Rename the Social Conservatism Statistic

[Christian Democrats]

In the "Got Issues?" forum, I've been told that "Social Conservatism is just the inverse scale of Civil Rights." If this is true, then I believe it should be renamed Social Control, a label that would actually be accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_control

A new name for its index could be the "Durkheim-Orwell Order Scale," and its description could stay the same. As it currently reads, the description of Social Conservatism is almost a perfect definition of Social Control, a concept in sociology.

The idea that "social conservatism" is synonymous with "opposition to civil rights" is descriptively inaccurate and politically biased. Social conservatives are proponents of a host of rights that social liberals tend to reject, especially property rights and parental rights.

If the game wants to have Social Conservatism and Social Liberalism as (new) statistics, then I've suggested the following definitions:

For the purposes of this game, Social Conservatism, properly understood, would measure support for property rights, hierarchical authority, and greater law and order. A new Social Liberalism statistic would measure support for redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism, and the rights of criminals. Perfect examples for calculating these statistics would be the issues on inheritance taxes, DNA sampling of criminal suspects, capital punishment, striking @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ workers, eminent domain, and privatization of beaches.

In short, I don't believe Social Conservatism should be the label of a statistic, unless that statistic is really measuring social conservatism.

[Trotterdam]

For the purposes of this game, Social Conservatism, properly understood, would measure support for property rights, hierarchical authority, and greater law and order.

I don't see what those three things have to do with each other, especially "property rights" and "hierarchical authority" (eminent domain would be in line with the latter but not the former). Also, to return to your original complaint, either banning abortion or making it compulsory falls under none of those things that you mentioned, so are you arguing that Social Conservatism shouldn't respond to your abortion laws at all?

Also, it's called Social Conservatism specifically to distinguish it from issues which are economic rather than social, like those property rights.

Another thing to remember is that few people are 100% in tune with the Platonic ideal of a particular philosophy. So in practice a "conservative party" will still often have one or two liberal opinions, and a "liberal party" will still often have one or two conservative opinions, but that doesn't make them not liberal or conservative opinions.

[Greater Hunnia]

For the purposes of this game, Social Conservatism, properly understood, would measure support for property rights, hierarchical authority, and greater law and order.

I don't see what those three things have to do with each other, especially "property rights" and "hierarchical authority" (eminent domain would be in line with the latter but not the former). Also, to return to your original complaint, either banning abortion or making it compulsory falls under none of those things that you mentioned, so are you arguing that Social Conservatism shouldn't respond to your abortion laws at all?

Also, it's called Social Conservatism specifically to distinguish it from issues which are economic rather than social, like those property rights.

Another thing to remember is that few people are 100% in tune with the Platonic ideal of a particular philosophy. So in practice a "conservative party" will still often have one or two liberal opinions, and a "liberal party" will still often have one or two conservative opinions, but that doesn't make them not liberal or conservative opinions.

Perhaps we should take a look at my desciption as well, I think it perfectly fits together with CD's:

Not an easy task indeed. I'd define social conservativism as an umbrella term for policies that priorise community-imposed values and tradition over individualism.

[Christian Democrats]

For the purposes of this game, Social Conservatism, properly understood, would measure support for property rights, hierarchical authority, and greater law and order.

I don't see what those three things have to do with each other, especially "property rights" and "hierarchical authority" (eminent domain would be in line with the latter but not the former). Also, to return to your original complaint, either banning abortion or making it compulsory falls under none of those things that you mentioned, so are you arguing that Social Conservatism shouldn't respond to your abortion laws at all?

Also, it's called Social Conservatism specifically to distinguish it from issues which are economic rather than social, like those property rights.

Property rights are necessary for social conservatives and fiscal conservatives alike. Fiscal conservatives are, first and foremost, people who are opposed to taxes and economic regulation. (EDIT: The game already has Economic Freedom and Freedom from Taxation ratings.) Social conservatives, in contrast, do not oppose taxes and economic regulation if they are used to achieve socially conservative ends. For the social conservative, the right to property is necessary because the "property owner," broadly conceived, is considered the proper authority in each sphere of life. In the home, for example, it would be the householder. In the workplace, it would be the employer. In the public square, it would be the sovereign or community.

