U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is Social Darwinism a cornerstone of American Conservatism
1. Yes 7 46.67%
2. No 8 53.33%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 09-18-2011, 01:00 AM
 
11,531 posts, read 9,587,505 times
Reputation: 3580

Advertisements

The rich are smart and hardworking, the poor are stupid and lazy. These ideas certainly seem to be very popular in conservative circles.

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2011, 02:31 AM
 
3,728 posts, read 4,576,439 times
Reputation: 2286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
The rich are smart and hardworking, the poor are stupid and lazy. These ideas certainly seem to be very popular in conservative circles.

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I wouldn't say it is a cornerstone, but there are certainly conservatives who do have Social Darwinist leanings and they make up a sizable minority.

That being said, a lot of liberals (and other left-wingers) do have almost anti-Social Darwinist leanings. Where as opposed to "survival of the fittest" it becomes "survival of the unfit at all costs". An industry going under because it is no longer economically viable? Subsidize it. Another industry can't survive because imports from another nation are cheaper and better quality? Tariffs. Some guy comes up with an innovative business model and makes a ton of money? Tax him into oblivion and give the money to some poor communities in West Virginia.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 02:40 AM
 
12,779 posts, read 7,151,219 times
Reputation: 4327
How is that different from the mindset of the left which appears to be "You cant survive without the government supporting you."

Its incredibly sad to me that we seem to want to promote a way of life that says you are incapable of success without extreme government intervention.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,629 posts, read 26,624,964 times
Reputation: 11372
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206 View Post
How is that different from the mindset of the left which appears to be "You cant survive without the government supporting you."

Its incredibly sad to me that we seem to want to promote a way of life that says you are incapable of success without extreme government intervention.
So, that's the left's "mindset." Got anything but your imagination to back that up? Many of us believe that there should be a safety net for our citizens.
So sorry that you don't believe in caring for our own.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 05:52 AM
 
Location: St. Joseph Area
6,236 posts, read 8,975,462 times
Reputation: 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
The rich are smart and hardworking, the poor are stupid and lazy. These ideas certainly seem to be very popular in conservative circles.

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe it's become bedrock principle (along with anti-intellectualism). If you're conservative but believe in a moderate social safety net, many wouldn't view you as conservative.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,178 posts, read 10,100,227 times
Reputation: 9620
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
So, that's the left's "mindset." Got anything but your imagination to back that up? Many of us believe that there should be a safety net for our citizens.
So sorry that you don't believe in caring for our own.

Like most emotional arguments, that last line is a gross over-exaggeration.

The truth of the matter is that most people will help others - to a point. And that point stops when those "others" refuse to do anything for themselves, and expect to be taken care of, even demand it as a "right".

That is the problem with social altruism. No matter how well-intentioned social programs are, inevitably they become over-bureaucratized and a detriment to the very people they were initiated to help. When I was growing up, there were hundreds of poor families around me; the fathers worked at menial jobs, but they worked; the mothers were strict - even stricter than my own Mom! - and the boys were taught to get an education, learn a trade, push themselves upward, no matter how menial the tasks. The daughters were taught to be especially particular with whom they associated; they were not allowed to run the streets, date indiscriminately; if they got pregnant they had to drop out of school and get a job to support that child, so few made that mistake. There was an attitude of "We can work our way out of this!" And many did, in spite of being from the "wrong" side of the tracks or the "wrong" race.

However, when sympathetic social services came along, they 'taught' their clients that there was more money in ignorance and dependence than in work. The poor were told over and over not only that they could never hope to achieve anything real or permanent because they were oppressed, but that they could actually do nothing and still deserved a home, food, clothing, and all of the benefits of society with none of the work. The bureaucrats' job promotions and salary increases were dependent on how many families they could 'help' in this manner, so naturally they assiduously worked on more and more people and families to make them more and more dependent on government, less and less dependent on themselves, telling them all the while that their inability to achieve, to read and write and comprehend, was not their fault but the fault of society. Now we see the generational results...

In every society, in every family, there are some who work hard, who succeed in spite of all odds, who battle things like poverty, ignorance, racism and other prejudices, even familial dependence on alcoholism and drugs, to become whatever, whomever they want and successful. However, when those peoples' communities, families, and neighbors are the undeserving recipients of the benefits of that work, and take those benefits not only gleefully but insultingly, they denigrate the work and success of those individuals. Like crabs in a bucket, they reach up and grab the one trying to climb out of the well of ignorance and poverty, and drag him or her back down with them.

It is in this way that societal altruism actually destroys the very people it tries to 'help'. By encouraging this, that, or the other group to have the mindset of the permanently oppressed, the social altruists teach them that they are more deserving than other groups, and therefore should not have to work even half as hard to succeed, that they deserve success without effort. This causes resentment on both sides - from those forced by government edict to provide for those who are taught that they do not have to put forth effort, and eventually from those who are taught that they do not have to expend effort. And that resentment is encouraged by the bureaucrats, who know that their jobs depend on emotionalization rather than education, pretty lies instead of cold hard facts, and the increased ignorance, decreased education, and increased lassitude and dependence of those in their ever-widening circle whom they purport to 'help'. The millions of families the bureaucrats have destroyed are as nothing to those bureaucrats; they keep their jobs and get their promotions, all the while lamenting happily that they have more and more dependent clients. It's called job security.

