Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2010-02-27T16:58:44Z

DerikJ:

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-02-27T15:18:18Z

DerikJ:

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

==How are these words conservative?==
exactly how is a word liberal or conservative? as far as i know, words are abstract concepts incapable of political ideaology. Would someone please explain the rational behind this to me

:A word that expresses a conservative concept is conservative. If we had a list of mathematical words, would you raise the same objection?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

With all due respect Andy, I have to disagree. I'm a moderate liberal, but I'm also an Eagle Scout and am currently in the process of writing a book the portrays the elite in a pretty negative way. Both my parents are bleeding heart liberals, but they worked for everything they have and are pretty much the defenition of the American dream.
Also, as a suggestion, you may want to clarify that some of the words are used BY conservatives to describe liberals. A person reading through the list may get the impression that some of the things listed are conservative traits--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 10:18, 27 February 2010 (EST)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you implying that all -isms are pejorative? If so, I think you're way off-base. They simply denote a ideology or belief structure. There are a lot of good conservative -isms out there: capitalism, objectivism (as in Ayn Rand), mercantilism (per-capitalist conservative ideology), heroism, and even baptism (belief structure that holds that anointing with water cleanses sins and lies on the path to salvation).

: Your "baptism" example is striking, but I don't think its etymology is from adding "ism" to a concept. Rather, it is from a middle English word (baptisme). Your other "isms" may not have been complementary when first developed, but I'd like to learn more about that. Do you know?

: In modern times, most "isms" are pejorative in origin. Some can be flipped over time to favorable usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 15 January 2010 (EST)

As for baptism, the best evidence I can find of this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.” Perhaps supports my idea but admittedly not at all conclusive. As for some of these other isms, I was not able to find the particular circumstances regarding whether or not they were developed with a positive or negative connotation, but it really shouldn’t matter how the word was used a hundred years ago, but how the conservative movement today uses these words to promote its ideas. If “some can be flipped over time to favorable usage,” then these words should certainly be included on this list. Words are reclaimed all the time. Case in point, the term “Jesus freak” was at one time a pejorative, but many young Christians embraced the term. Furthermore, Mr. Schafly, I’d be very curious to see any evidence that most “isms” are pejorative. It seems a little arbitrary to give such a blanket statement for all isms without some hard evidence, especially when the word conservatism is used throughout the intro paragraphs of the article.

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Q6 seems really important to me, yes you are trying to fit to perfection but there may be something other than perfect geometirc growth going on and you may never be able to find it if you don't let the data flow where it may and then analyze it. While geometric growth is undeniably happening here there may be more to see that we will never find out unless we disconnect ourselves from the data. --14:26, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thomas, please note your name, preferably with the signature button, so we can see who said what. In response to your comment, this project did not start out seeking or expecting a geometric rate of growth, and it welcomes quality additions that may cause it to depart from the geometric rate. Indeed, lately the 20th century words have increased at a rate faster than the geometric rate.

::::As to "Trojan horse", your edit deleted a good explanation of what that is, and inserted a typo (missing space). If you deny that the term means a form of [[liberal deceit]], then please make a stronger case than you have. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I moved the following from your talk page

:::::You strike me as a widely read individual, so surely you must have read the Odyssey. Benedict Arnold is a case of deceit from within, but not at all a trojan horse. If you look at the Odyssey itself Odysseus represents a conservative of the times, very cautious and shrewd, a faithful and cunning man, was his trojan horse a liberal deceit? The whole idea behind a trojan horse is using a gift to get past the defenses of your enemies. I think my version was more correct and more precise, in short more true. I think that if you think about it for a while you will find your self agreeing. --[[User:ThomasRidgefield|ThomasRidgefield]] 14:59, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I have an open mind about this, and welcome your insights. In fact, all the regular contributors here have an open mind about these issues. But as the [[deceit]] entry amply demonstrates, there is a high correlation between deceit and liberal tactics, and a very low correlation between deceit and conservative approaches. Your edit obscured the correlation to liberal tactics, and removed the explanation that a Trojan horse is a tactic of subversion from within. As to whether Odysseus was a conservative, I can't say I know his position on pro-life and less government!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:18, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

::"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a completely baffled: you dwell on some trivial points of logic and make numerous errors throughout. In any case I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. It's quite possible that you can do this, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about by this point. In any case, what this has to do with memes I don't know.
:::So tell me if I've guessed the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding "arguments" -- I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. With this done, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. How'd I do? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::::Jim's points are excellent, and I look forward to Johanan's response to them. In the meantime, Jim is exactly right: this entry is not about developing new words to frame an argument. Rather, this entry is a recognition and listing of insightful new words. People (with God's help) are the source of insights; computer programs can't do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Jim, you got the idea generally correct. Basically you the algorithm is like the framework for a box. You need it in that structure so that people can't think outside of it. Then you find the right walls to put onto the framework. That part (Andy this concerns your critique) is not generated by computer or anything it's just developed the same way people usually develop words.

:::::Now the algorithm is rather simple -actually it's the simplest possible form to have for a non-tautologous language system, but it can be scaled up by recursing the algorithm in on itself. There's a larger algorithm which I won't reveal which does this and creates a 3x3 language "matrix."

:::::I apologize about adding the new words, when that wasn't the aim of the page. I was wondering however if you could revert fegeism -as I had that linked. (I know it was my own article) I was also wondering if I could post other words from articles I had written.

:::::As for your comment on deep-structure -from wikipedia (it's ok on some stuff):

:::::"In linguistics, and especially the study of syntax, the deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular Noam Chomsky, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common deep structure."

:::::The idea here was instead of studying the relationship between words in sets of sentences to do the same for an entire dictionary of definitions. When you do that languages inherently circularity comes out and the overarching "loops" have the structure A>Bv~C. From the links between these words you can derive all manner of sentences, but if you manipulate the links you can parameterize which sentences can be derived and which can not be -something that could become a politically useful tool. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== Some of these words... ==

Just wondering how some of these words, like Phonics and Trivia, are considered Conservative words, or how they can even be grouped as a Conservative or Liberal word.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 16:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I am also wondering about how Conservapedia's Law is supposed to work. Most of these words are not obviously Conservative or Liberal, and what group they are placed in is based entirely on opinion. How can you make a law based on opinions?--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::You might not know that some of these words are conservative because your teachers have hidden their origins from you. Read the essay, and you may be surprised at what you learn. Conservapedia is full of things you might not have heard before - take a look around! There's all kinds of things to learn here! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Zack, only a tiny percentage of the classifications can be seriously disputed. "Phonics" has long been championed by conservatives, who want a literate population, and opposed by liberals, who want illiterates to vote for them. I know, that observation probably surprises you and you'd never heard that before. But there are over 30 million illiterates produced by the liberal public school system, and they pull the lever for liberal-favored candidates on Election Day. Illiterates also are unable to read the Bible, and it's a no-brainer why liberals want that result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Andy, it's pretty clear that you have a very warped view of public schools and liberals. If anybody can go through 12 years of public schooling and can not read by the end, that is not the schools fault. You seem to be implying that schools are purposefully raising illiterate people so they vote for liberals and can't read the Bible. If this is actually what you are saying, I doubt that you know anything about public school. As for phonics, it is simply A way for teaching how to read. I wouldn't know if its the best way or not, but schools not teaching it does not mean they promote illiteracy, because that is very far from the truth.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 15:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:: Zack, you're clueless. If you spent twelve years playing school football and yet had not even developed basic football skills, then the coaches and the training system deserve some blame for that. Yes, there is and should be accountability. And, yes, of course, there is a political benefit to developing over 30 million illiterates, which is what the public schools do. To pretend that has absolutely no political effect is absurd.

::You conclude with [[deliberate ignorance]] about the benefits of phonics in teaching how to read. What's next, you "wouldn't know" if jogging is a good way to prepare for a marathon???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, I think some people really don't realize what a benefit phonics is, because they don't really know about it. Try ''Why Johnny Can't Read'', by Rudolf Flesch (I might have misspelled the name...), or I'm sure there are a number of websites on it. The strongest evidence for phonics' efficacy is simply that, despite 12 years of non-phonics-based public schooling, millions of people can't read. What they do is basically have you memorize each word in the language - and I can understand why people would hate and not understand reading after that! However, in other countries (which do teach phonics) and in America when we still did, nearly everyone could read. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 17:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:When I said I wouldn't know, I meant that I have never learned phonics, so naturally I would have no idea if it was the best way to teach reading. Sorry if I came across as ignorant, and I never meant that phonics was a bad way to teach reading. As a junior in public schools, I don't even see how somebody could not be able to read by now, and as far as I know my school does not have any illiterates (with the possible exception of people who have English as a second language, but there's an ESL department for that). Basing it on the education I got, It really wouldn't be the schools fault if somebody was illiterate after so many years of being in school. I am 100% sure that schools are not purposefully making people illiterate so they cant read the bible and vote for liberals, and if you say that they are it just shows that you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 18:09, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Muscle cars as models of efficiency? ==

Are we talking about fuel efficiency (MPG), or 0-60/top speed efficiency? I can see a case for the later, but certainly not the former. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:18, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:The latter, though it's fuel efficiency was probably also better than many of the large cars that dominate the road today.

