type solutions to anything.
anyway if you read the history of the french revolution you'd know that none of what you say about robespierre is true. he and the montagnards did what they did to outflank the radical sans culotte who took over all the parish councils in the city. he executed radicals as well as moderates. he a little bit more than a figurehead and he governed alongside other jacobins on the committee of public safety.
also, i can understand if you like hitler for how he manipulated people to get to power, but on all other scores he was a terrible leader with a really stupid vision
Social darwinism had nothing to do with Darwin himself. It was a concept coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, a biologist of the time who misinterpreted The Origin of Species and believed that only the strong obtain anything in this world.
The problem with this theory is that it's simply not true. Being better does not gaurantee that you'll evolutionarily survive. Darwin observed that while many species survive because they adapt to be better, some survive through sheer dumb luck. An animal can be the shittiest species on earth, but if nothing is preying on it, that animal is going to survive and keep reproducing. Likewise, a species could be considered normally perfect for survival, but wiped out because of something like a volcanic event.
>>329335
Yeah. Are most gun massacres by anti-abortion activists?
>>327636
Because people like that don't breed
Reverse Darwinism is in effect with the creetins breeding at an alarming rate
>inb4 some faggot says that they deserve to win
Nah, humans are to far removed from nature for it to be relevent to us anyway
>>329382
no, the common theme over the last decade is that they're all robots of one sort or another. including the clinic shooter
I've been reading this conversation for a few minutes and, despite a few posters proving his premise/ideas false, people are still listening.
Can you people read? He was shut down several posts ago and hasn't responded to it since.
>>329361
>Robespierre didn't want to implement darwinian type solutions to anything
No he didn't my point is that history moves forward when there is unrest in the people and you have someone that knows how to manipulate the masses. He's not the only guy you also need actual leaders.
>i can understand if you like hitler for how he manipulated people to get to power, but on all other scores he was a terrible leader with a really stupid vision
I have mixed feelings about him. He was a very admirable leader but he was kind of stupid with how he handled racial issues and the war with Russia was kek.
>>327636
Aiming for excellence doesn't mean we have swallow all the other self-satisfying horse shit that came with the Nazi regime. Really, I think human ambition is a little older than the 20th century.
>>329421
>I have mixed feelings about him. He was a very admirable leader but he was kind of stupid with how he handled racial issues and the war with Russia was kek.
Not to mention he disregarded any real management of the country and co-operation between branches of government in favor of micro-managing the war and delegating responsibilities to his subordinates to create legislation based on his rambling speeches.
>>329200
20 elementary school children died at Sandy Hook.
>>327636
>Why do we pretend social Darwinism does not exist?
Because bleeding heart liberalism is the current measure of respectability in today's society.
Of course, EVERYONE practices social darwinism. Would you rather get married to this qt, healthy college graduate? Or would you rather get married to this obese high school dropout?
Everyone practices social darwinism when it comes to reproducing. And people can jabber on and on about how progressive and liberal they are, when their daughters bring home a boyfriend who is a nigger deadbeat, they aren't exactly happy.
>>327933
you can consistently affirm both that human beings have differing abilities and that they are in some moral sense equal, i think pretty much every single canonical work of political philosophy deals with this
>>330152
you totally pulled that out of your ass assuming that laxer laws equaled more massacres. if you look at this list they started recurring in frequency from the 1980s onward. pretty lame that you have to totally make things up to make an ideological point tbqh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_(Americas)
>>330297
?
I did not mean to portray lax laws = more massacres.
I ment to say degeneration of society and families = more massacres.
Tighter laws = more violence in a first world country
>>330307
totally dodged the point that you made up that gun massacres haven't increased senpai
and no, europe and australia have tight laws and they have less crime than us. but i guess i have to agree with the splintering society part. eliot rodger had a screw up parent arangement, r9k shooter lived with his mom, so did adam lanza, and the abortion clinic shooter from a few days ago was divorced
>>330330
I said in recent years they haven't increased considerably but have since 1950ish. I didn't know the years.
Also the UK is the violent crime capital of Yurope.
And Australian gun collection had less than a 20% compliance rate.
Not really good examples
>>330076
>Of course, EVERYONE practices social darwinism.
>when their daughters bring home a boyfriend who is a nigger deadbeat, they aren't exactly happy.
The two statements contradict one another. "Selection" is passive and comes after the fact.
The "problem" is precisely that in this case, the daughter did not practice selection carefully, but went with high-time preference and vile impulses.
>>328742
I stopped reading St the first sentence. You do not belong in a philosophical discussion if the why does not matter. And if you refuse to determine the why, your entire system is inherently flawed and illogical, as the only reason to ignore the why is that you cannot prove your statement. Fucking plebian. I agree with you but this pissed me off.
>>328134
Like what? He was evil, but he was honest to a fault. The only thing he lied about was the whole German race myth, which wasn't started by him, anyhow.