You need to read the definitions together and in contradistinction for them to make sense:

For the purposes of this game, Social Conservatism, properly understood, would measure support for property rights, hierarchical authority, and greater law and order. A new Social Liberalism statistic would measure support for redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism, and the rights of criminals.

Eminent domain would be anti-conservative because it deprives the householder of authority over his home. Eminent domain would be pro-liberal because it is a form of wealth redistribution: taking property from the householder and giving it to the community.

As far as induced abortion goes, greater access should increase Social Liberalism because, from the perspective of a purist liberal, it promotes egalitarianism between men and women. From the perspective of a purist conservative, abortion access would be wrong for one of two reasons: (1) it reduces law and order by undermining the social order of the family (the common conservative view), or (2) it reduces hierarchical authority because it gives a woman the ability to make decisions about procreation separately from her husband or father (a more puritanical, ultra-traditionalist outlook).

The primary purpose of this topic is to have the Social Conservatism statistic renamed Social Control because social control is what is being measured. The secondary purpose of this topic is to suggest how genuine Social Conservatism/Liberalism scores could be calculated.

Social conservatives and social liberals both endorse social control in certain areas, and they both oppose it in others. For instance, anti-discrimination laws are a form of social control that social liberals endorse because they promote egalitarianism. Social conservatives are opposed to them because they undermine the authority of the employer in his workplace (his property). On the other hand, laws against graffiti (an issue that the game has), for instance, are a form of social control that social conservatives endorse because they promote property rights and law and order. Social liberals are opposed to them because they undermine the ability of the poor to express themselves (egalitarianism) and because they are crimes that don't harm anyone else's person (rights of criminals).

Another thing to remember is that few people are 100% in tune with the Platonic ideal of a particular philosophy. So in practice a "conservative party" will still often have one or two liberal opinions, and a "liberal party" will still often have one or two conservative opinions, but that doesn't make them not liberal or conservative opinions.

I agree. There are more than a few issues that would affect the Civil Rights and Social Control ratings but not the Social Conservatism and Social Liberalism ratings. Legalizing pornography, for example, should increase Civil Rights and decrease Social Control. On Social Conservatism, pornography could be viewed as a property right (legalize it) or as a law and order issue (criminalize it). On Social Liberalism, pornography could be viewed as a gender equality issue (criminalize it) or as a criminal rights issue (legalize it).*

* I'm using "criminal rights" and "rights of criminals" broadly to refer to the rights of people who are accused of crimes, the rights of people who are convicted of crimes, and the rights of people not to be criminalized for conduct that does not cause harm to others' persons.

EDIT
To clarify, Civil Rights and Social Control would be inverses. Social Conservatism and Social Liberalism would be inverses if the game wants to keep Social Conservatism in the statistics. If changing Social Conservatism to Social Control is all that happens, I'm satisfied.

[Trotterdam]

Let's look at how else the word "conservative" is used elsewhere in NationStates, specifically across the government categories written by Max Barry:
Authoritarian Democracy's people "are prohibited from doing almost everything except voting, which they do timidly and conservatively."
Moralistic Democracy's people "are highly moralistic and fiercely conservative, in the sense that they tend to believe most things should be outlawed. People who have good jobs and work quietly at them are lauded; others are viewed with suspicion."
Conservative Democracy's people "are known throughout the region for their efficiency and work ethic, as well as their general suspicion of leisure."
And though I do not think "conservative" and "right-wing" are exactly synonymous:
Right-wing Utopia's people "are free to succeed or fail in life on their own merits; the successful tend to enjoy an opulent (but moralistic) lifestyle, while the failures can be seen crowding out most jails."
All four are in the "low civil rights" category.

NationStates consistently associates conservatism with moralism: the idea that the government (or community) should enforce a strict moral code on people, and be intolerant of deviants. This matches the definition I gave:

Conservatism is simply believing in a strict code of "right" behavior, while liberalism is believing that people should be allowed to follow their own judgement, even if it's different from someone else's. Exactly what your code of "right" behavior is can vary, but so long as you're uncompromising about forcing everyone to follow it, you're conservative.