:"Muscle cars" is an provocative addition, and I'll another comment to it to explain why I think it's justified. But further comments are welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 9 January 2010 (EST)

== Dime Store ==

This term can have both positive and negative connotations. People criticize the quality of items sold in these stores (now referred to as Dollar Stores), and saying that something is of "dime store quality" is definitely a knock at it. However, the dime stores themselves have been a powerful engine of commerce and entrepreneurship in the USA. F.W. Woolworth introduced many innovations in his 5 & 10 stores, and he was so successful a businessman that when he built the Woolworth Building in lower Manhattan he was able to pay for its construction in cash. Even though his company was killed off by competition in the 80's and 90's, the entreprenurial spirit lives on in the thousands of independently-owned dollar stores across the country. 
People don't go to dime/dollar stores to buy quality goods - they typically buy consumable things that aren't expected to last long, like party goods, decorations and school supplies. The success of these stores shows that they are meeting a public need, so while it's fair to use "dime store quality" to criticize the quality of something, the concept of "dime stores" themselves is something conservatives should be proud of. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 12:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Your analysis is superb. You persuaded me! I'm not sure that your analysis favors a move in category for "dime-store", but feel free to do so as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I was leaning towards removing it from the list altogether, which I've done for now. There are may terms which belong on these lists, but some like this one are better left off if it takes too much qualification to use them properly. To restate the point above succinctly, saying that something is "dime store quality" is a common criticism of quality, but if you only paid a buck for it then you have nothing to complain about. Consumers don't go to dime/dollar stores looking for quality - they are part of an important economic market where they are willing to part with a dollar for an item that's worth a dollar, and as long as that's what they get then the free market's working as it should. The place of these stores in today's economy would probably make an interesting discussion in the next edition of your Economics course. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 17 January 2010 (EST)

:::Very well put. I agree, and thanks for your insights, which we've all learned from.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 17 January 2010 (EST)

== More possible terms for inclusion ==

*Reaganomics (1980)
*Pay-as-you-go (1830)
*Industrial Revolution (1840)

:Those are all terrific suggestions. I wonder about their political categories. I'd say Reaganomics is liberal, although its meaning may have flipped to a positive connotation as the economy came roaring back to success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::Well...hmm. That's a tricky one. It was supposedly coined by Paul Harvey, who certainly wasn't a movement conservative, but was respected by many conservatives. I honestly think it would be conservative at this point, simply because in hindsight it worked. I suppose the test we should use would be this: would liberals pull this word out as an attempt to attack conservative policies, or would they avoid using it, knowing that others would view it favorably? I think it's the latter, really--I don't hear too many liberals today saying "Republican policies will result in Reaganomics all over again!" They know that a lot of people would say "That sounds good to me!" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::I'm surprised that Paul Harvey coined the term "Reaganomics", which seems inherently pejorative. The term implies that it is somehow not real economics, but some kind of half-baked version of it. Liberals used the term with a vengeance ... until the economy went on its spectacular boom.

:::I'll take a look to see if conservatives use it now. You're right: I don't think liberals delight in the term anymore!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::While the late Paul Harvey used the phrase positively, it was originally coined by Democratic Liberals to ridicule Reagan's policies. That Reagan was the only President with a degree in Economics was outside their understanding! I agree with Ben, it is now a positive term, re-made not through "spin" as liberals do, but through the proof of good results, which conservatives value. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:11, 26 January 2010 (EST)

==Capitalism: Conservative concept, but a Conservative word?==
I'd like to make what may seem a perverse argument: that 'capitalism' is a liberal rather than a Conservative term and that its inclusion in this list should perhaps be reconsidered. The concept represented by the word capitalism is indeed at the core of conservatism: as Mr Schlafly has written, an example of the 'hidden hand', and, in its reliance upon individuual initiative rather than state- or party-controlled planning, a great example, perhaps the summation, of that insightful concept 'the best of the public'. My problem is with the word, which seeks to reduce the economic expression of divinely-inspired human freedom into a mere '-ism', a sectarian political concept, one among many, to be disputed and reviled by lesser ideals. Liberals and socialists are swift to blame 'capitalism' for economic and social problems which are almost inevitably of their own making. 'Capitalism' is a handy way for Liberals to create a false bogy with which to hoodwink people: it can be presented as a malign conspiracy by their enemies to undermine the false promises of socialism; it is an '-ism', something that humanity could do away with and exist just as happily, if not more so. Away with such Liberal tommy-rot! What they call 'capitalism' is freedom, no more and no less; and if one substitutes 'freedom' for 'capitalism' in the Liberal outpourings the falseness of their arguments becomes manifest. The 'capitalist system' - what thinking people call liberty - is the default condition of society: trade and enterprise flourish, and have flourished, in all societies where the smothering hand of socialism is unknown. Freedom - prefixed perhaps by 'economic' if necessary for lucidity, should be the term used. Let ''freedom'' be the antithesis of socialism, and consign 'capitalism' to the dustbin of leftist terminology. [[User:Guyw|Guyw]] 10:58, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:what? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:52, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Debate:Is atheism a religion?

2010-02-27T15:02:14Z

DerikJ:

{{Debate}}
This is a debate about whether or not atheism is a religion (as can be shown by the title). Well, don't just read this sentence, go read what other people have to say and rebuttle them or back them up you dolt. Yeesh. Don't deleate what someone else has written, please. 
 
:'''Answer''': this is not a debate topic since the answer can already be found at [[religion]]. Depending on the definition one goes by, atheism may or may not be considered a religion. --[[User:Elton|Elton]] 14:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT){{Debate-religion}}

==Yes==
Athiesm is a religion. This is because, to a certain extent, they are worshipping something. As Christians, Jews, and Muslims are one god, atheists worship the fact that there is no god. This might sound contradicting and might make no sense, but bare with me. If you are a Christian, you take to heart the fact that Jesus was the savior of man. You believe that Jesus is the savior. However, if you are athiest, you are taking to heart the fact that there is no god. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]
:As an atheist, I also have to sleep denying Mohammemed, Buddha, Jesus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's hard, but it must also e hard for you Rocky, having your religion defined as ''not'' believing in everything but Jesus. It must also be hard taking to heart that there are no super-intelligent aliens living among us, no unicorns, and no centaurs. All of those things are believed by some in a religious sense, so what does it feel like to say "I am a Christian, defined by not believing in x,y,z,... for 10 minutes". Boy, your definition really makes sense!--[[User:Mariowhaa|Mariowhaa]] 02:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Obviously, atheism is a religion. Once cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existance of a god. Therefore, there must be some leap of faith, to some degree, to get from agnoticism to atheism. Therefore, I consider atheism to be the belief in no gods, rather than no belief in gods. This is a religious belief. [[User:Sunyatsen|Sunyatsen]] 16:15, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
:While you may not agree in that proof, many people believe that all evidence suggests there is no god, and that the logical position in the absence of evidence is not "there may be X or there may not be X," but rather "there is no X unless you can prove X." In other words, it depends on what you consider to be the "default" position on matters of existence. You are not an agnostic when it comes to magical teapots in outer space, you are an atheist... you would say "there is no teapot out there unless you can prove it." In the same way, many individuals feel that "maybe there's a god" is not a reasonable position in the absence of anything to suggest there might be.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:19, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
:The belief that there is no God may be a religious belief, but a religious belief is not necessarily a religion. Belief in angels is a religious belief, but there is no religion of angelism. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:27, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

When atheists don't believe in God (or believe there is no God), they believe in something else - all people believe in something.
It may not be an official religion, but at least this is religious (believe in something).[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 16:45, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==No==
Atheism does not fit the definition of religion:
<blockquote>1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.<ref>"religion." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 30 Apr. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion>.</ref></blockquote>

One could argue that for some atheists atheism fits definition number four, but that is really a metaphorical usage of the word. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 14:35, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

To call Atheism a religion would mean you would also have to say that christianity is not a religion because a christian does not believe in, say, Odin.

"Atheism is a belief the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." (Overheard on another forum) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 20:41, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:In the same vein: "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." --Don Hirschberg [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

No, although there have been Atheistic quasi-religions, such as the positivist 'Church of Humanity' in the late 19th/early 20th century. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:18, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Atheism is defined as the disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. If you consider the disbelief in god/gods to be a religion, then you can also say that Christians have more than one religion because they don’t believe in the Greek god Zeus or in Allah, the Muslim God. Basically, all Christians are then both Christian and Atheist. --[[User:Atheistftw|Atheistftw]] 11:03, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

"We are all athiests I just happen to believe in one less god than you"-I forget who said it but I feel it sums up this debate quite well--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 10:02, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Impossible to Say==
Lacking a concrete definition of "religion," it is impossible to say whether or not atheism is a religion. The first step in this debate should be to determine such a definition. And in this case, that's probably also the last step.
*''A religion is a set of beliefs designed to explain natural phenomena.'' Atheism is not a religion.
*''A religion is a worldview.'' Atheism is a religion.
And so on. So before you try to answer this, preface your argument with your definition of "religion."--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:22, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

==The "R" Word==
What constitutes a religion: any system of attitudes, practices, principles, requiring an adherence to belief in and faith of an order of actions. Whether they be theistic or non-theistic in their origins. An atheist is thereby conforming to religious principles. You can also look up the definition of 'Religion' in conservapedia to help explain the meaning of the word. Unfortunately atheists detest the application of the word 'Religion' that they exclusively like to apply only to theistic beliefs such as Judaism, Christianity, ...etc. Therefore the reason for the liberal redifining of the term. To the atheist, this is a derogatory term meant to only apply to others and rejected for the use to their own set of beliefs. This can be argued is why when someone mentions the "R" word it is accepted they are describing Judaism, Christianity, and not the secular world.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:22, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

"... requiring an adherence to belief in and faith of an order of actions" assumes that Atheism has this. It instead has a '''LACK''' of this. So how can you claim that it is a religion?

===References===
{{reflist}}

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2010-02-27T14:44:13Z

DerikJ:

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

==How are these words conservative?==
exactly how is a word liberal or conservative? as far as i know, words are abstract concepts incapable of political ideaology. Would someone please explain the rational behind this to me

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Please can't anyone answer the first question and clarify how and exactly who decides whether words and terms are labelled as either conservative or liberal? Is it based on general opinion or is there some sort of general consensus? Are there any neutral terms? I think it would be interesting to open a dialogue on the subject.

