Rename the Social Conservatism Statistic

[Christian Democrats]

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

But the statistic doesn't actually measure (social) conservatism. It measures, according to its description, "restrictions placed on what [people] may do in their personal lives, whether via community values or government-imposed law." That's the definition of social control.

Social control: the enforcement of conformity by society upon its members, either by law or by social pressure.

If we're going to call a statistic (Social) Conservatism, then it should measure (social) conservatism. Otherwise, call it something else.

[Trotterdam]

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

This one's actually true. There are philosophical streamings that hold that since our senses can deceive us, nothing can be known with certainty. Famously, Descartes felt that he had to work hard to prove his own existence - and other philosophers challenged the veracity of his logic over even that. The most extreme form of skepticism, therefore, is opposition to all beliefs.

However, I would dispute that the opposite of "skepticism" is "idealism". The opposite of "idealism" is "cynicism", and both can end up accepting things as fact without proof (an idealist will assume the best and a cynic will assume the worst, even before being presented with evidence). The opposite of "skepticism" would be... I dunno, "gullibility"? Extreme gullibility is believing everything you are told (even the things which contradict each other!), extreme skepticism is believing nothing you are told. That doesn't seem quite right, since beliefs can come from a source other than people telling you so, but it's the best I have right now.

In fact, none of your examples are actual opposites. "Monotheism" is not the opposite of "polytheism", exactly because "atheism" is also a possibility (though I would, in fact, argue that Abrahammic monotheism is partly responsible for the rise of atheism - but that's off-topic). "Monogamy" and "polygamy" are not logical opposites, nor are they the only two positions people argue between, because there is an increasing trend to legitimize sex outside marriage (which can be seen as more similar to monogamy, because you're not getting married as such, or as more similar to polygamy, since you can have multiple sexual partners - the latter is probably more logical once you strip away superficial labels). For that matter, while "monogamy" is not opposition to all spouses, it is not unusual for the same people to support both - Christianity idolizes celibacy (frequently expecting it of priests, monks, nuns, etc., and generally praising people for choosing celibacy even when they don't have to), and promotes monogamy simply as a compromise (fine, if you must have sex, pick one person, ceremonially sanctify your marriage to that person, and have sex only with that one person - which is just about the minimum sexual freedom you can have while still having sex at all).

---

Are you denying that "conservatism" and "liberalism", as commonly used, are opposite labels?

This would, in fact, be an understandable position. At least based on etymology, the opposite of "conservatism" would be closer to "progressivism". (Though that too is an imperfect dichotomy, because it implies that change is good. Making things worse than they were ever before is neither "progressive" nor "conservative", nor even "regressive".) "Conservatism" in modern discourse, however, has come to mean more than just resistance to change (it also implies that the current status quo you don't want to change away from is fairly specific, and so entails resistance to variety as well as resistance to change), and therefore its opposite is not just desiring change.

"Liberalism" is composed from the word "liberty", and so taken literally its opposite would in fact be opposition to all freedom, or at least all freedom in a certain category. (Classic liberalism, which is closer to what we now call libertarianism, is in fact in support of all freedom. Modern liberalism focusses more on personal freedom, and is willing to limit economic or political freedom when it would help protect individual rights from other entities, not just the government, that might intrude on them - but also supports economic and political freedom in other circumstances, being more moderate in its opposition to economic freedom than socialism or communism - after all, having more products on the market gives people more freedom what to buy.)

Neither word is used, by modern politicians, in a sense totally literal to its etymology, but for one reason or another, they are usually seen as opposites. You seemed to have been agreeing with that, since you just said "the opposite of Social Conservatism is Social Liberalism". Opposites are only really useful if they're on, well, opposite ends of the scale. "Closest to 25%" and "closest to 75%" are rarely useful measurements.

---

By the way, why aren't you complaining about the new nation creation page calling socialists "corrupt", and giving them starting political freedoms on par with authoritarians despite the existence of a "Democratic Socialists" government category? That's more offensive to them than calling Psychotic Dictatorships conservative (which is not the same as calling conservatives Psychotic Dictatorships - claiming that is a logical fallacy) is to conservatives, and also more contrary to previously-established game canon ("Democratic Socialists" is a government category, "Civil-Rights-Respecting Conservatives" is not - the description for Corporate Bordello etc. does not use the word "conservative").

Also note that "libertarian", and as of the recent update even "anarchic", governments do not start with all freedoms maxed out. This makes some sense, since most libertarians do still want the government to clamp down on something (such as the ability of other people to go and set up a new government). Similarly, even "authoritarian" still has 15% freedoms in every category, more than zero. This makes some sense, since even most authoritarians will still let you make some choices yourself, not even because they don't believe the government has a right to tell you what to do if it wanted to, but simply because the government doesn't care about that particular thing anyway.

Would you argue, then, that legalizing everything is not "libertarian", and it is wrong for us to use that word to describe the high ends of the freedom scales?

Would you argue, then, that outlawing everything is not "authoritarian", and the Authoritarianism stat should be renamed because it is offensive to authoritarians?

