Talk:Social conservatism in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mlup.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Picture is not accurate
Hi, the picture on this article has Milton Friedman in it, but he is not a Social Conservative, or Conservative at all. Why is he in the picture titled social conservatives? Milton Friedman himself has said he is not a Conservative. Please change the picture, it is misleading and not accurate. 85.130.83.238 (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism by supporters of the topic
Hi. This article has clearly been the subject of biased editing by ideologically motivated editors. Wikipedia is not the place for Social Conservatives (or Social Progressives for that matter) to argue their points to the public. I hope this can be solved.107.167.22.250 (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a rhetorical statement: "Social conservatives typically oppose marriage equality for individuals with unorthodox sexual preferences, and oppose abortion." This statement more accurately describes the same subject: Social conservatives adhere to the original, historical, biological, biblical, definition of marriage which is one-man and one-woman, and the definition does not include gay marriage, polygamy, polyamory, or any other union that is not one-man and one-woman. Explanation: Overall, this article often describes conservative views in terms of contemporary myopic left-leaning rhetoric rather than explaining how social conservatives think/believe based on history and tradition where marriage is not a new subject and conservatives hold onto cultural traditions based on their conservative system of values that go back hundreds and perhaps thousands of years (these values were obscured in the article as well). The conservative definition of marriage corresponds to the biological genotypes for [|human XY-sex determination] rather than behavioral preferences or physically altered sex-identities (transgenders). In addition polygamy and other forms of marriage are not accepted under the conservative definition (Utah had to ban polygamy to gain statehood in 1855). Conservatives were once opposed to miscegenous marriage though that is not their current position on marriage. This article also seems to emphasize political and economic ideologies that probably belong somewhere else.
 * If you can find some good sources to support that viewpoint, then feel free to BEBOLD and edit the article.- MrX 19:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits
Hi wikipedia,

I'm going to try and work on getting some neutral information about what social conservatism is and what social conservatives believe into this article. Currently I'm trying to find some sources that talk about social conservatism. If anyone has any suggestions that would be helpful.

I think this page could also benefit from sections about social conservative organizations or people who identify as social conservatives.

Mlup (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

National SociaList Shadow ParTy group is on facebook, they specialize in everything and anything from strategizing for respected officials to advising the common man about any political, economic, ideological exc.... Experts that money can't buy and undoubtedly nations top systematical strategics organization/groups. 10/10 Everytime Brett Scullawl (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a top systematical strategist in political ideology
I'm one of the top systematical strategists in Oklahoma and possibility in the Midwest, I'm a Cherokee Tribal Member outta Tulsa, also very loyal to Donald Trump and the Republic. My job as chief systematical strategist for my political party"National SociaList Shadow ParTy" is defensive strategies and offensive strategies against the massive Democratic controlled network that has its hands in everything from media control, propaganda, social media control, foreign entity Collision, weaponized technologies, economical systematics and corruption. I have already made systematical strategies that undoubtedly would achieve more successful results than ever thought possible by any others before and or currently. If anyone is interested or in need of my group's intervention or its guidances find me on Facebook under the name Brett Madsavage Scullawl of Barnsdall, Oklahoma or find my Facebook group under the title of the "National SociaList Shadow ParTy" and send me your message. I have already eradicated Oklahoma's underground Democratic networks. Everything I do or my party does is to be and has always been strictly in the shadows and non existent to anyone outside the person/persons that we are fixing the problems for. Our main goals are to eradicate the underground networks that have now escalated to targeting political opposition or influencal outlets. Thank you for your time and consideration I hope to hear from all states that is being affected by these networks. There is nothing we can not do or protect so I give a 100% guarantee satisfaction. March on Brett Scullawl (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Social Conservatism
I am interested in discussing the collective term, Social Conservatism as it is currently defined. In todays environment, where terms are coined and imposed upon the culture by politically minded groups seeking to use these terms to help define a specific political position which may not reflect the actual term itself, but reflect a "hidden" agenda, it is incumbent upon all of us to insure we oversee usage and reflect upon its truth. Many of these terms are really a way of using code to attract adherents and cover up what might otherwise be considered unacceptable categories. For example, "Right to Work" (a term created by a Right Wing editor representing the oil industry) is actually a code term for just the opposite, the elimination of unions. Social Conservatism, as currently define, never includes several of the hidden categories such as anti black (racism) or anti hispanic or immigration, etc., yet it includes a number of other "social" categories. So possibly, the actual word "Social," used to reflect human interaction, needs to be changed. As we are finding more today than at any other time in our recent history, words and phrases are being coined and used with little regard to truth and therefore developing an acceptance of "alternative truths" as discussion points.

I submit that it is time to reflect upon these terms that are used as collective references to society particularly because information is now transmitted instantaneously across the globe. Politically motivated collective references that openly exclude inclusive categories become simply propaganda to be used to sway citizens in a certain direction, rather that merely define a collective group of people. So, if we use "Socially Conservative" as a collective term, it is important to include every item that that collective appears to believe in and not just some of the items or we risk the result, the support of marginalizing a significant injustice in our Nation. By continuing to allow these collective terms to be presented as "alternative truths" or simply non inclusive of their full meaning, we are then complicit in attempts to deliberately provoke subversive activities.

Edit war
The recommended method is to find other WP:RS in order to qualify that statement. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)