The game does expand slightly more on that, specially implying that the moral code espoused by conservatives is one that praises no-nonsense work ethic and scorns hedonism. (This makes sense. Hedonism taken to its extreme is "anything is okay if you think it's fun", which isn't moralistic as it permits people with many different ideas of fun.)

Whether or not you agree with this definition, NationStates uses it consistently.

And even though I probably shouldn't continue down this risky topic:

For the social conservative, the right to property is necessary because the "property owner," broadly conceived, is considered the proper authority in each sphere of life. In the home, for example, it would be the householder. In the workplace, it would be the employer. In the public square, it would be the sovereign or community.

As far as induced abortion goes, greater access should increase Social Liberalism because, from the perspective of a purist liberal, it promotes egalitarianism between men and women. From the perspective of a purist conservative, abortion access would be wrong for one of two reasons: (1) it reduces law and order by undermining the social order of the family (the common conservative view), or (2) it reduces hierarchical authority because it gives a woman the ability to make decisions about procreation separately from her husband or father (a more puritanical, ultra-traditionalist outlook).

How can you "undermine the social order of the family" if you don't have a family yet?

If you want "social order of the family", that would mean parents having absolute authority over their children, which taken to its most extreme form would include being entitled to kill them if they deem it necessary.

Both government-banned abortion and government-enforced abortion intrude on the "proper authority in each sphere of life", which in this case would be the mother and/or father (depending on gender politics).

[Christian Democrats]

Let's look at how else the word "conservative" is used elsewhere in NationStates, specifically across the government categories written by Max Barry:
Authoritarian Democracy's people "are prohibited from doing almost everything except voting, which they do timidly and conservatively."
Moralistic Democracy's people "are highly moralistic and fiercely conservative, in the sense that they tend to believe most things should be outlawed. People who have good jobs and work quietly at them are lauded; others are viewed with suspicion."
Conservative Democracy's people "are known throughout the region for their efficiency and work ethic, as well as their general suspicion of leisure."

All of Max Barry's uses of "conservative" are associated with "democracy."

And though I do not think "conservative" and "right-wing" are exactly synonymous:
Right-wing Utopia's people "are free to succeed or fail in life on their own merits; the successful tend to enjoy an opulent (but moralistic) lifestyle, while the failures can be seen crowding out most jails."

I don't think "conservative" and "right-wing" are synonymous. Conservatives are right-wing and so are fascists.

Likewise, I don't think "liberal" and "left-wing" are synonymous. Liberals are left-wing and so are communists.

I'm fine with the way that Max Barry used "conservative" because conservatism is always associated with democracy. That's not the way that the newer Social Conservatism statistic is using the term. According to the current Social Conservatism ratings, the most "conservative" nations in the world are Psychotic Dictatorships and Iron Fist Consumerists -- a nation that is "ruled without fear or favor by a psychotic dictator, who outlaws just about everything and refers to the populace as 'my little playthings'" or a nation that is "kept under strict control by the oppressive government, which measures its success by the nation's GDP and refers to individual citizens as 'human resources.'"

I repeat my statement that the Social Conservatism scale should be renamed Social Control because that is what it is actually measuring. The current use of "social conservatism" is "descriptively inaccurate and politically biased." Now that you add it, the current use of "social conservatism" is also inconsistent with what Max Barry had in mind when he used the term.

[Greater Hunnia]

Let's look at how else the word "conservative" is used elsewhere in NationStates, specifically across the government categories written by Max Barry:
Authoritarian Democracy's people "are prohibited from doing almost everything except voting, which they do timidly and conservatively."
Moralistic Democracy's people "are highly moralistic and fiercely conservative, in the sense that they tend to believe most things should be outlawed. People who have good jobs and work quietly at them are lauded; others are viewed with suspicion."
Conservative Democracy's people "are known throughout the region for their efficiency and work ethic, as well as their general suspicion of leisure."
And though I do not think "conservative" and "right-wing" are exactly synonymous:
Right-wing Utopia's people "are free to succeed or fail in life on their own merits; the successful tend to enjoy an opulent (but moralistic) lifestyle, while the failures can be seen crowding out most jails."
All four are in the "low civil rights" category.