Also, many words have Greek and Latin roots. Does this factor in to weather they are identified as Conservative or Liberal? (unsigned)

:"Whether", not "weather". I agree a dialog (American spelling) would be interesting on this. When a word captures a conservative insight, then it's a conservative word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:43, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::Seeking data (a "1700s term") to support a linguistic theory (the "geometric fit" or "Law") to the exclusion of relevant data is irresponsible. The fundamental problem with this whole effort is that it has no clearly-designed methodology. Even the terms "liberal words" and "conservative words" are not sufficiently clear at an operational level. There is no sampling method. People just think of words and add them. They usually supply very weak or entirely inappropriate reasons for including a word. There is no stated rationale supporting the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary (which one of their line of dictionaries? online?) over the Oxford English Dictionary, which is far superior in its coverage of etymology and word introduction. There are no serious criteria about how to categorize words in one category or another. No attention to "sense" as it relates to the same word ("designer" can refer to God or to Versace) is visible in the portions of this discussion I have read. Part of the problem, too, is perspective. Liberals and conservatives may both "rightly" claim a term or it could be pointed out that a term is value-neutral. Definitions change over time as well, which complicates all of this even further. To scientifically compare these two categories of words would take an enormous amount of work and involve an actual methodology. I think it could be a very interesting study, if done well. Otherwise it is useless and would have the potential of making the proponents of the results look like they are creating self-serving propaganda. Perhaps I have missed a formal statement of the methodology, but what I have seen here implies a total lack of methodological rigor. At best, and this is perhaps the reason for this effort, the discussion is laying the groundwork for a formal study; but, I haven't seen any evidence supporting this. In the meantime, it is dishonest to draw conclusions about these words and ridiculous to use these conclusions to support a "Law." I would urge the "movers" of this discussion to write a disclaimer to the effect that all of this is preliminary work and that conclusions can't yet be drawn until a formal methodology has been applied. Otherwise it is an embarrassment to Conservapedia and those of us who care to contribute. Poor methodology is neither conservative nor liberal -- it is just a waste of everybody's time and reputation. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 10:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::The only "embarrassment" is yours, CPlantin. Your rant above is close-minded. There's no denying that new conservative words/insights are created/discovered. There's no denying that such words can be counted. It's clear you don't like the results, but the problem is with your attitude. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: My critique is not closed minded -- it's just based on standard research methods. I do not deny that new conservative words are created/discovered and there are surely ways to count them, just as there are ways to count liberal ones. This project may even be under-counting conservative terms because the methodology is so flawed. Unfortunately there will be no way of knowing until a thorough study is actually carried out, here or elsewhere. I don't like or dislike any "results" at this point because they are based on faulty methods and can't be considered results. I am secure with my knowledge of linguistic and social-scientific research methodologies, based on decades of experience, and do not believe that having high standards amounts to having a problematic "attitude." My words may have seemed like a "rant" but I said it all because if anyone here at Conservapedia ever intends to do anything with any results, the methodology has to be sound for any of it to be taken seriously. Now is the time to establish the methodology -- before the project moves ahead any more. It is a fascinating topic, but deserves serious treatment -- and certainly needs much more time than I have for it. If contributors to this study want help with methodology, perhaps a call for a trained researcher would be advisable. Otherwise, the study as it seems to be developing will harm the reputation of Conservapedia. Lastly, I find your condescension to be insulting. Sound research does indeed open one's mind and does indeed set one's mind free. Sound research is part of having an open mind. Sloppy research designed to promote pre-conceived results is 1) not at all associated with having an open mind, 2) scholarly suicide, and 3) even worse, dishonest. --[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::No one ever built a monument to a critic. Rather than provide any corrections or methods of your own, you've baselessly attacked the project without citing any actual problematic examples. Why should anyone waste time reading your criticisms, then again responding to them? [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 20:52, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I agree with CPlantin's criticisms of the project, and I will set in to offer some methods of my own. First, a clear definition of a "conservative term" and a "liberal term" should be agreed on ahead of time. There's not even a ghost of a skeleton of a criterion for what qualifies as one or the other. The definition used will depend on what exactly the project is trying to show. Right now there are a mixture of terms used by liberals and conservatives for liberals and conservatives in both lists. Without a clear definition of what is to be counted, it's difficult to count. It's not clear, for instance, why "Segway" or "goth" are new words created by liberals to attack us. They're a brand of motor scooter and the name of a teen subculture.
::::::Secondly, there needs to be a way to go through terms used at different times by different people. Having random contributors put in ideas as they think of them doesn't produce anything remotely like a representative sample. I honestly have no idea how to do this, especially with no resources, which is perhaps why studies of this nature are not typically undertaken.
::::::I want to reiterate that I'm saying this because I want CP to be good and I want it to be trustworthy, and the methodology used here is wrong and worthless on every conceivable level. They hypothesis may be correct for some value of "conservative terms", but the work being done here does nothing at all to support it. I work in the social sciences. The methodology here isn't merely a little shaky; it is, to be straightforward (a conservative term), junk science (another conservative term), and I hesitate to even elevate it to that status. In particular, picking out a curve ahead of time and then looking for data to fit it strikes my actual-research-doing self as positively ghastly, brutally deceitful, the opposite of what CP should stand for. [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 17:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Your "know nothing" approach is a common style of reasoning of [[liberals]]. This is not a single, specific, meritorious (a new conservative word?) in your long-winded rant. You don't like this project probably because it is so effective. You don't deny that new conservative words are being created at a rate of many per century, yet you object to counting them. That's liberal style of reasoning: a bundle of self-contradictions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:51, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I respectfully object to being referred to as a liberal; I am very much not one. I also object to my suggestion to lift the project to the level of something resembling true research as a long-winded rant. I don't object to the project because "it is so effective." I object to the project (in its current formulation) because it is so humiliatingly ineffective. I do not object to counting new conservative words as they appeared over time and formulating conclusions based on them; I object to compiling a list of words for which there are no well-defined criteria for inclusion more or less at random and pretending like it means anything. I know that the people contributing to this project are smart and are working hard on it, but it's effort sadly wasted with such sad methodology. I want CP to stand for truth and for sound reasoning, but as things are being conducted right now, were several high-level admins not involved I would assume the whole thing was a hoax. Respectfully, [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 19:09, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

: I corrected the typo and trimmed "sustainable", but "non-locality" is widely used and accepted, except by those who instead insist on relativity (which perhaps includes you?). The description in this entry is informative and I hope you take it with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==liberal words==
Now I've looked at the list of liberal words and I beleive that these are not liberal:

Hypothesis.

Creationism (Used by everyone. The [[creation science]] movement began as "scientific ''creationism''.)

Racism (Liberals misuse this term to criticize people who do not support, say, Obama. But that is a misuse, we should not let their misuse define the word itself.) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:Good points about "hypothesis" and "racism", but I think "creationism" was originally and still is used by liberals. As an "-ism" it has a pejorative connotation, and many liberals rely on that connotation in trying to smear others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::Sort of like how creationists like to call evolution "evolutionism" I guess. More importantly, should we remove hypothesis and racism? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you implying that all -isms are pejorative? If so, I think you're way off-base. They simply denote a ideology or belief structure. There are a lot of good conservative -isms out there: capitalism, objectivism (as in Ayn Rand), mercantilism (per-capitalist conservative ideology), heroism, and even baptism (belief structure that holds that anointing with water cleanses sins and lies on the path to salvation).

: Your "baptism" example is striking, but I don't think its etymology is from adding "ism" to a concept. Rather, it is from a middle English word (baptisme). Your other "isms" may not have been complementary when first developed, but I'd like to learn more about that. Do you know?

: In modern times, most "isms" are pejorative in origin. Some can be flipped over time to favorable usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:30, 15 January 2010 (EST)

As for baptism, the best evidence I can find of this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.” Perhaps supports my idea but admittedly not at all conclusive. As for some of these other isms, I was not able to find the particular circumstances regarding whether or not they were developed with a positive or negative connotation, but it really shouldn’t matter how the word was used a hundred years ago, but how the conservative movement today uses these words to promote its ideas. If “some can be flipped over time to favorable usage,” then these words should certainly be included on this list. Words are reclaimed all the time. Case in point, the term “Jesus freak” was at one time a pejorative, but many young Christians embraced the term. Furthermore, Mr. Schafly, I’d be very curious to see any evidence that most “isms” are pejorative. It seems a little arbitrary to give such a blanket statement for all isms without some hard evidence, especially when the word conservatism is used throughout the intro paragraphs of the article.

== John Bunyan ==

I notice we're looking for a term from the seventeenth century. Perhaps a word from Pilgrim's Progress (1678) might be suitable? I suggest "worldly-wiseman", or "slough of despond", which has been used subsequently to describe any instance of the malaise that results from a lack of faith.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:We should include something from that immensely influential book, but I don't think the specific terms you identify are unique or popular enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== A sense of "loyal"? ==

Another possibility for 17th century: "loyal" with the meaning "1. True to obligations of duty, love, etc.; faithful to plighted troth", which dates to Othello in 1604 (OED). The earlier meanings are from the 16th century and deal with loyalty to a nation or sovereign, but it seems to me that this represents a quite distinct conservative insight. Perhaps add both uses?

:Fascinating suggestion! But the earlier uses go back to 1531 and are not that different. The OED may be acting partial to Shakespeare in giving credit.

:Also note that 1604 is before the writing of the [[King James Bible]], further disqualifying this suggestion. I think we could go with something like 1610, because by then the [[King James Bible]] was virtually complete albeit not yet published, but 1604 is really too early for this list.

:Do have any more suggestions? I learned from this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Maybe "theism" (1678 -- curiously invented after "atheism" which is already a liberal word here!) or "pander" (1616) to describe liberal behavior? I'm just looking through a list of 17th century words for these; I'll keep looking to fill in the hole if you don't think they qualify! Learning lots of strange words along the way... --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Designer? ==

Apparently, the word "designer" originated between 1640 and 1650. While it may not have been an important conservative word at the time, I would argue that it has become one since in pointing out the evidence that the universe is designed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:27, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

(Incidentally, I'm learning some really surprising things while looking for words! Apparently, the word "Biblical" didn't come into use until 1780-1790! I was amazed to discover that!) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Slipshod ==

Hi there, new to the site so I'd like to start out small... how about adding slipshod? It was coined in 1580 and means "shabby, careless, slovenly". A perfect word to describe those who don't help themselves! --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 20:46, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
truth

:Your suggestion sounds good to me too (also new around here!), but I think the list is supposed to start in 1612 now, the year after the publication of the KJV. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, I seem to have missed that sentence. I see no reason to limit conservative insight to after 1612, but I won't argue the point --[[User:Areich|Areich]] 21:13, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Final word for 1600s ==

My interest was peaked when I read that this list was only one word away from being in a perfect geometric series. So i went to an online etymology dictionary and picked a few that may fit the bill:

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sumptuary Sumptuary] (c. 1600): The dictionary.com version of this definition seems biased in some aspect, so, in general, it means "to rule one's life based on religious or moral judgements."

