Rename the Social Conservatism Statistic

[Almonaster Nuevo]

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.

ORLY?

You've seen the code? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen those two move independently.

EDIT: I had seen them move by different amounts in different directions. Now I'm aware of it I see the link.

[Trotterdam]

That reasoning doesn't make sense because Civil Rights is not measuring social liberalism but, so to speak, social libertarianism.

The main difference between (modern) liberalism and libertarianism is economic policies, with liberals being more supportive of wealth redistribution and workplace regulations, while libertarians oppose these. They largely agree on civil rights.

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

Corporate Bordello has extreme economic policies (high economic freedom) and relatively indifferent social policies (medium civil freedom). Clearly you are thinking of fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism.

The Corporate Bordello category has higher civil rights than any category described as "conservative" by Max Barry.

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

I just figured you were using it to mean "the form of conservatism that Christian Democrats agrees with". Because obviously, any form of "conservatism" that you disagree with isn't real conservatism.

Obviously, that isn't the form of conservatism that the game is talking about.

Since we can't agree on what "conservatism" means, I tried to look it up.

Wikipedia's article on "conservatism" is not very helpful, since it immediately explains that the word has no consistent meaning and is used for a wide variety of different positions in different countries. It goes on to describe both "liberal conservatism" and "conservative liberalism" (which are apparently different things), and claims that in some nations "conservative" and "liberal" are considered synonymous.

The most basic definition of "conservative" is said to be "opposing change", which however is the single least useful definition possible, since what political policies this entails depends entirely on the current status quo. (By that definition, the most conservative way to run your nation, regardless of its current politics, would be to turn on vacation mode and never answer issues. As a bonus, vacation mode conserves your nation from ceasing to exist!)

Fortunately, there is a section specifically naming "social conservatism", which says:

Social conservatives (in the first meaning of the word [from the previous paragraph, it seems like the second meaning is some kind of hybrid between socialism and conservatism, obviously not what either of us is talking about]) in many countries generally favour the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose human embryonic stem cell research (particularly if publicly funded); oppose both eugenics and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism; support a traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman; view the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit; oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; oppose atheism, especially militant atheism, secularism and the separation of church and state; support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, and euthanasia; and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or indecency. Most conservatives in the U.S. support the death penalty.

Parsing this, I arrive at something like:

• ban abortion (reduce civil rights)
• oppose embryonic stem cell research (??? mostly just affects a few scientists, not really a rights issue for most of the population)
• oppose eugenics (???)
• ban transhumanism (reduce civil rights)
• support bioconservatism, which from the link seems to be about banning genetic engineering of crops and such (reduce economic rights)
• ban child adoption by same-sex couples (reduce civil rights)
• "promote public morality", i.e. ban whatever they feel is immoral (reduce civil rights)
• ban atheism (reduce civil rights)
• oppose separation of church and state (therefore implicitly, want to impose the values of one particular religion on everybody: reduce civil rights)
• ban drugs (reduce civil and economic rights)
• ban prostitution (reduce civil and economic rights)
• ban euthanasia (reduce civil rights)
• ban pornography (reduce civil and economic rights)
• ban "obscenity or indecency" (reduce civil and economic rights, maybe even political depending on how far censorship goes)
• support the death penalty (reduce civil rights of criminals)

In the above list, for clarity, I use "ban" to mean thinking the government should outlaw citizens from doing something, and "oppose" to mean thinking that the government itself should not be doing something.

Nothing on the list raises economic rights and a few things lower it. Almost everything on the list lowers civil rights. The one thing that might be argued to raise civil rights is "oppose eugenics", depending on how exactly the word is used, but based on the context it seems linked to voluntary transhumanism through genetic engineering, not the awful stuff that the Nazis did (which just about everybody opposes).

By contrast, Christian Democrats' supposed "decentralized authority" ideology would do... approximately none of the above, since they're in the jurisdiction of more local authorities rather than the government, except maybe "promote public morality" (which is specifically about what you're allowed to do in public, where whoever owns the city you're in, i.e. the government, actually is the correct authority) and "support the death penalty" (because law enforcement is, again, part of the government's authority).

