Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Table of random words: new table, 500 words 1600-1899)
(Destruction of words: new section)
Line 1,665: Line 1,665:
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
== Destruction of words ==
Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.
Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g,  only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.
Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes  constant after a while...
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Revision as of 09:02, 27 July 2010

Archive 1
Archive 2

Mother Nature

In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--Willminator 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --Ben Talk 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--Andy Schlafly 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --Ben Talk 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--Willminator 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. PaulBurnett 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see falsifiability).
Those scientists who deny God's role in Creation are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse intelligent design theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond physical science.
The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in the book; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)
We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "peace movement", for example, never wanted peace but simply the victory of America's anti-democratic enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.
Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the Holy Spirit is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.
Liberals claim that science has proved Evolution without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of pseudoscience). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world (Big Bang theory) and the origin of life. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --Ed Poor Talk 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)
That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the Holy Spirit is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--Andy Schlafly 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

"Bully pulpit"

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--Willminator 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)


I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? EMorris 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong!

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? PaulBurnett 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--Andy Schlafly 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Adding Obama Portmanteaus

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like Obamanation, Obamunism, etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. JonS 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)


Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --Jpatt 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--Andy Schlafly 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Excellent scholarship

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. AmandaBunting 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--Andy Schlafly 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Maggie Thatcher

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:

  • U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
  • There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
  • Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
  • Fight to win: What conservatives should do!

BenjyB 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. BenjyB 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--Andy Schlafly 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)


quack, coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. DouglasA 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--Andy Schlafly 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Kiss of Death

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was a 1916 film by that name. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. DanieleGiusto 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--Andy Schlafly 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. DanieleGiusto 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)


Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger

While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --Benp 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

"Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. Hillary Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--Andy Schlafly 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --Benp 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Research method

I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.

This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --MarcoT2 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)


What does everyone else think about militant atheist? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning for an hour and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? Tyler Zoran Talk 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test

Selection bias

The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct:


For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--Andy Schlafly 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
  • Selection bias exists in any study. But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
  • Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century. But Conservapedia's Law doesn't claim that their is a increase by century. No, it explicitly states that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the maximum likelihood estimator for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated all conservative words at least for one century.
RonLar 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

An unbiased test

Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found.

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:

CenturyNumber of Words
Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.
That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--Andy Schlafly 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
  • That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that dictionaries are good at defining old words, in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that Conservapedia's Law should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
  • A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
RonLar 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Table of random words

RonLar 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899

RonLar 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Destruction of words

Andy, your model takes into account only the creation of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.

Imagine a country where a constant number of conservative words is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.

Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as Conservapedia's Law implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...

RonLar 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)