mikey mikey wrote:
Just so you all know exactly where the misapplication of a misinterpretation of Charles Darwin's works can lead:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#Theories_and_origins
Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and
survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism; but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.
The ironic thing is that darwinism (note the social bit missing from the front there) is specifically about survival of the most ADAPTABLE species not the 'fittest'.
So why is it the 'fittest' in a social context?
IMHO its because wingnuts associate adaptability with 'liberal' ideas which ofc are based upon accepting change, something abhorrent to conservatives who wish everything to remain static (despite ofc introducing shitloads of change via new laws and regulations which is just yet another example of cognitive dissonance).
So they choose to use the term 'survival of the fittest' and associate it with darwin to give an impression that its somehow always been this way (darwin being someone from the past).
Yet more cognitive dissonance here for wingnut conservatives as darwin was a scientist and at odds with the church
In fact, if you look at this too much and try to break it down its akin to looking down a bottomless pit of madness imho.
Words have been twisted by authority to mean whatever the hell they deem them to mean.
'We don't torture people' is a classic example.
That's some wild shit right there... 