You've seen the code? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen those two move independently.

No, he's right about that one. As currently coded, Social Conservatism and Civil Rights are opposites, and one can always be calculated from the other (rounding errors aside). They don't add up to exactly 100 because of smooshing.

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

There's no need to respond line by line, but I'll make a few points. (EDIT: more than a few )

First, I'm not defining social conservatism as I see it. I'm providing an impartial definition. This nation has conservative and liberal elements, and I'm not totally conservative in the real world either. The ad hominems are unnecessary.

Second, social and fiscal conservatives have a lot in common; but social conservatives, unlike fiscal conservatives, are not categorically skeptical of or opposed to taxation and regulation. In fact, they support such policies if they promote public morality.

Third, radical liberals and radical libertarians have more than a few differences on civil rights issues. Case in point, radical liberals would strongly support legislation like the Civil Rights Act (real-world U.S.) while radical libertarians denounce it.

Fourth, as you concede, the most conservative thing one can do on this game is put his nation in vacation mode. That's not what the game describes when it's talking about Social Conservatism, so there's something awry with its definition.

Fifth, you parse out several policies that social conservatives support according to Wikipedia. You're wrong to say that social conservatives want to ban atheism, and your source doesn't say that. Also, opposition to secularism can be promotive or obstructive of civil rights depending on secularism's form. Eliminating laws that force people to attend worship services or to subsidize houses of worship is a sort of secularism that is clearly promotive of civil rights. On the other hand, banning chaplains, denying people the right to wear religious attire, taxing houses of worship, and the like are secular policies that undermine civil rights. Secularism can be pro-rights or anti-rights.

Sixth, "public" is a key word in "public morality." Social conservatives want to regulate public morals, but they don't want to regulate purely private conduct -- conduct that has no effect on the public good. According to the game's current stats, regulations of private morals are socially conservative even though social conservatives, in actuality, disavow such regulations.

Seventh, using your list of policies as a reference, it's clear that the game, at present, calls many policies socially conservative that are antithetical to social conservatism, including one-child policies, the removal of children from parents, the prohibition of marriage, the addition of drugs to the water supply, and various policies obstructive of religious practice.

Eighth, given these facts and given the game's current definition of Social Conservatism, would you not agree that the game is actually talking about social control? Would Social Control not be the proper label for the stat now called Social Conservatism?

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

[Trotterdam]

First, I'm not defining social conservatism as I see it. I'm providing an impartial definition.

An impartial definition that, as far as I can tell, disagrees with not just a few but practically all items conventionally considered conservative.

For example, "ban child adoption by same-sex couples". Under decentralized authority, it would be up to whoever is running any particular orphanage to decide its adoption rules, and it would be the responsibility of parents who are looking to give up a child for adoption to do so at an orphanage whose policies they trust and agree with (similar to how fiscal conservatives oppose minimum wage laws on the basis that workers should just refuse of their own accord to accept employment contracts which don't pay enough). This will certainly lead to some liberal orphanages choosing to allow same-sex couples to adopt, and some liberal parents entrusting their unwanted children to such.

Or, "oppose separation of church and state". Under decentralized authority, a pastor would hold authority within the church, an imam would hold authority within the mosque, neither would hold authority within the government (that's the "separation" part), and a person who does not want to be subject to their authority simply needs to avoid entering the church or mosque (even if that means missing out on certain services those places are offering - but atheists rarely care about those services).

In fact, decentralizing authoriy and reducing government power, the main thing you identify as conservative, is closely linked to increasing freedom (civil or economic) via reduced government meddling, and the Max Barry government category you advanced as an example was Corporate Bordello, which has very high freedoms overall (only one step away from Anarchy). None of the things Wikipedia associated with social conservatism increased freedom of any kind, so something is wrong.

If you wish to make another attempt at defining conservatism, go ahead. However, so far I have not yet seen a definition of "Social Conservatism" that is better than the one the game currently uses, subject to the following two requirements: (A) it recognizes as conservative most of those things that are universally considered conservative in Western nations, and (B) it is flexible enough to judge, one way or another, policies that look wacky to Western culture (conservative or liberal) but may make sense given a different (real or fictional) cultural background.

