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

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm: Programs don't generate insights. People do. And I say that as a former full-time programmer.)
(Engineered Language using a Linguistic Deep Structure Algorithm)
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 472: Line 472:
  
 
: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)
 
: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]]

Revision as of 22:55, 30 November 2009

Archive 1

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? 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.--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. JDWpianist 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Closed Shop

You might like to include Closed shop. -CGoodwin

Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--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.--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.--Andy Schlafly 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [1] 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?--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. 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.--Jpatt 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? 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.--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.--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. [2] 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.--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.--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? --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.--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. --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.--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. --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? 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. 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.--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, 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?)

--Benp 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--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.

--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.--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.--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.) 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. 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!--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.--CPalmer 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

More 1700's possibilities

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--Benp 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

The latter two are good.--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.--Andy Schlafly 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Liberal word from 1830

Reactionary - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--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. --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.--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. --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.--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. --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.--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. 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.--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? 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.--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.--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. 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.--Andy Schlafly 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? 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.--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[sic] 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. --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.--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.) 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.--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? AddisonDM 14:10, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
Removal sounds good. Please proceed as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 15:25, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

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.--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.--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.--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... --MarkGall 17:37, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
Fascinating! I think "pander" comes closest to qualifying, but hopefully we can do better still.--Andy Schlafly 20:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
OK, one more try and I'll get back to actual editing! How about "liberate", 1623? --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. --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!) --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! --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. --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 --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:

  • 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...)
  • 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?

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!-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 ....--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. 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.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

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.

--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.--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. --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"?--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! --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.) --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. 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.--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. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:07, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

That would be a great start to the next layer, TK!--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. :) -- 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. 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?--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! -- 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.--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. --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? -- 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.--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? --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.) -- 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 [3]. We could just do a redirect for "hate America crowd" although Google gets 900,000+ results for that. [4] There's even an Amazon.com title [5] 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?--Andy Schlafly 09:34, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
I propose using Micheal Barone [6] 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. 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.--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.--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. --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.--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.--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.--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. --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.--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.--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. --Michaeldsuarez 22:45, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

I like that. What other tweaks you got?--Jpatt 22:52, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Not much. The sortable class comes standard with most MediaWiki installations. I know HTML and how to build templates, but Conservapedia isn't really my thing. --Michaeldsuarez 23:08, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
AWESOME improvement!!!! Thank you!--Andy Schlafly 22:53, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
You're welcome. --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) 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!--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. DouglasA 01:19, 25 November 2009 (EST)
That's a real good one. I'll add it immediately. Thanks for your insight.--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." 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.--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. 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.

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? --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.--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. --Johanan Raatz