NationStates consistently associates conservatism with moralism: the idea that the government (or community) should enforce a strict moral code on people, and be intolerant of deviants. This matches the definition I gave:

Conservatism is simply believing in a strict code of "right" behavior, while liberalism is believing that people should be allowed to follow their own judgement, even if it's different from someone else's. Exactly what your code of "right" behavior is can vary, but so long as you're uncompromising about forcing everyone to follow it, you're conservative.

The game does expand slightly more on that, specially implying that the moral code espoused by conservatives is one that praises no-nonsense work ethic and scorns hedonism. (This makes sense. Hedonism taken to its extreme is "anything is okay if you think it's fun", which isn't moralistic as it permits people with many different ideas of fun.)

Whether or not you agree with this definition, NationStates uses it consistently.

And even though I probably shouldn't continue down this risky topic:

For the social conservative, the right to property is necessary because the "property owner," broadly conceived, is considered the proper authority in each sphere of life. In the home, for example, it would be the householder. In the workplace, it would be the employer. In the public square, it would be the sovereign or community.

As far as induced abortion goes, greater access should increase Social Liberalism because, from the perspective of a purist liberal, it promotes egalitarianism between men and women. From the perspective of a purist conservative, abortion access would be wrong for one of two reasons: (1) it reduces law and order by undermining the social order of the family (the common conservative view), or (2) it reduces hierarchical authority because it gives a woman the ability to make decisions about procreation separately from her husband or father (a more puritanical, ultra-traditionalist outlook).

How can you "undermine the social order of the family" if you don't have a family yet?

If you want "social order of the family", that would mean parents having absolute authority over their children, which taken to its most extreme form would include being entitled to kill them if they deem it necessary.

Both government-banned abortion and government-enforced abortion intrude on the "proper authority in each sphere of life", which in this case would be the mother and/or father (depending on gender politics).

The problem is that policies IRL and not one dimensional (left-right) but 2 (left-right and authoritarian-libertarian). Social Conservativism, as it is defined in Nationstates now, is pretty much the synonym of Authoritarianism. It has nothing to do with left or right wing policies (ie in this case liberal and conservative). I'm fairly sure that forcing people to walk around nude would increase the social conservativism stat, I think we can agree that it's not something conservatives would do tho. So this is why we need a Social Control stat, which would measure the social aspect of authoritarianism (but not the economical one), and a Social Conservativism / Liberalism stat to measure the liberal/conservative allignment of a nation.

[Trotterdam]

All of Max Barry's uses of "conservative" are associated with "democracy."

Only in Authoritarian Democracy is the word "conservative" specifically used in relation to voting. In the other cases, Max Barry is merely describing a government that happens to be both conservative and democratic, without implying that one requires the other. There is no reason a dictatorship couldn't enforce conservative values (or liberal - see Iron Fist Socialists, Libertarian Police State), although Max Barry chose for some reason not to describe any government categories as such (probably because he figured that if you're completely squashing Civil Rights and completely squashing Political Freedom, you probably just like oppressing people, which is more important than exactly what kind of oppression you're doing).

The reason a disproportionate number of low-civil-rights nations have "democracy" (or "majority") in their name is probably because Max Barry saw a low-civil-rights nation still being a democracy as unusual and thus worthy of mention.

I'm fine with the way that Max Barry used "conservative" because conservatism is always associated with democracy. That's not the way that the newer Social Conservatism statistic is using the term. According to the current Social Conservatism ratings, the most "conservative" nations in the world are Psychotic Dictatorships and Iron Fist Consumerists -- a nation that is "ruled without fear or favor by a psychotic dictator, who outlaws just about everything and refers to the populace as 'my little playthings'" or a nation that is "kept under strict control by the oppressive government, which measures its success by the nation's GDP and refers to individual citizens as 'human resources.'"