Second, social and fiscal conservatives have a lot in common; but social conservatives, unlike fiscal conservatives, are not categorically skeptical of or opposed to taxation and regulation. In fact, they support such policies if they promote public morality.

However, the Corporate Bordello government category which you referenced does minimize regulation (again, it requires Economic Freedom to be in the highest bracket), while seeming to have little interest in public morality, especially when it would conflict with economic freedom (citizens can "buy whatever they like", probably including porn or drugs). In fact, the name "bordello" hints at a certain amount of hedonism, which is definitely not conservative.

Fourth, as you concede, the most conservative thing one can do on this game is put his nation in vacation mode.

The most conservative according to one definition of conservatism. I said this in the context of pointing out that this definition of conservatism is completely useless, as it makes conservatism not a consistent political position at all. The only way to make the game adapt to this definition would be to completely remove all instances of the word "conservative" or its variants from any place that is supposed to describe a political style.

Maybe that might be a reasonable position to take (in which case you would get your wish), but enough people use the word "conservative" that I figure it must have some more useful meaning.

Fifth, you parse out several policies that social conservatives support according to Wikipedia.

The two items that I deliberately parsed out are "support a traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman" and "view the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit". This is because I do not see how a "definition" is a political view at all. A "definition" is something you put in a dictionary. It does not become a political view unless you endorse cernsorship of people who use the word with the wrong definition.

In fact, I could have chosen to read this as endorsing a ban on gay marriage (which would, again, reduce civil rights). However, I figured that just because some people define marriage a certain way would not necessarily stop other people from defining marriage a different way and claiming they're married according to their own definition.

"View the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit" is even more vague as it does not specify any rights accorded to nuclear families or restrictions applied to people not in nuclear families, or even exactly how a nuclear family is defined (for example, some would argue that two homosexual lovers raising a few children is still a nuclear family since everything functions exactly like a standard nuclear family except for the gender of one participant whose sex life is irrelevant since heterosexual couples are allowed to adopt, whereas an extended family as seen in some traditional cultures might not meet the modern definition of "nuclear family" even if all of them are heterosexual). Though I can, I could have read this as wanting to ban or restrict non-nuclear families (reducing civil rights), I was being charitable by not doing so.

You're wrong to say that social conservatives want to ban atheism, and your source doesn't say that.

I knew I was going to catch flak for that, it was the weakest item in my list.

I included it to emphasize the combination of "oppose atheism" and "oppose separation of church and state", since put together those two definitely suggest wanting the government to be religious (in the sense of institutionally endorsing religion), rather than simply wanting the government to allow individual members of the government to openly display religious affiliation or non-affiliation (as a matter of freedom of speech, but without the government institutionally endorsing any given politician's beliefs).

While the source did say "especially militant atheism", it did not say "only militant atheism".

Sixth, "public" is a key word in "public morality." Social conservatives want to regulate public morals, but they don't want to regulate purely private conduct -- conduct that has no effect on the public good. According to the game's current stats, regulations of private morals are socially conservative even though social conservatives, in actuality, disavow such regulations.

Several of the items on the list are things that have nothing to do with the public.

An unborn fetus is stuck inside the mother, and so is as isolated from the rest of the world as it can get. Aborting it means that never changes, and the child never becomes a matter of "public interest". (A one-child policy can be considered more of a "public good", if overpopulation is a serious concern.)

Pornography is usually watched behind closed doors. Even in countries where the manufacture, sale, and possession of pornography is legal, there are usually still laws against openly displaying it in public places, which all but the most radical liberals won't make a fuss over. The conservative view is to ban pornography even in private.

Anything private can potentially become public as a result of gossip spreading, but resorting to that argument would undermine any distinction between private and public morality. A good-faith interpretation would require that anything you're making a reasonable effort to remove from public view (putting porn mags in a corner of the shop that you won't stumble into unless you're deliberately looking for porn mags, making sure the cover of the magazine isn't already pornographic) counts as private.