* Independent (1611): I was kind of surprised when I found out this wasn't on the list...perhaps there's a reason for that? (Yes, I did see the year, but perhaps since 1611 was the year the KJV was published, maybe...)

* [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronymic Patronymic] (1612): I've always seen it as a conservative value for a woman to take on the name of her husband. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

* Accurate (1612): Maybe if we wanted to be a little facetious...or are we serious?

[http://www.etymonline.com/ Here's the dictionary I've been using.] Just type in a year and it'll give many results. Hope this helps...Pick a good one!-[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions. "Patronymic" is new to me, but I have to agree with your analysis! But all your examples seem slightly shy of the high standard in the entry. I hope we can do better for the final word. Hey, when was "last word" first used?! That's not conservative ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question about Methodology ==

This article makes the assertion that by analyzing "liberal" terms versus "conservative" terms, one can conclude that conservatism is on the rise. Let me emphasize that I do not dispute this notion. I do feel, however, that as it is written now the assertion has not been rigorously proven. I have the following concerns:

1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

I am not sure if the above questions are answerable. If they are, however, then we come to the most important point:

5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

One more concern:

6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

I hope that these four questions provoke a discourse. Over the next day or so, I will attempt to give my own answer to what is a "Conservative Word" and what is a "Liberal Word." Please do not construe this message as an attempt to attack this essay; rather, I wish to help make it more rigorous, something for which we should all strive! I am not saying that I dispute the notion that conservatism is on the rise - I merely doubt that this is an effective way of proving that fact.

If you disagree with any of my points, I am very open to hearing your opinion. My goal is to objectively study the growth rate of ideological words; any advice you can contribute would be immensely appreciated. [[User:Khamilton|Khamilton]] 21:28, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''REPLY:'''

:Q1. What is the definition of a "Conservative Word"? What is the definition of a "Liberal Word"? It is important to explicitly define those two terms if we are going to claim that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words". For example, is a "Conservative Word" a word that was coined by a conservative, or is it one that has been used to describe conservative ideology, or is it one used to disparage conservatives by non-conservatives? Is a word conservative if it was originally meant to be conservative or if it was not originally intended to have an ideology but later acquired one?

::ANSWER: The meaning is obvious enough. A conservative word is one that captures and conveys a conservative insight. There is no definitional problem here. There are over 150 examples and the vast majority can hardly be disputed.

:Q2. There are certain words like "insightful" that do not seem to be related to any ideology. Why are such words classified as "conservative"? Likewise, what does cryptography have to do with conservatism? One more example: the "Big Bang" is simply the currently accepted scientific theory about how the universe began. How can a scientific theory have an ideology?

::ANSWER: Science obviously can be ideological. Witness "global warming" and "evolution". As to your other examples, I'll try to explain them better in the comments if desired. I agree that a few are debatable, but the vast majority are not.

:Q3. How can we be sure that we have counted every word in each category? Is it possible that we spent more time searching for words in one of the two categories, and as a result that category has more words than the other?

::ANSWER: If the occurrence were flat or declining, it would be virtually impossible to generate a geometric progression. This geometric progression occurred without expecting it to happen.

:Q4. It is claimed that conservative words are of higher quality than liberal ones. What metric is used to assess the "quality" of a word?

::ANSWER: The same as the quality of a car or laptop or tennis racket: its durability, its effectiveness, and its helpfulness for success.

:Q5. After clarifying the first three points, let's say we determine that there are more "Conservative Words" than "Liberal Words" (or the other way around). Is it possible to conclude that an ideology is on the rise simply by looking at the rate of change of words associated with that ideology.

::ANSWER: I can't think of a better indicator. Can you?

:Q6. I feel that we are studying this problem deductively when we should be studying it inductively. Specifically, we are trying to prove that conservative words fit into a geometric ratio - we are starting with a conclusion some people wish to find, and then we are searching for evidence to fit it. I am skeptical of this - it would probably be better to collect all the data first and THEN analyze the data for conclusions, a more empirical method that will serve this essay better.

::ANSWER: We did begin without trying to fit the data to any curve. Now the only fit is to perfection. That may distort the level of perfection, but the underlying geometric progression is unmistakable.

::Thanks for your questions. Godspeed and I hope you really do have an open mind about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Q6 seems really important to me, yes you are trying to fit to perfection but there may be something other than perfect geometirc growth going on and you may never be able to find it if you don't let the data flow where it may and then analyze it. While geometric growth is undeniably happening here there may be more to see that we will never find out unless we disconnect ourselves from the data. --14:26, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::Thomas, please note your name, preferably with the signature button, so we can see who said what. In response to your comment, this project did not start out seeking or expecting a geometric rate of growth, and it welcomes quality additions that may cause it to depart from the geometric rate. Indeed, lately the 20th century words have increased at a rate faster than the geometric rate.

::::As to "Trojan horse", your edit deleted a good explanation of what that is, and inserted a typo (missing space). If you deny that the term means a form of [[liberal deceit]], then please make a stronger case than you have. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:48, 12 January 2010 (EST)

I moved the following from your talk page

:::::You strike me as a widely read individual, so surely you must have read the Odyssey. Benedict Arnold is a case of deceit from within, but not at all a trojan horse. If you look at the Odyssey itself Odysseus represents a conservative of the times, very cautious and shrewd, a faithful and cunning man, was his trojan horse a liberal deceit? The whole idea behind a trojan horse is using a gift to get past the defenses of your enemies. I think my version was more correct and more precise, in short more true. I think that if you think about it for a while you will find your self agreeing. --[[User:ThomasRidgefield|ThomasRidgefield]] 14:59, 12 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I have an open mind about this, and welcome your insights. In fact, all the regular contributors here have an open mind about these issues. But as the [[deceit]] entry amply demonstrates, there is a high correlation between deceit and liberal tactics, and a very low correlation between deceit and conservative approaches. Your edit obscured the correlation to liberal tactics, and removed the explanation that a Trojan horse is a tactic of subversion from within. As to whether Odysseus was a conservative, I can't say I know his position on pro-life and less government!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:18, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== More 1600's possibilities ==

Nucleus: 1695. Leads to the term "nuclear family," certainly an important conservative concept.

Parental: 1615-1625: Liberals still marginalize the important role of parental guidance and influence.

Jurisprudence: 1620-1630: While liberals may seek to use the law to their advantage, I would argue that the study of the science of law (and its proper place) is an inherently conservative concept.

Constitutional: 1675-1685: It certainly would have been difficult to have a Constitutional Convention without the word "constitutional!"

"Responsible" comes in just a few years before the cutoff--1600. Pity.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:30, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. "Parental" and "constitutional" seem best. Let's pick one and achieve the goal. Then we can move on to the next layer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd vote for "constitutional", since "parenting" is already on the list and has basically the same import. On the other hand, "constitution" is much older, so does this really represent a new conservative insight in the 17th century? I'd think we want each of these words to represent a fresh insight if the argument for conservapedia's law is to hold. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:06, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

::: Excellent points. Let's keep the high quality here and continue looking. Note that the term "jurisprudence" does not connote conservative now, so it won't work either.

::: How about "Hobson's Choice", or "substantiate"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Either sounds reasonable, though you'd have to explain to me why Hobson's choice is conservative. Alternatively, we could stop looking -- one less in the 17th century means that the growth is even faster than claimed! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 20:22, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I think that defeats the purpose Andy's aiming for. He's never claimed that there are exactly double the number of conservative terms each century; just that it's a general trend. The efforts to have a perfect geometric curve here are to clearly illustrate that trend. Remember that this is a resource for students, and thus, clear and precise illustrations of the concepts presented are always desirable. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, Andy.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Strict Constructionism ==

I see you added textualism and that originalism is already on the list. Years ago when I first heard about conservative interpretations of the constitution the phrase du jour was "strict constructionism," which I think is now out of vogue in favor or originalism and textualism, but is definitely a new conservative principle in the grand scheme of things. [[User:Lmenkes|Lmenkes]] 16:50, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. However, I see that "strict constructionism" is in this entry under "Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary." It's been used over 200 years, and the dictionary still doesn't recognize it! Thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:42, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

== Transnationalism ? ==

1. going beyond national boundaries or interests: a transnational economy.
2. comprising persons, sponsors, etc., of different nationalities: a transnational company.
–noun
3. a company, organization, etc., representing two or more nationalities.
Origin:
1920–25; trans- + national

Related forms:
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ism, noun
trans⋅na⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb

Transnational jurisprudence assumes America’s political and economic interdependence with other nations operating within the international legal system, as opposed to the conservative, traditionalist(pre-Obama) approach of always rejecting the subjugation of American law to International law. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

: That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-English Terms? ==

Just to get it out of the way, this is only an idea I'm floating, and I definitely do not think it's a good idea to add non-English words all willy-nilly. However, I do feel that it's worth noting that for a portion of the period covered by this essay, English was not the standard language of academic discourse, as it is in modern times. Part of the reason that it may be more difficult to fill out the earlier part of curve is that in the time period it covers, Latin, then French, were common as the languages of choice. Important conservative ideas, like the five ''solas'', were expressed in Latin, and don't all have English equivalents with the same "hot word" status. This could partially explain why it's sometimes harder to find examples from the older periods. We already have "laissez-faire", but I think this is a good place to look for terms for conservative concepts, provided care is taken to make sure that the terms used are really of the same stature as those that exist. (And don't duplicate existing concepts.) Ideas that grew out of the Reformation, for example, are likely to have Latin names, and ideas born with the great political philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries might have more resonant names in French. Again, this is just an idea of a new space to mine conservative words from; conservative thought has a long history, and some of it isn't in English. :) -- [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 23:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