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

A public discussion, or a private one between the game staff?

[[violet]]

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

A public discussion, or a private one between the game staff?

In my head it was a discussion in Technical like this. But I can't find it, so I'm not sure. It may have predated the current forums and I took a long time to implement it!

[Oire]

Social control: the enforcement of conformity by society upon its members, either by law or by social pressure.

isn't that the definition of social liberalism?

[Drasnia]

Social control: the enforcement of conformity by society upon its members, either by law or by social pressure.

isn't that the definition of social liberalism?

No, as has already been outlined earlier in this thread, social liberalism is an ideology with fairly high rights in all categories, but also uses the government to enforce various laws that prevent people, corporations, etc. from participating in activities that could be very harmful, either to people, to the environment, etc.

[Christian Democrats]

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

This one's actually true. There are philosophical streamings that hold that since our senses can deceive us, nothing can be known with certainty. Famously, Descartes felt that he had to work hard to prove his own existence - and other philosophers challenged the veracity of his logic over even that. The most extreme form of skepticism, therefore, is opposition to all beliefs.

Actually, opposition to all beliefs is nihilism. Also, Descartes said that we ought to accept all "clear and distinct" ideas as true, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. In fact, he was enamored with mathematical truths, especially those of geometry.

In fact, none of your examples are actual opposites. "Monotheism" is not the opposite of "polytheism", exactly because "atheism" is also a possibility (though I would, in fact, argue that Abrahammic monotheism is partly responsible for the rise of atheism - but that's off-topic). "Monogamy" and "polygamy" are not logical opposites, nor are they the only two positions people argue between

Yes, that's exactly the point of my examples. Civil Rights and Social Conservatism are not "actual opposites." Monotheism is not the opposite of polytheism, monogamy is not the opposite of polygamy, and conservatism is not the opposite of civil rights.

Are you denying that "conservatism" and "liberalism", as commonly used, are opposite labels?

No, I'm denying that "conservatism" and "civil rights" are opposite labels. If there's a conservatism statistic, then there ought to be a liberalism statistic.

By the way, why aren't you complaining about the new nation creation page calling socialists "corrupt", and giving them starting political freedoms on par with authoritarians despite the existence of a "Democratic Socialists" government category?

You know and I know that this topic predates the new process for creating new nations. If you want to complain about the description of socialism, then please open a new thread. I imagine that the people who made the new process had socialist nations such as China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela in mind. Also, recall that Democratic Socialists and Liberal Democratic Socialists are separate categories.

Would you argue, then, that legalizing everything is not "libertarian", and it is wrong for us to use that word to describe the high ends of the freedom scales?

Would you argue, then, that outlawing everything is not "authoritarian", and the Authoritarianism stat should be renamed because it is offensive to authoritarians?

I don't see how these questions are relevant to the topic under discussion. You say yourself that conservatism and liberalism are opposite labels. We don't have a statistic for liberalism, so we shouldn't have a statistic for conservatism. Anyway, maximum individual freedom is anarchism (anarcho-capitalism more specifically); minimum individual freedom is totalitarianism.

Social control: the enforcement of conformity by society upon its members, either by law or by social pressure.

isn't that the definition of social liberalism?

Lol. But, yes, you're right in recognizing that liberals and conservatives both employ social controls.

[Trotterdam]

Actually, opposition to all beliefs is nihilism.

No, nihilism holds that nothing matters or that life has no inherent meaning, not that nothing is true or that nothing can be known. A nihilist would accept without argument that, for example, you and I both exist (which a radical skeptic would not), but would deny that the mere fact that we currently exist implies that we have, say, a moral "right" to continue existing (nihilists may still accept certain moral values, but they argue that which morals to follow is a subjective choice we make, which cannot be correct or incorrect independent of the human psyche), or that our existence serves any divine "purpose" beyond what we ourselves decide to do with our lives. Nihilism is, thus, not in fact opposition to all beliefs.

Skeptics say "I don't believe you", nihilists say "So what?".

Yes, that's exactly the point of my examples. Civil Rights and Social Conservatism are not "actual opposites." Monotheism is not the opposite of polytheism, monogamy is not the opposite of polygamy, and conservatism is not the opposite of civil rights.

And my argument was not comparing social conservatism to civil rights (that's not even the form of my argument that you quoted as a strawman). My argument was comparing social conservatism to social liberalism, and observing that the primary difference is civil rights.

You know and I know that this topic predates the new process for creating new nations.

That didn't stop you from using the new process for creating nations to support your argument when you found it convenient.

Also, recall that Democratic Socialists and Liberal Democratic Socialists are separate categories.

True, also irrelevant. It's weird because this instance of "Liberal" is referring specifically to political freedom (the two government categories differ only in political freedom and nothing else), which is not what the word "liberal" is usually used to mean, even on NationStates. I get a sense Max Barry was feeling uncreative that day.