The difference between a Conservative Democracy and Iron Fist Consumerists is Political Freedom, which is completely independent of Civil Rights and thus the current game definition of Social Conservatism.

Currently the 7th-place Most Conservative nation is a Moralistic Democracy, 8th-place is a Right-wing Utopia, 11th-place is a Conservative Democracy, and 16th-place is another Moralistic Democracy. Considering that the top 326 nations are all tied and tiebreakers are arbitrary, this does not mean much.

The prevalence of Psychotic Dictatorships is simply because many players like playing those - and because, as I said before, most real conservatives still have one liberalish opinion or two, so the nations at the absolute top of the list will likely be ones that are playing deliberately-over-the-top policies for humor (a gameplay style that naturally attracts Psychotic Dictatorships), while the more "sensible" conservatives will be slightly lower.

Ultimately, the game can only know what you've done, not why. If you banned something, the game doesn't know if you did that because you think it's immoral, or just because you like making your people's lives hard for fun or profit. A Psychotic Dictatorship can still be interpreted as someone trying to push his conservative/moralist values, he just looks crazy from the point of view of someone who disagrees with his values, if you see it as a single person forcing his personal views on everyone without regard for dissent, and even dicatorships that don't genuinely have morality at heart still often use their alleged moral superiority propaganda to keep the populace pacified.

If anything, you should be complaining about the description of Iron Fist Consumerists for not portraying it as a more reasonable conservative society, as both of the government categories that differ from it only in Political Freedom (which isn't about your government's policies, just how it decided on those policies) are.

In any case Psychotic Dictatorships, Iron Fist Consumerists, and Corporate Police States are also nowhere close to liberal according to your definition, since they do not care about egalitarianism or rights of criminals, and care about redistribution of wealth only when it's from the poor to the rich. They have more in common with your definition of conservatives, satisfying at least the "law and order" part, and the latter two respect property rights (that being pretty much the only right they respect).

The problem is that policies IRL and not one dimensional (left-right) but 2 (left-right and authoritarian-libertarian). Social Conservativism, as it is defined in Nationstates now, is pretty much the synonym of Authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism (the stat as defined now) cares about all freedoms, while Social Conservatism (the stat as defined now) is specifically about civil freedoms only.

I have my own ideas of how to measure the left-right dimension in an authoritarianism-agnostic manner, but one of the few things that Christian Democrats and I both agreed on are that "right-wing" and "conservative" are not exactly synonymous.

I'm fairly sure that forcing people to walk around nude would increase the social conservativism stat, I think we can agree that it's not something conservatives would do tho.

Compulsory nudity is not something almost anyone on either side of the political spectrum would endorse, because it is totally crazy.

Many Christian conservatives do support banning burqas, because they show affiliation with the "wrong" religion, though they'll use the excuse that face-concealing clothes make people harder to recognize - which is annoying, and, well, it's not like our religion demands it. (Some liberals also want to ban burqas, but what they really oppose is the misogyny of forcing/pressuring women to wear burqas against their will, and they just don't comprehend that some women might wish to wear burqas voluntarily rather than as a sign of submission/shame.)

Compulsory school uniforms are also something typically endorsed by conservatives and opposed by liberals.

Banning all clothes is similar to banning burqas, except taken to its absurd extreme. It is also similar to compulsory uniforms, except in this case the uniform clothing style that everyone must wear is "none".

To the degree that compulsory nudity could possibly be taken as a sane political view at all, rather than pointlessly oppressing your citizens for funsies, it would be a conservative view. "Our bodies were created by God, and covering them up is blasphemy against the perfection of his work!"

[Christian Democrats]

Max Barry is merely describing a government that happens to be both conservative and democratic, without implying that one requires the other.

Satire is a big part of this game; and Max Barry's description of conservatives, like his descriptions of other groups, is largely satirical but good-natured. According to him, conservatives are hard-working people who are suspicious of eccentrics and idlers.

On the contrary, the Social Conservatism statistic is not satirical or good-natured. It's biased and offensive. It portrays a dyed-in-the-wool conservative as a psychotic or a dictator who views human beings as things. Suspicion is not the trademark of conservatives but oppression; and conservatives are not portrayed as hard-working, keep-to-themselves people but as blackshirts or brownshirts.