Seventh, using your list of policies as a reference, it's clear that the game, at present, calls many policies socially conservative that are antithetical to social conservatism, including one-child policies, the removal of children from parents, the prohibition of marriage, the addition of drugs to the water supply, and various policies obstructive of religious practice.

As I noted, many of these can be considered a matter of "public morality" from the point of view of a culture with non-Christian views. One-child policies prevent you from having more children than is socially acceptable (which will be clearly visible to anyone else who interacts with your children at school). If a culture considers promiscuity to be desirable, then publicly parading your committed marriage to one person violates "public morality", even if it might be grudgingly-tolerable for you to privately love each other more than everyone else. One of the issues in the game that makes drug use compulsory specifically does so due to considering it a sacred herb. In a militantly atheist culture, openly displaying symbols of religious affiliation would be taboo, even if worship behind closed doors is tolerated.

Thus, if "public morality" is one of the defining characteristics of social conservatism (you yourself said "social conservatives want to regulate public morals", and you specifically didn't object to Max Barry associating conservatism with moralism in the descriptions of several government categories), then it must allow for notions of morality, and thus forms of conservatism, other than the one listed on Wikipedia as the most common. Though as I noted above, not all of the items on that list even stop at what's actually public, so I should really just say "morality".

If conservatism (again, social, not fiscal conservatism) depends primarily on something other than morality despite that being one item on the list, I still don't see what it could be.

[Greater Hunnia]

Totterdam, I've got the feeling that you argue for its own sake, and in fact, you are trying to derail the thread. OP's point, which is that Nationstates wrongly calls the in-game counterpart of social control as Social Conservativism is valid beyond doubt, if you check out the definition of social control, you can realise it yourself, as the in-game definition of Social Conservativism and the IRL definition of social control are pretty much one and the same. Also, in 99% of the issues it would be very easy to differentiate which option is conservative and which is liberal, there's no need to overcomplicate it. Christian Democrats was right to say that paleoconservativism should be used as a base of measurement, because it's the least diluted form of conservativism.

Also, Almonaster Nuevo, why don't you show us an example to prove your point about Social Conservativism not being the inverse of Civil Rights in Nationstates?

[Bears Armed]

Fortunately, there is a section specifically naming "social conservatism", which says:

Social conservatives (in the first meaning of the word [from the previous paragraph, it seems like the second meaning is some kind of hybrid between socialism and conservatism, obviously not what either of us is talking about]) in many countries generally favour the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose human embryonic stem cell research (particularly if publicly funded); oppose both eugenics and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism; support a traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman; view the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit; oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; oppose atheism, especially militant atheism, secularism and the separation of church and state; support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, and euthanasia; and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or indecency. Most conservatives in the U.S. support the death penalty.

Parsing this, I arrive at something like:

• ban abortion (reduce civil rights)
• oppose embryonic stem cell research (??? mostly just affects a few scientists, not really a rights issue for most of the population)
• oppose eugenics (???)
• ban transhumanism (reduce civil rights)
• support bioconservatism, which from the link seems to be about banning genetic engineering of crops and such (reduce economic rights)
• ban child adoption by same-sex couples (reduce civil rights)
• "promote public morality", i.e. ban whatever they feel is immoral (reduce civil rights)
• ban atheism (reduce civil rights)
• oppose separation of church and state (therefore implicitly, want to impose the values of one particular religion on everybody: reduce civil rights)
• ban drugs (reduce civil and economic rights)
• ban prostitution (reduce civil and economic rights)
• ban euthanasia (reduce civil rights)
• ban pornography (reduce civil and economic rights)
• ban "obscenity or indecency" (reduce civil and economic rights, maybe even political depending on how far censorship goes)
• support the death penalty (reduce civil rights of criminals)

In the above list, for clarity, I use "ban" to mean thinking the government should outlaw citizens from doing something, and "oppose" to mean thinking that the government itself should not be doing something.

A large part of that list seems to be specifically 'Abrahamic religions' social conservatism: As the game doesn't call this trait by that [full] name, shouldn't it allow for the possibility that cultures could also be 'conservative' about different sets of beliefs, instead?