I understand that Conservapedia has a US-centric interest base, but might I suggest 'Eurosceptic' as a conservative term? As far as I am aware, it was coined in the early 1970s when Britain debated joining the EEC. It has since been used to describe a right-wing rejection of the European Union and its socialist 'super-state' mentality. Conservatives in the USA have rightly questioned the growing power of the EU, thereby displaying 'Euroscepticism' themselves. [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 23:17, 5 July 2009 (CDT)

: Superb suggestion, except that "Euroskeptic" and "Euroskepticism" appear to be derogatory ''liberal'' terms. The real conservative term on this issue appears to be "Eurorealist", but I'm not sure when that was coined. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:55, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:: When the term first arose, it was applied to the many members of the Labour ''and'' Conservative parties who were highly suspicious of British involvement in Europe. In fact, in the early 1970s there were more liberal opponents to integration than there were conservative opponents. (Ironic, given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fanatical devotion to the EU!) While the word is now used in a derogatory sense by liberals, it has been claimed by many conservatives as a badge of pride. 'Eurorealist' is an excellent alternative, but I personally prefer 'Eurosceptic' because it has been adopted by conservatives in many other European nations and integrated into their languages. (The Germans, for instance, use the word 'europaskepsis'.) Not sure where all of this leaves us, but I appreciate the feedback! -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 08:24, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

::: Thanks for your superb insights. Let's go with "Eurosceptic" because it is more common, and I'll mention "Eurorealist" in the comment area. I'll include this now. I've learned immensely from your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

What about "self-evident" (Locke, 1690), which was already used in the same sense as in the Declaration of Independence? Alternatively, "self-evidence", which is earlier, but still in the 1600s. It seems fair to say that while self-evident truths underlie all of conservative ideology, the very existence of these truths is rejected by the liberal doctrine of relativism.
--[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 12:16, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Might I also suggest 'proactive/pro-active', signifying an individual who looks to himself for the improvement of his lot rather than to free handouts from society/government. I believe this originated in the field of psychology (therefore 20th century), but I am unsure of the exact date. Also, I was discussing this essay with a friend of mine who serves in the British Royal Air Force and he suggested 'hard-target search', a military term that describes any attempt to intercept and neutralize a heavily armored enemy, be it mobile infantry or stationary fortress structure. He has served since the early 1990s and remembers the term being introduced soon after the Gulf War. Thoughts? -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 12:40, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

:"Proactive" is an excellent suggestion. Fantastic. My dictionary says it dates from 1933. Please add it! I'm less sure about "self-evident". I doubt that is a conservative insight, and am open to discussion about it (which could prove to be fascinating in itself). Thanks for the history of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

::I understand "self-evident" (as in "self-evident truths") to be in opposition to liberal notions of relativism, which I don't think admit the possibility of self-evident truth: liberals believe that all truth must be understood in politically correct "cultural context". If not this, is there some other word that could be an antonym of "relativism" and merit inclusion on the list? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:33, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I tried to add 'proactive', but I don't appear to be authorized to make an edit to the page. Have I misunderstood? (Forgive my ignorance; I am very new to this website.) -- [[User:EnglishBob|EnglishBob]] 13:49, 6 July 2009 (CDT)

==Blame America crowd==

How about [[Blame America crowd]]? We probably need an article, and there is no shortage of available material. Google gets 549,000 search results [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blame+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hate+america+crowd&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] There's even an Amazon.com title [http://www.amazon.com/Albums-Communists-Hate-America-Crowd/lm/17MFFXQYC45LO#height=204] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:11, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent suggestion! Sounds like its date of origin is in this decade. Can you pinpoint a date of origin?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::I propose using Micheal Barone [http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html] article here; he quotes [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] saying "They always blame America first" describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984 (San Fransisco was site of the DNC nominating convention). Barone is authoritive, we can use him as a source to get the ball rolling. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:22, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Overall growth of language==
I just did a search on the OED online to see the total number of new words per century. I may have counted wrong, but it appears that the total size of the English language is increasing exponentially also, but faster: about 1-2.6-6.8-17.6. This means that the percentage of conservative words as a proportion of all words is actually decreasing, which would be a problem for [[Conservapedia's Law]]. But I suspect that the proportion of words with any political connotations is falling as well, so it's still possible that conservative words are outstripping liberal ones. I can't think of any way to check this without making an equally thorough list of liberal words. Thoughts?

:Mark, liberal terms are already addressed in the article, although no doubt that section could be improved. I expect you are right in thinking that the vast majority of words generated are neither conservative nor liberal - for example new discoveries in science such as protons and neutrons are inherently apolitical.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:12, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::In furtherance of CPalmer's valid point, most new words are scientific in nature, such as new naming conventions. Our inquiry here concerns ''insightful'' new words that are substantive and valuable in their own right.

::The point here, and with [[Conservapedia's Law]], is about quality as well as quantity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I see that new liberal terms are addressed, but that list hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention that conservative list has (particularly in the older centuries), and as a result the rate of growth of liberal terms (if not insights) appears in the list to be faster than the rate of conservative ones. I don't think the majority of new words in the OED are scientific (I could be wrong), but this is worth investigating carefully. Do a search for new words for any decade on OED and it appears the scientific ones are a minority.

:::What about adding a quality rating 1-10 to each word on the list of conservative words? It seems like it would be possible to establish reasonable guidelines for doing this (based on, say, frequency of use in important speeches by non-political figures, with some subjective component as well) and it would let us quantify the rate of increase of conservative insight versus that of liberal insight, without relying on a mere word count, which may be deceptive, since all of language increases geometrically. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:17, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this seems tangential to the basic point. If someone observes that the world records for track events are improving at a rate of ''x'', I don't think it is significant that laziness is increasing at a similar rate. The point is that something of quality is increasing at a certain rate, not that things lacking in significant value are.

::::I do think the bulk of the increase in English words are of a scientific (or technical) nature. Perhaps we could nail that down first if you'd like to pursue this tangent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::Some of the new words will be borrowings from other languages - similar to the scientific ones except that these are 'cultural discoveries'. Sushi or nachos would be relatively recent examples - again, these aren't political terms.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Excellent point again, CPalmer. Again, these vast new English words do not typically represent new insights. The conservative words do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:53, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::OK, I think you're right that my original statements were not a good argument. Thank you for convincing me. I think the point I'm after is that a geometric growth rate of conservative insights is not surprising at all, since just about everything of this sort grows geometrically. I'd argue, for example, that new ideas in scientific fields grow exponentially, as indicated by an exponential growth of scientific vocabury, and I expect similar results elsewhere. So it seems a leap of faith to claim that geometric growth portends a more conservative future. The argument would be more convincing if more work went into the liberal list as well: I expect that even liberal "insights" (such as they are) grow at a geometric rate. We need to show that it is a _slower_ geometric rate than the conservative ones in order to predict things about the future, and in the current list, the liberal terms are growing at a faster geometric rate than conservative ones, if only because the emphasis has been on the 20th century.

:::::::As a curiosity, here are the new words added to the OED in the latest round of revisions:
anyhoo, barotrauma, batsh**, bell end, Bok globule, c'est la vie,
clonable, clonality, cloner, clonidine, dot-org, down-talk,
facilitatory, First Nation, globalist, globalizing, globaloney,
globetrotting, globigerinid, globularetin, Hiberno-Latin, Indianaite,
Indian plum, Indian rhubarb, Kelvin–Helmholtz, probationally, router,
skinder, snowboard cross, soundclash, thought-controlled,
thought-through, three-way, toasted cheese, twitterpated, unmixed
blessing, warm-down, waterboarding, wire-frame, wire speed, wire
transfer, wire wrap, wire-wrapped

:::::::A few science words and only one foreign word, but I agree that there are few insights among them, so my original argument was flawed. But I think the liberal list needs more attention if the argument for CP's law is to be valid. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:32, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: That's fascinating, and illustrates two large categories we had missed: simple variations on existing words (perhaps half of the total) and food-related terms (several). CPalmer's point about foreign-related words proves true also (I see at least 4).

:::::::: It's tough to find quality liberal words, but I welcome any additions to make have to the existing list in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: 43 new words total: 21 are variations on existing words, 5-6 are foreign-related, 4 are technical/scientific, 3 are activity or food-related, and about 9 require further classification that may fall into the four prior categories. Zero are insightful or convey new meaning in an intellectual sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

== Sortable ==

I made the tables sortable. I hope the author doesn't mind. I just wanted to make it easier to view the terms in chronological order. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:I like that. What other tweaks you got?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::Not much. The <code>sortable</code> class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

== Rename ==

As this article is no longer an essay, nor simply a list of the "best," I suggest it should be renamed to something like "Conservative vocabulary", "Conservative words," or perhaps "Modern conservative words" (400 years worth isn't really new, but it is modern english) [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I think the terms are a listing of the best. If you can think of any better ones, then let's get them into the list immediately!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::As I've been lately inspired by Orwell, I'd recommend ''groupthink,'' the propensity for a group to liberals to join a consensus without actually evaluating it. I'm not surprised that doublespeak is already on the list. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:43, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Captain of Industry? ==

An 1800s word to complete the geometric fit, perhaps? "A business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing more jobs, or acts of philanthropy." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:09, 24 November 2009 (EST)

:Fascinating. I hadn't heard the term before. But it also seems archaic, almost like a caricature. It's not in my large M-W Collegiate Dictionary, and the term didn't catch on. So perhaps we can await a better one? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)
::I'm quite surprised you've never heard the term, though it is very much a 19th century/early 20th century term for the Rockefeller/Carnegie type, but has a positive connotation rather than negative, like robber-baron. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:06, 25 November 2009 (EST)

== Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm ==

The following is a link to a dictionary containing 155 right-wing words engineered using a linguistic deep structure algorithm:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=9162

This sublink contains a massive engineered lexicon on abortion:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=7843

An additional link including a memeplex of engineered health care terminology is included here, which will soon be included in the MemeShock 4.0 CorrectSpeak dictionary:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=10281

I have been able to include some of these words thus far in the page, but many more remain. If anyone would like to go through and add additional ones from any of these three links that would be appreciated.