The cold hard truth of the matter is that when people are permitted to fail, they learn from that failure. If they are encouraged to struggle, they learn what they cannot do, which teaches them what they CAN do. When there is no failure permitted, there is no learning curve.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 06:30 AM
 
Location: St. Joseph Area
6,236 posts, read 8,975,462 times
Reputation: 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny View Post
Like most emotional arguments, that last line is a gross over-exaggeration.

The truth of the matter is that most people will help others - to a point. And that point stops when those "others" refuse to do anything for themselves, and expect to be taken care of, even demand it as a "right".

That is the problem with social altruism. No matter how well-intentioned social programs are, inevitably they become over-bureaucratized and a detriment to the very people they were initiated to help. When I was growing up, there were hundreds of poor families around me; the fathers worked at menial jobs, but they worked; the mothers were strict - even stricter than my own Mom! - and the boys were taught to get an education, learn a trade, push themselves upward, no matter how menial the tasks. The daughters were taught to be especially particular with whom they associated; they were not allowed to run the streets, date indiscriminately; if they got pregnant they had to drop out of school and get a job to support that child, so few made that mistake. There was an attitude of "We can work our way out of this!" And many did, in spite of being from the "wrong" side of the tracks or the "wrong" race.

However, when sympathetic social services came along, they 'taught' their clients that there was more money in ignorance and dependence than in work. The poor were told over and over not only that they could never hope to achieve anything real or permanent because they were oppressed, but that they could actually do nothing and still deserved a home, food, clothing, and all of the benefits of society with none of the work. The bureaucrats' job promotions and salary increases were dependent on how many families they could 'help' in this manner, so naturally they assiduously worked on more and more people and families to make them more and more dependent on government, less and less dependent on themselves, telling them all the while that their inability to achieve, to read and write and comprehend, was not their fault but the fault of society. Now we see the generational results...

In every society, in every family, there are some who work hard, who succeed in spite of all odds, who battle things like poverty, ignorance, racism and other prejudices, even familial dependence on alcoholism and drugs, to become whatever, whomever they want and successful. However, when those peoples' communities, families, and neighbors are the undeserving recipients of the benefits of that work, and take those benefits not only gleefully but insultingly, they denigrate the work and success of those individuals. Like crabs in a bucket, they reach up and grab the one trying to climb out of the well of ignorance and poverty, and drag him or her back down with them.

It is in this way that societal altruism actually destroys the very people it tries to 'help'. By encouraging this, that, or the other group to have the mindset of the permanently oppressed, the social altruists teach them that they are more deserving than other groups, and therefore should not have to work even half as hard to succeed, that they deserve success without effort. This causes resentment on both sides - from those forced by government edict to provide for those who are taught that they do not have to put forth effort, and eventually from those who are taught that they do not have to expend effort. And that resentment is encouraged by the bureaucrats, who know that their jobs depend on emotionalization rather than education, pretty lies instead of cold hard facts, and the increased ignorance, decreased education, and increased lassitude and dependence of those in their ever-widening circle whom they purport to 'help'. The millions of families the bureaucrats have destroyed are as nothing to those bureaucrats; they keep their jobs and get their promotions, all the while lamenting happily that they have more and more dependent clients. It's called job security.
So then, do you think there should be no safety net at all due to the risk involved of creating chronically dependent people?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 06:36 AM
Status: "R.I.P. Science" (set 11 days ago)
 
39,010 posts, read 21,168,029 times
Reputation: 19309
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
So, that's the left's "mindset." Got anything but your imagination to back that up? Many of us believe that there should be a safety net for our citizens.
So sorry that you don't believe in caring for our own.
The whole happy pretense of "caring for our citizens" goes out the window when you steal from them to fashion your safety net.


I volunteer my own time and money to a homeless shelter. Now thats caring.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 06:37 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,603 posts, read 17,971,576 times
Reputation: 6387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
The rich are smart and hardworking, the poor are stupid and lazy. These ideas certainly seem to be very popular in conservative circles.

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A benefit of social Darwinism is that the poor with ability and drive can succeed. Read some of the profiles of the Forbes 400 sometimes quite a few of them came from humble backgrounds. Or the number of black professional athletes who are now multi- millionaires who are from poor backgrounds.

Under a Leftist system class mobility is nonexistent. See Cuba and N. Korea for examples.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,178 posts, read 10,100,227 times
Reputation: 9620
Sorry, you replied before I added that last line...

What is a "safety net"? Is it Social Security, which people have paid into since they started working as a busboy or waitress from the age of 14? Is it a retirement fund, that is accessible when they become unable to work?

Or is it a birth to death support for people who are encouraged to never try, to never accomplish, to indulge in any and every pleasure without the natural repercussions that come from such indulgence?

I support the Salvation Army, who (in spite of their religious overtones) require that recipients of their safety net must work in whatever capacity they can. They cannot be layabouts, drunkards, or drug addicts, holding their hands out for succor. They must work to not only support themselves but to overcome their problems. For this reason, the Salvation Army was booted from the United Way - because they did not provide succor to all who asked. Yet the Salvation Army believes that people can achieve, can become, even in physically limited capacities - as do I.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top