There is no reason a dictatorship couldn't enforce conservative values

Historically, democracy or constitutional monarchy is compatible with conservatism. Dictatorship is not. Calling a dictatorship "conservative" is akin to calling Robespierre's France or Soviet Russia "liberal."

although Max Barry chose for some reason not to describe any government categories as such

I imagine it's because he wanted to be humorous and nonpartisan, not to portray conservatives as crazies.

The difference between a Conservative Democracy and Iron Fist Consumerists is Political Freedom, which is completely independent of Civil Rights and thus the current game definition of Social Conservatism.

Your argument is circular: the current game definition of Social Conservatism is opposition to civil rights; therefore, it's acceptable for the game to call opposition to civil rights Social Conservatism.

As I've pointed out several times, the game is measuring Social Control but calling it Social Conservatism, which is inaccurate.

Currently the 7th-place Most Conservative nation is a Moralistic Democracy, 8th-place is a Right-wing Utopia, 11th-place is a Conservative Democracy, and 16th-place is another Moralistic Democracy. Considering that the top 326 nations are all tied and tiebreakers are arbitrary, this does not mean much.

Yeah, it does. It means that the game is saying that most "true conservatives" are maniacs or menaces. A few are moralists or utopians.

The prevalence of Psychotic Dictatorships is simply because many players like playing those - and because, as I said before, most real conservatives still have one liberalish opinion or two, so the nations at the absolute top of the list will likely be ones that are playing deliberately-over-the-top policies for humor (a gameplay style that naturally attracts Psychotic Dictatorships), while the more "sensible" conservatives will be slightly lower.

Your use of shudder quotes is appalling -- you're saying that conservatives aren't sensible, which is the exact message that the current Social Conservatism statistic sends.

Many Christian conservatives do support banning burqas, because they show affiliation with the "wrong" religion, though they'll use the excuse that face-concealing clothes make people harder to recognize - which is annoying, and, well, it's not like our religion demands it. (Some liberals also want to ban burqas, but what they really oppose is the misogyny of forcing/pressuring women to wear burqas against their will, and they just don't comprehend that some women might wish to wear burqas voluntarily rather than as a sign of submission/shame.)

Again, you're being politically biased with your uses of "many" and "some." France is the country known for its burqa ban, and it's the most secular nation in Europe. The ban's only opponent in the National Assembly was a conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Garrigue

In Western nations, opposition to Islamic culture does not come solely from the right or the left.

[Greater Hunnia]

By the way, I'm yet to find an issue that increases social conservativism without also raising ignorance, even if the issue has absolutely nothing to do with education, freedom of thought, or sceince... And unlike Christian Democrats, I don't think that Max's "satirism" is of good nature.

[Christian Democrats]

To be fair, Max Barry says that liberals are suspicious of the wealthy and businessmen in his descriptions and that left-wingers would like to see these groups "regulated to within an inch of their lives." In the first several issues that he wrote, he calls environmentalists "long-haired idiots" and animal rights activists "nuts."

[Europe and Oceania]

To be fair, Max Barry says that liberals are suspicious of the wealthy and businessmen in his descriptions and that left-wingers would like to see these groups "regulated to within an inch of their lives." In the first several issues that he wrote, he calls environmentalists "long-haired idiots" and animal rights activists "nuts."

Yeah but I thought NS isn't supposed to be serious.

[Christian Democrats]

Yeah but I thought NS isn't supposed to be serious.

Again, I enjoy satire. I'm opposed to mean-spiritedness. The Social Conservatism statistic wrongly associates social conservatism with complete opposition to human rights, terror, psychosis, dictatorship, oppression, and the treatment of persons as subhumans. I don't exaggerate; the game actually uses cognates of these terms to describe social conservatives.

Also, the Social Conservatism statistic is simply inaccurate. It defines Social Control and, then, mislabels it Social Conservatism. The purpose for which I opened this thread is to ask the administrators to correct the inaccurate and mean-spirited label.

