I don’t think the person you replied to was talking about social darwinism
From your article…
The core idea of Social Darwinism is that the wealthy and powerful enjoy the privileges they do because they are more fit in terms of the traits favored by natural selection. The poor and powerless have less fit traits and therefore it is best to let them perish …
This reprehensible (and bullshit) ideology is distinct from the idea of a person making an unsafe decision like golfing on a mountain in a thunderstorm that directly causes them to die.
the wealthy and powerful enjoy the privileges they do because they are more fit in terms of the traits favored by natural selection
That’s literally ableism (and classism) and eugenics.
This reprehensible (and bullshit) ideology is distinct from the idea of a person making an unsafe decision like golfing on a mountain in a thunderstorm that directly causes them to die.
They are not distinct in any way shape or form, that’s just a rephrasing of that first quote of yours, and another way to say it (that most people use today) is “st.pid people shouldn’t breed” (or, because I predict you being a pedantic ass - “haha that st.pid person died without reproducing, lets give them an award!!1”), demonstrating exactly how inseparably intertwinedeugenics (which is literally, and of course, incorrectly, but still, absolutely based on Darwin’s theory) and ableism are in the bullshit premise of the so called “Darwin awards”, which I am well aware the person I replied to was referencing, and which don’t provide you with the excuse or justification you thought they would (to give yourself permission to continue supporting them?), and you trying to ablesplain this shit to me just goes to show how little you actually understand of the subject.
And if you genuinely believe any of that “justification” you wrote, you yourself are an ableist eugenicist, and if you don’t like hearing that, stop acting like one, and you won’t get called it again.
Darwin used to call it “Natural selection”, now we call it “Being confidently incorrect”
No, Darwin didn’t, in fact he rightfully rejected so called “social Darwinism” because it’s nothing but eugenicist bunk.
that’s the problem with Great Ideas, eventually carnival hucksters and conmen are selling it out of bottles in the parking lot
I don’t think the person you replied to was talking about social darwinism
From your article…
This reprehensible (and bullshit) ideology is distinct from the idea of a person making an unsafe decision like golfing on a mountain in a thunderstorm that directly causes them to die.
That’s literally ableism (and classism) and eugenics.
They are not distinct in any way shape or form, that’s just a rephrasing of that first quote of yours, and another way to say it (that most people use today) is “st.pid people shouldn’t breed” (or, because I predict you being a pedantic ass - “haha that st.pid person died without reproducing, lets give them an award!!1”), demonstrating exactly how inseparably intertwined eugenics (which is literally, and of course, incorrectly, but still, absolutely based on Darwin’s theory) and ableism are in the bullshit premise of the so called “Darwin awards”, which I am well aware the person I replied to was referencing, and which don’t provide you with the excuse or justification you thought they would (to give yourself permission to continue supporting them?), and you trying to ablesplain this shit to me just goes to show how little you actually understand of the subject.
And if you genuinely believe any of that “justification” you wrote, you yourself are an ableist eugenicist, and if you don’t like hearing that, stop acting like one, and you won’t get called it again.
I appreciate the explanation. I apologize. I will take this to heart.