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

I support this. I recently answered issue 284 (drug legality run amok) with one of my puppets. I chose the first option, from a "left-wing television host", which increased my social conservatism. The effect makes sense- this option should have decreased my civil rights, but a left wing option increasing social conservatism doesn't (particularly since the badge says "keep right"). Conservatives also tend to be against gun control, a stance which will decrease social conservatism in NS. I think renaming it is a good idea, and a badge change will probably be useful too (maybe a chain or something?).

[Bears Armed]

Conservatives also tend to be against gun control

American conservatives tend to be against gun control; however British conservatives are often for gun control.

[Luna Amore]

I support this. I recently answered issue 284 (drug legality run amok) with one of my puppets. I chose the first option, from a "left-wing television host", which increased my social conservatism. The effect makes sense- this option should have decreased my civil rights, but a left wing option increasing social conservatism doesn't (particularly since the badge says "keep right").

It does if the speaker is left-wing, but right of the current situation (which is the case in that issue). The whole issue dilemma is about going too far with drug legalization/use: "After a nine-year-old child died of a heroin overdose yesterday, much of the public is in an uproar over the absence of drug laws in @@NAME@@."

[Christian Democrats]

I have not yet seen a definition of "Social Conservatism" that is better than the one the game currently uses

You're missing the main point of this thread and getting hung up on my suggestion for new Social Conservatism/Liberalism measures. Would Social Control not be a more accurate label for what the game currently calls Social Conservatism? Does the Social Conservatism index not increase for a number of options that would not conventionally be considered conservative? Also, I wouldn't cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source on the meaning of conservatism. You said it yourself: "Wikipedia's article on 'conservatism' is not very helpful."

Sixth, "public" is a key word in "public morality." Social conservatives want to regulate public morals, but they don't want to regulate purely private conduct -- conduct that has no effect on the public good. According to the game's current stats, regulations of private morals are socially conservative even though social conservatives, in actuality, disavow such regulations.

Several of the items on the list are things that have nothing to do with the public.

An unborn fetus is stuck inside the mother, and so is as isolated from the rest of the world as it can get. Aborting it means that never changes, and the child never becomes a matter of "public interest". (A one-child policy can be considered more of a "public good", if overpopulation is a serious concern.)

Pornography is usually watched behind closed doors. Even in countries where the manufacture, sale, and possession of pornography is legal, there are usually still laws against openly displaying it in public places, which all but the most radical liberals won't make a fuss over. The conservative view is to ban pornography even in private.

Opposition to abortion is not really a matter of public morality so much as it is a matter of preventing people from harming one another. Conservatives and liberals agree that the government should stop (and that the public has an interest in stopping) harmful conduct even if it occurs in private (e.g., rape). The disagreements are over which conduct is, in fact, harmful.

Next, I said that one could support or oppose pornography on conservative or liberal grounds. Banning pornography is clearly a form of social control, but it's not necessarily conservative. Anti-pornographers from both sides argue that pornography objectifies/harms women. Conservative anti-pornographers usually add that it is also harmful to the consumer.

Conveniently, you skipped my eighth point, which is the primary reason for this thread.

Totterdam, I've got the feeling that you argue for its own sake, and in fact, you are trying to derail the thread. OP's point, which is that Nationstates wrongly calls the in-game counterpart of social control as Social Conservativism is valid beyond doubt, if you check out the definition of social control, you can realise it yourself, as the in-game definition of Social Conservativism and the IRL definition of social control are pretty much one and the same. Also, in 99% of the issues it would be very easy to differentiate which option is conservative and which is liberal, there's no need to overcomplicate it. Christian Democrats was right to say that paleoconservativism should be used as a base of measurement, because it's the least diluted form of conservativism.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of paleoconservatism; but it is, without doubt, the "purest" form of conservatism. In fact, paleoconservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, are the first people who come to mind when somebody is talking about "social conservatism."

Conservatives also tend to be against gun control

American conservatives tend to be against gun control; however British conservatives are often for gun control.

One reason it makes sense to replace Social Conservatism with the neutral label Social Control.