[Europe and Oceania]

Yeah but I thought NS isn't supposed to be serious.

Again, I enjoy satire. I'm opposed to mean-spiritedness. The Social Conservatism statistic wrongly associates social conservatism with complete opposition to human rights, terror, psychosis, dictatorship, oppression, and the treatment of persons as subhumans. I don't exaggerate; the game actually uses cognates of these terms to describe social conservatives.

Also, the Social Conservatism statistic is simply inaccurate. It defines Social Control and, then, mislabels it Social Conservatism. The purpose for which I opened this thread is to ask the administrators to correct the inaccurate and mean-spirited label.

Yes but you just mentioned that it describes the liberals as wanting businessmen to be "regulated within an inch of their lives". So it seems that
both sides are overexaggerated because it isn't supposed to be serious. I find bias in the NS Forums, however, I do not take anything that comes
from the Nation Issues or anything directly from NS itself seriously because I know it's supposed to be satirical/comical.

You should take it with a grain of salt like I do.

[Christian Democrats]

Again, I enjoy satire. I'm opposed to mean-spiritedness. The Social Conservatism statistic wrongly associates social conservatism with complete opposition to human rights, terror, psychosis, dictatorship, oppression, and the treatment of persons as subhumans. I don't exaggerate; the game actually uses cognates of these terms to describe social conservatives.

Also, the Social Conservatism statistic is simply inaccurate. It defines Social Control and, then, mislabels it Social Conservatism. The purpose for which I opened this thread is to ask the administrators to correct the inaccurate and mean-spirited label.

Yes but you just mentioned that it describes the liberals as wanting businessmen to be "regulated within an inch of their lives". So it seems that
both sides are overexaggerated because it isn't supposed to be serious. I find bias in the NS Forums, however, I do not take anything that comes
from the Nation Issues or anything directly from NS itself seriously because I know it's supposed to be satirical/comical.

You should take it with a grain of salt like I do.

I do take the government descriptions with a grain of salt, and I think they're funny stereotypes because they have a lot of truth. For example, Moralistic Democracies are defined as nations where the people are "highly moralistic and fiercely conservative" and where they view "with suspicion" citizens who do not "have good jobs and work quietly at them." Conservative Democracies are defined as nations where the people are known "for their efficiency and work ethic, as well as their general suspicion of leisure." These descriptions, written by Max Barry, are amusing. The so-called Social Conservatism statistic is not. It's inaccurate and derogatory. The correct label is Social Control.

[Greater Hunnia]

Now seriosuly am I the only one who's bothered by this thing with the Ignorance stat? The game literally tells us that Social Conservativism = stupidity.

[The Realist Polities]

It should be called 'social authoritarianism' or 'social austerity' or 'social exclusion'

[Esperlando]

I agree with Christian Democrats. I, like many NS players, quite enjoy the satire. However, the Social Conservatism stat wrongly displays the views of Social Conservatives. Social Conservatism is more about individual rights and promotion of family values. Dumbing Social Conservatism down to however one's daly life is restricted is just plain wrong.
On top of that, the stat is then simplified to just "conservative" and the daily stats ask "Who is the most conservative in [region]?" This wrongly displays conservatives, because it is only talking about Social Conservatism, and the game's definition of Social Conservatism is incorrect.

[Magna Singulorum]

I concur with this issue. NS is exploiting and ostracizing a minority of believers on this website by naming the antithesis of Civil Rights , "Social Conservatism", as well as citing former president Bush and candidate Santorum on the scale.

For perspective, it would be like naming a Stat "Social Justice" (or Social Liberalism as suggested in the OP) then making it's attributes widespread poverty, low education, and high crime. Additionally, make the stat the prime antithesis to political freedom, as the politically correct culture Social Justice or Social Liberalism brings along with it basically demonizes and dimisses any opponents as "racists, sexists, xenophobes, etc."

If that stat were to be created allow me to suggest Saul Alinsky or even Obama to be used as the scale representation. But instead of doing all that work, how about we all just seriously consider a name change.