What I really wonder is why Democratic Socialists is not simply the more-politically-free version of Iron Fist Socialists. (Instead, a less-politically-free Democratic Socialists becomes a Corrupt Dictatorship, while a more-politically-free Iron Fist Socialists becomes a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise). Max Barry has some rather inconsistent definitions at times - which makes it even more conspicious that all of his uses of the word "conservative" have, at least, referred consistently to nations with low civil rights. (He also defined "fiercely conservative" as "they tend to believe most things should be outlawed".)

Would you argue, then, that legalizing everything is not "libertarian", and it is wrong for us to use that word to describe the high ends of the freedom scales?

Would you argue, then, that outlawing everything is not "authoritarian", and the Authoritarianism stat should be renamed because it is offensive to authoritarians?

I don't see how these questions are relevant to the topic under discussion.

Your most recent argument is "the Conservative starting model still allows some civil rights, therefore it is incorrect to characterize a nation with no civil rights at all as conservative". This is an invalid argument if you do not also support "the Authoritarian starting model still allows some rights of all types, therefore it is incorrect to characterize a nation with no rights at all as authoritarian".

("No rights at all" being shorthand for "as few as the game will let you", since even at 0 there are some things that the game simply won't let you outlaw.)

Anyway, maximum individual freedom is anarchism (anarcho-capitalism more specifically); minimum individual freedom is totalitarianism.

Your explicit invocation of "capitalism" is, again, showing that you are paying more attention to economic freedoms than to civil freedoms. You're not even trying to hide your biases.

A nation with minimum civil freedom (but partial economic freedom) is not totalitarian (it is instead conservative).

A nation with maximum civil freedom (but partial economic freedom) is not anarcho-capitalist (it is instead liberal).

[Christian Democrats]

Nihilism is, thus, not in fact opposition to all beliefs.

"The most common definition and use of nihilism, is the belief in nothing or a rejection of objective truth, social conventions, and moral meaning" (NIHIL: Center for Nihilism and Nihilist Studies).

http://www.nihil.org/nihilist/nihilism

Yes, that's exactly the point of my examples. Civil Rights and Social Conservatism are not "actual opposites." Monotheism is not the opposite of polytheism, monogamy is not the opposite of polygamy, and conservatism is not the opposite of civil rights.

And my argument was not comparing social conservatism to civil rights (that's not even the form of my argument that you quoted as a strawman). My argument was comparing social conservatism to social liberalism, and observing that the primary difference is civil rights.

"Difference" and "opposite" have different meanings. Conservatism and liberalism are opposites; conservatism and civil rights are not. Thus, the inverse scale (opposite) of Civil Rights should have a different name. The opposite of civil rights, in fact, is social control.

You know and I know that this topic predates the new process for creating new nations.

That didn't stop you from using the new process for creating nations to support your argument when you found it convenient.

Again, I don't see your point. This thread is about the Social Conservatism stat. Then, you started talking about socialism. You asked, "why aren't you complaining about the new nation creation page calling socialists 'corrupt'?" The answer: socialism doesn't have anything to do with this thread. That's why I'm not complaining about it.

I don't see how these questions are relevant to the topic under discussion.

Your most recent argument is "the Conservative starting model still allows some civil rights, therefore it is incorrect to characterize a nation with no civil rights at all as conservative". This is an invalid argument if you do not also support "the Authoritarian starting model still allows some rights of all types, therefore it is incorrect to characterize a nation with no rights at all as authoritarian".

("No rights at all" being shorthand for "as few as the game will let you", since even at 0 there are some things that the game simply won't let you outlaw.)

Anyway, maximum individual freedom is anarchism (anarcho-capitalism more specifically); minimum individual freedom is totalitarianism.

Your explicit invocation of "capitalism" is, again, showing that you are paying more attention to economic freedoms than to civil freedoms. You're not even trying to hide your biases.

A nation with minimum civil freedom (but partial economic freedom) is not totalitarian (it is instead conservative).

A nation with maximum civil freedom (but partial economic freedom) is not anarcho-capitalist (it is instead liberal).

You're not even making sense now. You asked me what I'd call "legalizing everything" and "outlawing everything." I replied "anarchism" and "totalitarianism." Now, you're criticizing my response for not answering questions you didn't ask. You specifically said "freedom scales" (plural). Next, you again recognize the inaccuracy of the Social Conservatism label. You implicitly acknowledge that authoritarians support fewer personal freedoms than conservatives yet maintain that it's fine to call the total absence of personal freedom "social conservatism," really?

[The Rouge Christmas State]

I would have to agree with CD, Social Conservative although it dose restrict some freedoms it isn't total control. So having it as an extreme dosen't seem fitting, but rather having social control would be a better fit since the scale dose rank nations upon government control based upon conservative laws. Alternatively If we keep the label of Social Conserveratism as a ranking, it would be fitting to have a Social Liberalism one as well.

[Oire]

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".

Giving landlords the control to evict tenants reduces civil rights. Protecting tenants increases civil rights.
Allowing women to abort or evict the unborn reduces civil rights.

You can call one policy social liberalism and another social conservatism. But they are both about control.