Additionally it would be useful to rework this language into the text of the other pages as much as possible. The language is designed to modify ones thinking to the desired point of view, and the more of it out there the more it will spread to the general populace via those who read it here.

The project is a sort of right-wing social engineering experiment and I'm not sure how such a concept will go over with many conservatives. However if it works it should be able to modify people's thinking to a more conservative point of view, which I think will be in all of our interests.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:Interesting idea. I'm interested in linguistics and a bit curious about your title... what does this have to do with "deep structure" in the linguistic sense? I've only encountered deep structure from a purely syntactic standpoint, and I'm curious how it figures elsewhere. Are you actually using an algorithm to create these words, and if so, what does it have to do with said deep structure? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:49, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here.

:Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

::"This idea doesn't go over well. Honestly, I thought something was odd about the 21st century words you added Johanan, but we are reluctant to censor here."

::Well I friend requested you on facebook. I could give you the grand tour of MemeShock if you want. Hopefully I can iron out any issues you might have.

::"Programs don't generate insights. People do."

::Well yes that is true. Perhaps "engineering language" was a little misleading. It might be better to think of it as engineering language clusters. Basically what we do is exploit an inherent circularity in language so as to create frameworks of language for particular issues to lock out the possibility to hold the opposing view. The content within those structures isn't engineered with an algorithm or anything though. The language combines though to bring the person thinking in terms of it towards a particular predetermined conclusion.

::Ideally if we could viral the language enough such that people would start talking and thinking in terms of it, it would become impossible to think like a liberal or a leftist -the language needed to do so would simply be pushed out of the public mindset. I hope that explanation is helpful. --[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::You admit that "engineering language" is misleading, but I'm still trying to comprehend the rest of your title. Could you clarify for me: a) what part of this uses an algorithm b) what any of this has to do with "deep structure" (which I will understand in the Chomskyian sense until told otherwise)? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)

::::Let's me clear that Johanan Raatz is speaking for his own approach, which we reject here. We support open minds and free speech as the best way to advance knowledge and truth. None of this entry uses an algorithm or "deep structure."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Yes, of course! Sorry for the confusion -- my query is directed at Jfraatz. I'm hoping he will clarify his grandiose title "Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm", which until he corrects me I am assuming is a more or less meaningless string of words, as there's no indication of where there's an algorithm, and this seems rather far afield of what I know as "deep structure". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 12:38, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Deep structure is a Chomskyian linguistic concept, as I think you already know. Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm, appears to be a syntactically correct but otherwise meaningless phrase. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== MemeShock Algorithm ==

*Linking words in a Loop-Back Structure

For Douglas, Andy and Jim:

You misinterpreted what I meant by engineering words with a deep-structure algorithm. What we do is engineer SETS of words and then find ways to link them back to each other in an (indirectly) circular way.

See the language is inherently circular in itself. If you look up a word that word is defined by more words and so on ad infinitum, however at some point with a finite language size the definitions must loop back on themselves. That's where the deep-structure comes in. We've got the "loop back" structure in a box so that we can use it to engineer sets of interweaving terms.

More here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=12621914298#/topic.php?uid=12621914298&topic=4607

*On Memeshock and Dishonesty

Now a word on my approach. It's not dishonest so much as it is social engineering. We have an adjunct group of MemeShock which does deal with disinformation and such, but MemeShock does language engineering only.

Think of it like this. Many left-wingers do not accept logical argumentation so to counter this we are just engineering the language such that it is idiot-proof. That way that can't reach their irrational conclusions because the means are no longer there. We aren't lying to them with this or anything like that though. It's just a fancied up way to do what we do a lot -frame arguments.

From the looks of it is sort of what this page was about in the first place -was it not? Developing new conservative words to frame the argument?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:No, it certainly was not. This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture. What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian, deceitful, and frankly, absurd. Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans. It is a serious resource for ''actual'' topics. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::"This page does not ''generate'' words. It catalogs and analyzes the conservative terminology which has developed through the natural development of English language and culture."

::Well I will only post ones which I can link back to articles then.

::"What you're describing is distinctly Orwellian,"

::Well yes.

::"deceitful,

::No we do have a special adjunct group for that, but MemeShock engages in language engineering only.

::"and frankly, absurd."

::Well read the link over. It's not really that fancy, and the logic is straightforward. If words define other words then the language must loop back on itself right? If it loops back on itself it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out how it loops back on itself. (it's just a page long -fairly simple concept)

::"Conservapedia is not a place to post crackpot theories and social engineering plans."

::Crackpot theories no, but now where do you think all of the other words you posted here came into being? Someone somewhere thought of them to better frame the argument. That's all I'm doing here -just more comprehensively. And I'm not posting my social engineering plans here either -that's what my facebook group is for.[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::Firstly, Douglas is correct: I'm not sure where you got the impression that this page is about developing new words to frame the argument.
:::Secondly, what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the standard linguistic notion of "deep structure". I'd suggest you choose a new phrase to describe whatever it is you mean. Throwing around "linguistic deep structure" makes it sound like you want the actual meaning -- what precisely do you intend by the term?
:::I read through the link you sent. I admit that it left me a completely baffled: you dwell on some trivial points of logic and make numerous errors throughout. In any case I'm not sure how you want to apply it to determine which concepts require additions to your lexicon ("memeplex"). The first ten or so paragraphs of section 2 seem to boil down to the fact that every statement can be made using only ">" and "~". Duh? Then you start talking about "components" and while I'm not sure precisely what you mean I assume that you want to regard a conjunction or disjunction of two concepts as simply a new concept, perhaps with its own word. Eventually you want to put every statement into some canonical form in terms of these concepts formed as conjunctions and disjunctions. It's quite possible that you can do this, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about by this point. In any case, what this has to do with memes I don't know.
:::So tell me if I've guessed the gist right: you have a concept A which you want to integrate into a memeplex. To do so, you characterize it by its properties, with a statement of the form "(A>B)v~C" (where, for now, B and C are other properties). OK, maybe we first define it as part of some more complex statement, and then reduce to this form using the preceding "arguments" -- I don't know why you would bother reducing to this canonical form, but whatever. With this done, maybe the memeplex doesn't already have terms for B and C; in this case, add them recursively, by statements of the same form. Keep going in this way until all your terms are defined using only other terms. This has to terminate eventually. Hopefully it terminates while the number of terms added is less than the limit on the size of a memeplex which you mention. How'd I do? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 00:55, 2 December 2009 (EST)

::::Jim's points are excellent, and I look forward to Johanan's response to them. In the meantime, Jim is exactly right: this entry is not about developing new words to frame an argument. Rather, this entry is a recognition and listing of insightful new words. People (with God's help) are the source of insights; computer programs can't do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:56, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Jim, you got the idea generally correct. Basically you the algorithm is like the framework for a box. You need it in that structure so that people can't think outside of it. Then you find the right walls to put onto the framework. That part (Andy this concerns your critique) is not generated by computer or anything it's just developed the same way people usually develop words.

:::::Now the algorithm is rather simple -actually it's the simplest possible form to have for a non-tautologous language system, but it can be scaled up by recursing the algorithm in on itself. There's a larger algorithm which I won't reveal which does this and creates a 3x3 language "matrix."

:::::I apologize about adding the new words, when that wasn't the aim of the page. I was wondering however if you could revert fegeism -as I had that linked. (I know it was my own article) I was also wondering if I could post other words from articles I had written.

:::::As for your comment on deep-structure -from wikipedia (it's ok on some stuff):

:::::"In linguistics, and especially the study of syntax, the deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular Noam Chomsky, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common deep structure."

:::::The idea here was instead of studying the relationship between words in sets of sentences to do the same for an entire dictionary of definitions. When you do that languages inherently circularity comes out and the overarching "loops" have the structure A>Bv~C. From the links between these words you can derive all manner of sentences, but if you manipulate the links you can parameterize which sentences can be derived and which can not be -something that could become a politically useful tool. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

== Some of these words... ==

Just wondering how some of these words, like Phonics and Trivia, are considered Conservative words, or how they can even be grouped as a Conservative or Liberal word.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 16:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:I am also wondering about how Conservapedia's Law is supposed to work. Most of these words are not obviously Conservative or Liberal, and what group they are placed in is based entirely on opinion. How can you make a law based on opinions?--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 21:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::You might not know that some of these words are conservative because your teachers have hidden their origins from you. Read the essay, and you may be surprised at what you learn. Conservapedia is full of things you might not have heard before - take a look around! There's all kinds of things to learn here! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Zack, only a tiny percentage of the classifications can be seriously disputed. "Phonics" has long been championed by conservatives, who want a literate population, and opposed by liberals, who want illiterates to vote for them. I know, that observation probably surprises you and you'd never heard that before. But there are over 30 million illiterates produced by the liberal public school system, and they pull the lever for liberal-favored candidates on Election Day. Illiterates also are unable to read the Bible, and it's a no-brainer why liberals want that result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Andy, it's pretty clear that you have a very warped view of public schools and liberals. If anybody can go through 12 years of public schooling and can not read by the end, that is not the schools fault. You seem to be implying that schools are purposefully raising illiterate people so they vote for liberals and can't read the Bible. If this is actually what you are saying, I doubt that you know anything about public school. As for phonics, it is simply A way for teaching how to read. I wouldn't know if its the best way or not, but schools not teaching it does not mean they promote illiteracy, because that is very far from the truth.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 15:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:: Zack, you're clueless. If you spent twelve years playing school football and yet had not even developed basic football skills, then the coaches and the training system deserve some blame for that. Yes, there is and should be accountability. And, yes, of course, there is a political benefit to developing over 30 million illiterates, which is what the public schools do. To pretend that has absolutely no political effect is absurd.