[Trotterdam]

For perspective, it would be like naming a Stat "Social Justice" (or Social Liberalism as suggested in the OP) then making it's attributes widespread poverty, low education, and high crime.

Funny you should mention that. Currently most of the lowest-ranked nations on Social Conservatism are Anarchies, described as living "in a state of perpetual fear, as a complete breakdown of social order has led to the rise of order through biker gangs".

The most extreme adherents of any leaning - liberal or conservative, libertarian or totalitarian, capitalist or communist - are going to be crazed lunatics. (Honestly, I think even radical centrism could lead to insanity, if you overdo trying to give all points of view exactly equal weight. Though I don't think the game can recognize that particular form of insanity.)

[Ryanvillle]

The satire is funny, but it's so liberally biased, it gets annoying. Reminds me of Jon Stewart. Funny guy, but so biased, I can hardly take it.

[Drasnia]

Here's how I view this: In NS, civil rights is determined by what is outlawed.Violetists can't sacrifice humans? That lowers civil rights. Basically, civil rights = social liberalism (using the definition of liberty and not RL political 'liberalism'). Thus, the opposite of liberalism is conservatism. After all, conservatism when taken to its absolute extreme is the average person being told exactly what they can and cannot do. Usually conservatism is well meaning. After all, most people would outlaw human sacrifice. Allowing that would be liberal, outlawing conservative.

[Christian Democrats]

It should be called 'social authoritarianism' or 'social austerity' or 'social exclusion'

We already have an Authoritarianism stat, which is why I recommend Social Control. The definition given for so-called Social Conservatism is actually a definition of Social Control, which conservatives and liberals both employ to varying degrees.

The most extreme adherents of any leaning - liberal or conservative, libertarian or totalitarian, capitalist or communist - are going to be crazed lunatics.

Once you cross into "crazed lunacy," however, the name for an ideology changes. A "crazed liberal" is not a liberal but an anarchist or communist, and a "crazed conservative" is not a conservative but a fascist or puritan.

Here's how I view this: In NS, civil rights is determined by what is outlawed. Violetists can't sacrifice humans? That lowers civil rights. Basically, civil rights = social liberalism (using the definition of liberty and not RL political 'liberalism'). Thus, the opposite of liberalism is conservatism.

That reasoning doesn't make sense because Civil Rights is not measuring social liberalism but, so to speak, social libertarianism. A radical libertarian is, of course, a sort of anarchist. The opposite of liberty/libertarianism is not conservatism; it's control/collectivism.

After all, conservatism when taken to its absolute extreme is the average person being told exactly what they can and cannot do.

No, it isn't. Taking conservatism to its extreme is pretty much the Corporate Bordello category:

Citizens are effectively ruled by a group of massive corporations, who run for political office and provide their well-off citizens with world-class goods and services. Their poorer citizens, however, are mostly starving to death while being urged to go out and get real jobs. The populace has reasonably extensive civil rights, although these are mostly aimed at allowing them to buy whatever they like.

As I said above, social conservatives value authority but not necessarily governmental authority and especially not centralized authority. The right to property is necessary for the social conservative because it defines which authority is the correct authority in each area of life. In the workplace, for instance, the correct authority is the employer (i.e., the property owner). For the extreme social conservative, therefore, economic regulations as well as government-protected unionization would be violations of the employer's property rights.

EDIT: When I'm talking about "social conservatism," I primarily am thinking about "paleoconservatism."

Usually conservatism is well meaning. After all, most people would outlaw human sacrifice. Allowing that would be liberal, outlawing conservative.

Really, cutting up homeless people is liberal?

We don't have a stat called Social Liberalism; why do we have a stat called Social Conservatism?

[Almonaster Nuevo]

We don't have a stat called Social Liberalism; why do we have a stat called Social Conservatism?

Because there is one Status Quo but many alternatives.

[Christian Democrats]

We don't have a stat called Social Liberalism; why do we have a stat called Social Conservatism?

Because there is one Status Quo but many alternatives.

Social Conservatism doesn't measure "status quoism." It measures "opposition to civil rights," measured in Martin Luther King, Jr. Units.