[Europe and Oceania]

Opposition to abortion is not really a matter of public morality so much as it is a matter of preventing people from harming one another. Conservatives and liberals agree that the government should stop (and that the public has an interest in stopping) harmful conduct even if it occurs in private (e.g., rape). The disagreements are over which conduct is, in fact, harmful

It still reduces their civil rights, it doesn't make a difference just because conservatives define aborting fetuses as murdering the "unborn".

Next, I said that one could support or oppose pornography on conservative or liberal grounds. Banning pornography is clearly a form of social control, but it's not necessarily conservative. Anti-pornographers from both sides argue that pornography objectifies/harms women. Conservative anti-pornographers usually add that it is also harmful to the consumer.

Emphasis added.

So? If they ban it then that still their reduces civil rights regardless of what conservatives think or try to justify.

So you're just stating why conservatives oppress people by decreasing their civil rights again.

American conservatives tend to be against gun control; however British conservatives are often for gun control.

One reason it makes sense to replace Social Conservatism with the neutral label Social Control.

One reason isn't good enough. Social Conservatism and Social Control are practically the same thing, you said it yourself.

I'm assuming you're Anti-PC, if you are then this whole argument is a bit hypocritical don't you think?

[Trotterdam]

I just don't see the point of changing the name of a stat when the current one fits fine. Maybe I'm conservative In the "put your nation on vacation mode" sense of the word, not the "Conservative Democracy government category" sense of the word, which are different since words can have multiple senses depending on context. I know someone is going to miss that this is a pun.

I'm sure there are other names that would work just as well, but you have still failed to put forth a convincing argument why the current name doesn't work. It corresponds closely to views widely held to be conservative, and matches how the word is consistently used by Max Barry. The only presented alternative is to not call anything "conservative" at all.

[Greater Hunnia]

I just don't see the point of changing the name of a stat when the current one fits fine. Maybe I'm conservative In the "put your nation on vacation mode" sense of the word, not the "Conservative Democracy government category" sense of the word, which are different since words can have multiple senses depending on context. I know someone is going to miss that this is a pun.

I'm sure there are other names that would work just as well, but you have still failed to put forth a convincing argument why the current name doesn't work. It corresponds closely to views widely held to be conservative, and matches how the word is consistently used by Max Barry. The only presented alternative is to not call anything "conservative" at all.

It does not work because it results in bullshit like allowing only women to serve in the military increasing "Social Conservativism".
https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates_Issue_No._426

[Christian Democrats]

Social Conservatism and Social Control are practically the same thing

Not at all. Conservatives endorse social controls, and liberals endorse social controls for different reasons. You and Trotterdam are making the mistake of pointing to some social controls that conservatives support and, then, using that to conclude that conservatives support all social controls. In other words, I think both of you are reasoning something like this:

• Conservatives oppose some personal freedoms.
• Therefore, purist conservatives oppose all personal freedoms.
• Therefore, it's acceptable to use "social conservatism" to describe opposition to personal freedom.

You two are defining conservatism from a liberal perspective. From their own perspective, conservatives are the champions of civil liberty. As Mr. Conservative once put it, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" Social conservatives focus on different freedoms. What I propose is defining Civil Rights in a politically neutral fashion. If more social control is exerted, then Civil Rights decreases. If less social control is exerted, then Civil Rights increases regardless of the ends. Social control can be formal (law) or informal (community pressure).

I just don't see the point of changing the name of a stat when the current one fits fine.

It corresponds closely to views widely held to be conservative

But it doesn't! Doing a quick, random survey of a few dozen issues effects listed on the NS Index, we see that Social Conservatism increases when the government compels tolerance of minority religions (13.1), prohibits personal firearms (20.1), combats stereotypes of ethnic minorities (29.2), bans tobacco (34.2), infringes on personal freedoms to promote environmentalism (60.4), promotes ethnic sensitivity by creating a new national language (71.3), stops the wealthy from building mega-mansions (334.1), promotes atheism (363.4), bans the ownership of pets (431.3), and retroactively taxes major corporations (455.2). These effects are not socially conservative, but they are social controls. They are progressive social controls to be exact. Social Control would be a superior label to Social Conservatism.

