It seems to me that one of the primary purposes of society it to mitigate the inequality found in nature. That is to say: A system where the strong and/or lucky thrive and the weak and/or unlucky suffer doesn't need society, it's what happens by default. People band together into a society in order to thrive collectively despite their various weaknesses.

No, that's only your opinion. Millenia of scholarship about societal origins have never said that.

Not really, it's basically what Hobbes argues in Leviathan.

What are you basing your assertion upon?

No, he doesn't. That's your gloss on Hobbes. He didn't mean "inequality" in the modern liberal sense that you are using it. You cannot import modern "thinking" (if that's the word for it) back to the 18th Century.

I suppose you're going to seize on the word "inequality" here:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/ch...

> Everywhere you look, in nature and in society, you will find inequality, and some people always present it as a moral wrong.

Everywhere you look, in nature and society, you will find violence, and some people always present it as a moral wrong.

Just because something is natural, normal, or always present doesn't mean that thing is good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Violence in itself is not morally wrong or right, what a bizarre statement.

we live in the age where victimhood (the umbrella over inequality) is harvested for social capital. The data doesn't matter anymore, it's just who can make their cause du-jour into the biggest tragedy. This is why it will never stop, they will never be satisfied, only move on to some other tragedy after they use their harvested capital for political gain.