You can't argue against something just by calling it an unfashionable name.
I've heard it said that nobody can agree on what "social Darwinism" means but that everybody is against it. I'm trying to remove the stigma to promote a more sober discussion of ideas that often suffer from this label.
I don't see what's hard to define about social Darwinism, especially since you did a pretty good job expounding it in the parent post.
The reason everybody is against it (except the children of rich people, generally) is that it's not much more than post-facto rationalization for the nineteenth century. I know I didn't come of rich stock, and yet I think I'm pretty smart. I can think of a couple of examples of the stupid rich, too. Lots of them, lately.
I'll grant that richer families have better educational opportunities and you could perhaps make an argument based on cultural transmission of "beneficial" behavior - but the primary trait that causes wealth is ruthlessness, not intelligence, and it's no way to run a railroad.
You can't argue against something just by calling it an unfashionable name.
I've heard it said that nobody can agree on what "social Darwinism" means but that everybody is against it. I'm trying to remove the stigma to promote a more sober discussion of ideas that often suffer from this label.