::You conclude with [[deliberate ignorance]] about the benefits of phonics in teaching how to read. What's next, you "wouldn't know" if jogging is a good way to prepare for a marathon???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:44, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Actually, I think some people really don't realize what a benefit phonics is, because they don't really know about it. Try ''Why Johnny Can't Read'', by Rudolf Flesch (I might have misspelled the name...), or I'm sure there are a number of websites on it. The strongest evidence for phonics' efficacy is simply that, despite 12 years of non-phonics-based public schooling, millions of people can't read. What they do is basically have you memorize each word in the language - and I can understand why people would hate and not understand reading after that! However, in other countries (which do teach phonics) and in America when we still did, nearly everyone could read. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 17:51, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:When I said I wouldn't know, I meant that I have never learned phonics, so naturally I would have no idea if it was the best way to teach reading. Sorry if I came across as ignorant, and I never meant that phonics was a bad way to teach reading. As a junior in public schools, I don't even see how somebody could not be able to read by now, and as far as I know my school does not have any illiterates (with the possible exception of people who have English as a second language, but there's an ESL department for that). Basing it on the education I got, It really wouldn't be the schools fault if somebody was illiterate after so many years of being in school. I am 100% sure that schools are not purposefully making people illiterate so they cant read the bible and vote for liberals, and if you say that they are it just shows that you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.--[[User:ZackQ|ZackQ]] 18:09, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Muscle cars as models of efficiency? ==

Are we talking about fuel efficiency (MPG), or 0-60/top speed efficiency? I can see a case for the later, but certainly not the former. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:18, 9 January 2010 (EST)

:The latter, though it's fuel efficiency was probably also better than many of the large cars that dominate the road today.

:"Muscle cars" is an provocative addition, and I'll another comment to it to explain why I think it's justified. But further comments are welcome on this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 9 January 2010 (EST)

== Dime Store ==

This term can have both positive and negative connotations. People criticize the quality of items sold in these stores (now referred to as Dollar Stores), and saying that something is of "dime store quality" is definitely a knock at it. However, the dime stores themselves have been a powerful engine of commerce and entrepreneurship in the USA. F.W. Woolworth introduced many innovations in his 5 & 10 stores, and he was so successful a businessman that when he built the Woolworth Building in lower Manhattan he was able to pay for its construction in cash. Even though his company was killed off by competition in the 80's and 90's, the entreprenurial spirit lives on in the thousands of independently-owned dollar stores across the country. 
People don't go to dime/dollar stores to buy quality goods - they typically buy consumable things that aren't expected to last long, like party goods, decorations and school supplies. The success of these stores shows that they are meeting a public need, so while it's fair to use "dime store quality" to criticize the quality of something, the concept of "dime stores" themselves is something conservatives should be proud of. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 12:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:Your analysis is superb. You persuaded me! I'm not sure that your analysis favors a move in category for "dime-store", but feel free to do so as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 16 January 2010 (EST)

::I was leaning towards removing it from the list altogether, which I've done for now. There are may terms which belong on these lists, but some like this one are better left off if it takes too much qualification to use them properly. To restate the point above succinctly, saying that something is "dime store quality" is a common criticism of quality, but if you only paid a buck for it then you have nothing to complain about. Consumers don't go to dime/dollar stores looking for quality - they are part of an important economic market where they are willing to part with a dollar for an item that's worth a dollar, and as long as that's what they get then the free market's working as it should. The place of these stores in today's economy would probably make an interesting discussion in the next edition of your Economics course. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:59, 17 January 2010 (EST)

:::Very well put. I agree, and thanks for your insights, which we've all learned from.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 17 January 2010 (EST)

== More possible terms for inclusion ==

*Reaganomics (1980)
*Pay-as-you-go (1830)
*Industrial Revolution (1840)

:Those are all terrific suggestions. I wonder about their political categories. I'd say Reaganomics is liberal, although its meaning may have flipped to a positive connotation as the economy came roaring back to success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:28, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::Well...hmm. That's a tricky one. It was supposedly coined by Paul Harvey, who certainly wasn't a movement conservative, but was respected by many conservatives. I honestly think it would be conservative at this point, simply because in hindsight it worked. I suppose the test we should use would be this: would liberals pull this word out as an attempt to attack conservative policies, or would they avoid using it, knowing that others would view it favorably? I think it's the latter, really--I don't hear too many liberals today saying "Republican policies will result in Reaganomics all over again!" They know that a lot of people would say "That sounds good to me!" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:53, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::I'm surprised that Paul Harvey coined the term "Reaganomics", which seems inherently pejorative. The term implies that it is somehow not real economics, but some kind of half-baked version of it. Liberals used the term with a vengeance ... until the economy went on its spectacular boom.

:::I'll take a look to see if conservatives use it now. You're right: I don't think liberals delight in the term anymore!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::While the late Paul Harvey used the phrase positively, it was originally coined by Democratic Liberals to ridicule Reagan's policies. That Reagan was the only President with a degree in Economics was outside their understanding! I agree with Ben, it is now a positive term, re-made not through "spin" as liberals do, but through the proof of good results, which conservatives value. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:11, 26 January 2010 (EST)

==Capitalism: Conservative concept, but a Conservative word?==
I'd like to make what may seem a perverse argument: that 'capitalism' is a liberal rather than a Conservative term and that its inclusion in this list should perhaps be reconsidered. The concept represented by the word capitalism is indeed at the core of conservatism: as Mr Schlafly has written, an example of the 'hidden hand', and, in its reliance upon individuual initiative rather than state- or party-controlled planning, a great example, perhaps the summation, of that insightful concept 'the best of the public'. My problem is with the word, which seeks to reduce the economic expression of divinely-inspired human freedom into a mere '-ism', a sectarian political concept, one among many, to be disputed and reviled by lesser ideals. Liberals and socialists are swift to blame 'capitalism' for economic and social problems which are almost inevitably of their own making. 'Capitalism' is a handy way for Liberals to create a false bogy with which to hoodwink people: it can be presented as a malign conspiracy by their enemies to undermine the false promises of socialism; it is an '-ism', something that humanity could do away with and exist just as happily, if not more so. Away with such Liberal tommy-rot! What they call 'capitalism' is freedom, no more and no less; and if one substitutes 'freedom' for 'capitalism' in the Liberal outpourings the falseness of their arguments becomes manifest. The 'capitalist system' - what thinking people call liberty - is the default condition of society: trade and enterprise flourish, and have flourished, in all societies where the smothering hand of socialism is unknown. Freedom - prefixed perhaps by 'economic' if necessary for lucidity, should be the term used. Let ''freedom'' be the antithesis of socialism, and consign 'capitalism' to the dustbin of leftist terminology. [[User:Guyw|Guyw]] 10:58, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:what? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 12:52, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?

2010-02-27T01:25:47Z

DerikJ:

{{debate}}

Its just a thought I had. At their core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Conservatism" is about conserving things, such as traditions. Regardless of what it stands for right now in the US, conservatism has always meant trying to preserve order, protect the country, protect the ruling class, and protect a country's traditions. Every country has some traditional religion, and the conservatives (i.e. right side of the political spectrum) usually want to protect that.--[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

::If politicians have no principles, as you seem to be suggesting, then why run for political office in the first place? In other words, if you don't have an agenda that you wish to advance, why run for office? Power in and of itself is useless unless you turn it to advancing your own beliefs. "Government Control" only gets us halfway. Control over what? I suppose the recognition and money are nice, but there are a lot better ways than running for political office to make money. Politicians only seem unprincipled because they are often forced to compromise with the other side to advance their beliefs at all. --[[User:Rustybutterknife|Rustybutterknife]] 18:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A rush, a high, the desire to grab power (OK, perhaps there IS a principle, "grab power") - When I hear about "Public service to give back" - I puke. Many who are in office have, I am guessing, no other better way to make money than wheel/deal - trade/back stab/whatever ... True, that many may try to do what they want to do, but such do not survive - leaving us with the scoundrels. I am watching the story of Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is STILL fighting a losing battle on the issue of pork/ear marks - he was on 60 minutes a while ago. I do sound like such a cynic. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007

:I dont believe that the right does embrace religion more. The Left is full of religion. For example, environmentalism taken to its extreme is a religion. [[User: kara]]

:I'm talking about religion in the classical sense of modern Abrahamic religions. Let me rephrase. In any society, when you have a SMD|Plurality voting system like the US, 2 political parties emerge. One party favors the business sector or the rich. The other party favors the working class or the poor. This will always happen under these circumstances. So why is it that in America, the right have taken up God as a member of their party?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would not say that the right has taken up God more than the left. What about Jesse Jackson?There are plenty of preachers on the left. To say that the left favors the poor and that the right favors the rich is not accurate. Things are not that clear cut. For example, some would say that the Roman Catholic church is far right. However, the Church has taken a clear pro-illegal immigrant stand in the United States. Most people (that would include politicians) are right on some issues and left on others. [[User: kara]]

Perhaps it is only that what is "right" and what is "left" is all a matter of perspective? Religion certainly plays a role in shaping perspective, though that does not mean that it is the only thing. I for one, do not consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself religiously a Christian. I think the reason people think the "right" is more religious is because more people on the right voice their religion as justification, and claim unity among their religion to back their claim. I think the good example of this is the Creation Theology branch that I've seen on this site and elsewhere. It's pretty much a "Christians believe this, or else they are not real Christian" kind of claim. Then it's a simple matter of taking a poll and asking people if they consider themselves Christians or not. If they say "yes," then it appears they believe what you do. You can follow the same pattern with any religion, or even with any group or folk. "I am a republican, I believe abortion is wrong. All republicans believe this, therefore if anyone else is a republican, they also believe this. If they do not, they are not a real republican." 'Tis all a matter of opinion. -- [[user:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 21 March 2007