[Europe and Oceania]

Social Conservatism and Social Control are practically the same thing

Not at all. Conservatives endorse social controls, and liberals endorse social controls for different reasons. You and Trotterdam are making the mistake of pointing to some social controls that conservatives support and, then, using that to conclude that conservatives support all social controls. In other words, I think both of you are reasoning something like this:

• Conservatives oppose some personal freedoms.
• Therefore, purist conservatives oppose all personal freedoms.
• Therefore, it's acceptable to use "social conservatism" to describe opposition to personal freedom.

You two are defining conservatism from a liberal perspective. From their own perspective, conservatives are the champions of civil liberty. As Mr. Conservative once put it, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" Social conservatives focus on different freedoms. What I propose is defining Civil Rights in a politically neutral fashion. If more social control is exerted, then Civil Rights decreases. If less social control is exerted, then Civil Rights increases regardless of the ends. Social control can be formal (law) or informal (community pressure).

So are you Anti-PC or not?

You two are defining conservatism from a liberal perspective. From their own perspective, conservatives are the champions of civil liberty.

Emphasis added.

Just because you define it as "the champions of civil liberty" doesn't mean that they are free.

If the Nazis or Stalin were to say "we are the champions of civil liberty" does that make them the champions? No.

If they say 2+2=5, does that make it true? No.

2016 State of World Liberty Index:

http://patrickrhamey.com/saturday-resea ... erty-index

1. New Zealand
2. Switzerland
3. Canada
4. Australia
4. Ireland
6. Finland
6. Netherlands
6. Denmark
6. Chile
6. Luxembourg

United States is Not in the top 6.

[Christian Democrats]

So are you Anti-PC or not?

I appreciate accuracy in the use of words. Social Control would be the proper label for the stat under discussion.

You two are defining conservatism from a liberal perspective. From their own perspective, conservatives are the champions of civil liberty.

Emphasis added.

Just because you define it as "the champions of civil liberty" doesn't mean that they are free.

Seriously, try reading.

You two are defining conservatism from a liberal perspective. From their own perspective, conservatives are the champions of civil liberty. As Mr. Conservative once put it, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" Social conservatives focus on different freedoms. What I propose is defining Civil Rights in a politically neutral fashion.

If the Nazis or Stalin were to say "we are the champions of civil liberty" does that make them the champions? No.

Bravo, you're confirming my accusation of your bias by comparing conservatives to Nazis and, strangely, communists.

If they say 2+2=5, does that make it true? No.

And, now, you're confirming Greater Hunnia's accusation of conflating conservatism and ignorance.

Back on topic: How are the things described as Social Conservatism by this game socially conservative?

Doing a quick, random survey of a few dozen issues effects listed on the NS Index, we see that Social Conservatism increases when the government compels tolerance of minority religions (13.1), prohibits personal firearms (20.1), combats stereotypes of ethnic minorities (29.2), bans tobacco (34.2), infringes on personal freedoms to promote environmentalism (60.4), promotes ethnic sensitivity by creating a new national language (71.3), stops the wealthy from building mega-mansions (334.1), promotes atheism (363.4), bans the ownership of pets (431.3), and retroactively taxes major corporations (455.2).

[Greater Hunnia]

...
If the Nazis or Stalin were to say "we are the champions of civil liberty" does that make them the champions? No.
...

Aaaaand Godwin's law just applied itself. I'm surprised it took so long.

[The Blaatschapen]

If the Nazis or Stalin were to say "we are the champions of civil liberty" does that make them the champions? No.

If they say 2+2=5, does that make it true? No.

This is not NSG, this rhetoric has no place in Technical, where we try to improve the game.

[Texasa]

Ban abortion: Civil rights go up
Support abortion Civil rights go down
So Don't Support abortion.

[Christian Democrats]

I just want to reiterate that the so-called Social Conservatism statistic is inconsistent with Max Barry's understanding of conservatism. He just announced a revised New Nation Creation Process. In this new process, players are permitted to choose among nine predefined ideologies: anarchic, libertarian, capitalist, liberal, centrist, conservative, socialist, authoritarian, and tyrannical. Conservatism is defined by this process as an ideology that endorses some personal freedom, a moderate amount of political freedom, and a high amount of economic freedom. Now, more than ever, it is totally unreasonable for the game's statistics to define Social Conservatism as opposition to personal freedom because Max Barry, once again, has not defined it that way. Social Conservatism should be renamed Social Control. This label would actually match the statistic's description, and it would eliminate inconsistencies that currently exist on this game.