Leftist Christians don't bring their religion into it as much as conservatives. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 00:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I get the sense that conservatives us the Religion more because that is often all they have.--[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This question is obvious. It's because God favors conservatives, and therefore, the rich. Debate closed. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:42, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:People who actually have a relationship with Jesus Christ tend to be on the right side of the political spectrum. People who just have a religion based on doing good things will drift to the left side. So the debate question is wrong from the start. [[User:SarahFan|SarahFan]] 09:26, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==They aren't!==
Conservatives enrichen the poor while the left exploits them for votes. But recently I've seen more religiousness eminate from the left then the right. Non-theistic religion has been on a steady increase. I'm sorry if that pops the bubble the people think of religion as only being a belief in the spiritual realm such as Christianity. Humanists proclaim their religion everday from the left spectrum and everyone hasn't a clue that a religion is being professed. So I don't, and can't agree that it is only the right side of the spectrum that is more religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:07, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I didnt noticed if this debate is talking particulary about the US but here(in this part of the continent) poor people that are mostly farmers or so, are very attached to religion. To prove that, anyone should listen to the folk songs and theyre full of religion. A lot of Singers which came from the poor part of the society and which are clearly left-winged, sing a lot of things about religion.
I think that the church (as an institution) tends to protect their enormous amount of money and interests (At least here in south america) and always using god as their banner. Nevertheless there was (and still are) a lot of individual people inside the church more related to social work, helping the poor(economically poor) people, Not by charity. They help them day by day, next to them teaching them important things to survive. I have to point out in case that i didnt express myself quite right: all these people are seen like they belong to some left ideology.
Thats all, well. I hope that i expressed myself good enough.
Ogainax

The answer, when broken down to it's most simple truism, is that the right wing can only exist in a hoary dreamscape populated by various stretches of blind faith. This is how the secondary religion of the right ends up being a stringent orthodoxy to the proven failures of a raw, unregulated, purely "free market" utopia. -JBall

==Rationality vs Faith==
The right is more religious because their ideology is more based on faith than rationality. They have faith that
A.) Christianity is right
B.) Trickle Down economics work
C.) In a capitalist system the rich will donate to charity to help the poor
D.) Life begins at conceptions
etc

the left however, don't have this faith and thus put in laws that make people help those beneath them. They don't take it on faith that homosexuality is bad, or that a fetus is a person, and they are in general less trusting of mankind

Project Apollo

2010-02-27T00:58:27Z

DerikJ:

[[Image:Apollo 17.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Apollo 17 on the launchpad.]]
'''Project Apollo''' began when [[United States]] President [[John F. Kennedy]] proposed that America put a man on the [[Moon]] by the end of the 1960s. In 1969 his dream came true with [[Apollo 11]] when [[Neil Armstrong]] became the first man to walk on the moon. The aborted mission [[Apollo 13]] almost resulted in the death of the crewmembers. Only extraordinary measures by the flight team on the ground and in the spacecraft prevented it from becoming a tragedy. Three astronauts, Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee, had been killed two years earlier in a fire on Apollo 1 while the rocket was on the launch pad.

Beginning with Apollo 15, a small electric car was used to transport the astronauts across the surface of the moon. A total of twelve men walked on the moon, but after Apollo 17 in 1972, the program came to an end. The Saturn 5 booster constructed for Apollo 18 carried Skylab, America's first space station, into orbit.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| Project Apollo Designation
| Mission
| Mission Start Date
| Mission End Date
|-
| SA-1
| The first test flight of the Saturn 1 rocket.
| October 27th, 1961
| October 27th, 1961
|-
| SA-2
| The second test flight of the Saturn 1 rocket.
| April 25th, 1962
| April 25th, 1962
|-
| SA-3
| The third test flight of the Saturn 1 rocket.
| November 16th, 1962
| November 16th, 1962
|-
| SA-4
| The fourth test flight of the Saturn 1 rocket.
| March 28th, 1963
| March 28th, 1963
|-
| QTV
| The first test flight of the Apollo Little Joe 2 rocket.
| August 28th, 1963
| August 28th, 1963
|-
| Pad Abort Test 1
| The first abort test of the Apollo spacecraft.
| November 7th, 1963
| November 7th, 1963
|-
| SA-5
| The first test flight of the Block 2 Saturn 1 rocket.
| January 29th, 1964
| April 30, 1966
|-
| A-001
| The second abort test of the Apollo spacecraft.
| May 13th, 1964
| May 13th, 1964
|-
| A-101
| The first test flight of the Saturn rocket together with the Apollo spacecraft.
| May 28th, 1964
| June 2nd, 1964
|-
| A-102
| The second test flight of the Saturn rocket together with the Apollo spacecraft.
| September 18th, 1964
| September 22nd, 1964
|-
| A-002
| The third abort test of the Apollo spacecraft.
| December 8th, 1964
| December 8th, 1964
|-
| A-103
| Launch of the Pegasus A satellite.
| February 16th, 1965
| September 17th, 1978
|-
| A-003
| The fourth abort test of the Apollo spacecraft.
| May 19th, 1965
| May 19th, 1965
|-
| A-104
| Launch of the Pegasus B satellite.
| May 25th, 1965
| November 3rd, 1979
|-
| Pad Abort Test 2
| The fifth abort test of the Apollo spacecraft.
| June 29th, 1965
| June 29th, 1965
|-
| A-105
| Launch of the Pegasus C satellite.
| July 30th, 1965
| August 4th, 1969
|-
| A-004
| The sixth abort test of the Apollo spacecraft.
| January 20th, 1966
| January 20th, 1966
|-
| AS-201
| The first test flight of the Saturn 1B rocket.
| February 26th, 1966
| February 26th, 1966
|-
| AS-203
| The second test flight of the Saturn 1B rocket.
| July 5th, 1966
| July 5th, 1966
|-
| AS-202
| The third test flight of the Saturn 1B rocket.
| August 25th, 1966
| August 25th, 1966
|-
| Apollo 1
| Apollo program training exercise. (Failure.)
| Destroyed on launch pad on January 27th, 1967
| Destroyed on launch pad on January 27th, 1967
|-
| Apollo 4
| First test flight of the Saturn 5 rocket.
| November 9th, 1967
| November 9th, 1967
|-
| Apollo 5
| First test flight of the Apollo Lunar Module.
| January 22nd, 1968
| January 23rd, 1968
|-
| Apollo 6
| Second test flight of the Saturn 5 rocket.
| April 4th, 1968
| April 4th, 1968
|-
| Apollo 7
| First 3 man American space mission.
| October 11th, 1968
| October 21nd, 1968
|-
| [[Apollo 8]]
| First human orbit around the moon.
| December 21st, 1968
| December 27th, 1968
|-
| [[Apollo 9]]
| First manned test flight of the Apollo Lunar Module
| March 3rd, 1969
| March 13th, 1969
|-
| [[Apollo 10]]
| Second manned test flight of the Apollo Lunar Module
| May 18th, 1969
| May 26th, 1969
|-
| [[Apollo 11]]
| First manned moon landing.
| July 16th, 1969
| July 24th, 1969
|-
| [[Apollo 12]]
| Second manned moon landing.
| November 14th, 1969
| November 24th, 1969
|-
| [[Apollo 13]]
| Third manned moon landing. (Failure.)
| April 11th, 1970
| April 17th, 1970
|-
| [[Apollo 14]]
| Third manned moon landing.
| January 31st, 1971
| February 9th, 1971
|-
| [[Apollo 15]]
| Fourth manned moon landing
| July 26th, 1971
| August 7th, 1971
|-
| [[Apollo 16]]
| Fifth manned moon landing
| April 16, 1972
| April 27th, 1972
|-
| [[Apollo 17]]
| Sixth manned moon landing
| December 17th, 1972
| December 19th, 1972
|}

== Conspiracy Theories ==

There has been speculation that the Apollo moon landing missions never actually took place, that it was a hoax filmed in a Hollywood studio. Supporting this interpretation is the fact that the American flag placed on the Moon should not wave, though it appears it does. Also, no stars appear in the lunar sky in photographs supposedly taken on the Moon, as they would be expected to do. Moreover, the shadows in the photographs run in different directions, rather than parallel, as if the sun were not the source of light. <ref>http://primeline-america.com/moon-ldg/</ref>

[[NASA]] denies this, claiming that it can be conclusively demonstrated scientifically that the astronauts really went to the moon, for example, by analyzing the ages and composition of the rocks brought back by the astronauts. <ref>[http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm , The Great Moon Hoax (NASA)]</ref>

Further more this would requite the cooperation of thousands of individuals involved, something highly unlikely due to the potential marketing opportunity for any person who does come forward

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Space Exploration]]
[[Category:Space Race]]

Talk:Prison

2010-02-27T00:47:17Z

DerikJ:

"either because they have been accused of a crime and they are trial or because they have been convicted of a crime and they are serving a sentence." is not correct. Jails or detention centers are used to house individuals awaiting trial (pretrial detention) while prisons are used for people convicted of crimes.
Also, indicating prisons creates jobs is a strange statement. What does that imply? Let's lock people up so others can work?

: Thanks for your comments. The prison system is a huge business in the United States that is profitable for those who have jobs working for it. Sometimes this does distort the incentives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I added a small bit about how this huge buisness can be detrimental and the racism and elitism factors involved--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 19:47, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Prison

2010-02-27T00:46:21Z

DerikJ:

A '''prison''' is a correctional institution used to detain persons who are in the lawful custody of the [[government]] (either because they have been accused of a crime and they await trial or because they have been convicted of a crime and they are serving a sentence). In the [[United States]], 2.2 million people are incarcerated, and over the course of a year, many millions spend time in prison or jail. Prisons create jobs - over 750,000 men and women work in correctional facilities. Despite correctional methods used in these institutions, 67 percent of former prisoners will be rearrested and 52 percent will be re-incarcerated. <ref>[http://www.prisoncommission.org/ Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons]</ref> The term for this is [[recidivism]], meaning a criminal who has committed a crime, is released, then goes on to commit subsequent crimes.

Prison has been regarded by some<ref>Inside rikers</ref> as a new form of slavery due to the numerous commerical incentives, including cheap labor (the typical prison is paid $0.15/hour) and as a way for the elite to continue surpressing minorities

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Jail]]

[[Category:Punishment]]
[[Category:Sociology]]