[Trotterdam]

I just want to reiterate that the so-called Social Conservatism statistic is inconsistent with Max Barry's understanding of conservatism. He just announced a revised New Nation Creation Process. In this new process, players are permitted to choose among nine predefined ideologies: anarchic, libertarian, capitalist, liberal, centrist, conservative, socialist, authoritarian, and tyrannical. Conservatism is defined by this process as an ideology that endorses some personal freedom, a moderate amount of political freedom, and a high amount of economic freedom.

Lower than any other category other than Authoritarian and Tyrannical, though. For comparison, even "Capitalist" only has 80% economic freedom, so most of these categories are deliberately not going to their most extreme versions.

Also, Conservative and Liberal both have the same dead-center political freedom, suggesting that this axis is simply considered irrelevant to those ideologies.

If I'm reading this code correctly, these starting points (ignoring the questionnaire) provide the following government types:
Anarchic: Anarchy (more extreme)
Libertarian: Anarchy (less extreme)
Capitalist: Capitalist Paradise
Liberal: Scandinavian Liberal Paradise
Centrist: Inoffensive Centrist Democracy
Conservative: Right-wing Utopia
Socialist: Corrupt Dictatorship (only a few points from Iron Fist Socialists)
Authoritarian: Psychotic Dictatorship (less extreme)
Tyrannical: Psychotic Dictatorship (more extreme)

[Christian Democrats]

I just want to reiterate that the so-called Social Conservatism statistic is inconsistent with Max Barry's understanding of conservatism. He just announced a revised New Nation Creation Process. In this new process, players are permitted to choose among nine predefined ideologies: anarchic, libertarian, capitalist, liberal, centrist, conservative, socialist, authoritarian, and tyrannical. Conservatism is defined by this process as an ideology that endorses some personal freedom, a moderate amount of political freedom, and a high amount of economic freedom.

Lower than any other category other than Authoritarian and Tyrannical, though.

What's your point? You seem to be making an illogical argument:

Conservatism endorses fewer personal freedoms than liberalism. Therefore, it is fair to say that conservatism is opposition to all personal freedoms (the statistics currently).

It's as if you were arguing:

Monotheism endorses fewer gods than polytheism. Therefore, it is fair to say that monotheism is opposition to all gods.

Monogamy endorses fewer spouses than polygamy. Therefore, it is fair to say that monogamy is opposition to all spouses.

Skepticism endorses fewer beliefs than idealism. Therefore, it is fair to say that skepticism is opposition to all beliefs.

Social Conservatism is not opposition to Civil Rights. Every part of the game, except the statistics, recognizes this fact. I don't know why you're being so adamant about maintaining an inaccurate and offensive label. The opposite of Civil Rights is Social Control, and the opposite of Social Conservatism is Social Liberalism. Civil Rights and Social Conservatism are not opposites, so they should not be the names for inverse scales. It's not that hard to understand.

[Libetarian Republics]

I'll support this.

There are a wide range of factors and variables to account for when measuring the scale of Social Liberalism vs. Social Conservatism (I assume this is why it hasn't been added to the game.) For the objectivity of statistics, I agree with CD's arguments regarding Social Control vs Civil Rights.

[[violet]]

Fun fact: "Social Conservatism" was renamed from "Conservatism" in 2011 after a very similar discussion.

[[violet]]

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.

No, they just share a common factor, which is decreasing personal freedom. Ignorance also rises with Authoritarianism, all else being equal, for the same reason.

A lot of variables are interrelated like that. That doesn't mean it's impossible or even hard to make a nation with high Social Conservatism and low Ignorance; there are plenty of those. It just means that if you keep everything the same and clamp down on personal freedoms, you will see Social Conservatism and Ignorance rise at the same time, because that variable feeds into both of them.