Which of these two have more harmful effect to the society? Critics argued that progressivism disrupt moral values and discriminates cultural belief, while traditionalism is criticized for resisting individuals freedom. Are two beliefs are important or one is more important than the other? what is your take?

This article (this too) explains that Dunning Kruger effect is debunked by Edward Nuhfer and the effect is a statistical artifact that can be found on random data.

From the article-"Edward Nuhfer and colleagues were the first to exhaustively debunk the Dunning-Kruger effect"

I am TERIFIED, How is it possible that this effect is still in the consensus?

I've seen a lot of self-described right-wing or anti-woke individuals on YouTube say that the Barbie movie is both feminist and anti-male. Do they believe that feminism is an inherently anti-male concept that promotes the idea that women are superior to males and that feminists are just women who want to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy?

If feminism is either about gender equality or about the equality of rights between men and women, then it's impossible for a movie to be both feminist and anti-male. If a movie is anti-male, then it's saying that women should have more rights or superior rights to men, if one believes that feminism is equality of opportunity between the 2 sexes or 2 genders, then it would be impossible to conclude that a movie could be both anti-male and feminist.

How can a feminist movie, by definition, simultaneously propose that women should have equal legal rights to men and that women should have more rights or superior rights to women? Isn't this an obvious logical contradiction? The only way I can make sense of this kind of thinking is to conclude that right-wing people have a very different definition of feminism that makes it possible for a movie to be simultaneously feminist and anti-male.

It could also be the case that right-wing people like to engage in doublethink when describing movies they call feminist as anti-male movies.

I don't know if equality of opportunity necessarily requires equality before the law, but anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

I've even read a few Black Pill incel books and listened to some audiobooks from Rollo Tomasi, the author of The Rational Male. But I still can't figure out what exactly the right-wing thinks feminism is about and how they define feminism. I feel that they always somehow dance around the issue of what feminism is actually about.

I also don't understand what self-described anti-feminists think feminism is about. Some people don't call themselves anti-feminist but describe themselves as anti-woke.

Some anti-woke people are right-wing, and my question is about what the full spectrum of right-wing beliefs about feminism is.

Are there various competing right-wing definitions of feminism or is there a monolithic definition of feminism that the full spectrum of right-wing individuals subscribe to?

Is there a logical reason why right-wing people cannot conclude that feminism is about equality of rights between men and women? If all the waves of feminism were about women's legal rights, then wouldn't it be logical to conclude that feminism is about equality of legal rights between the two sexes or two genders, depending on whether one believes in trans rights?

Wikipedia's summary of 1st and 2nd waves of feminism make feminism sound like it's about equality of legal rights and the 3rd and 4th waves of feminism on Wikipedia make feminism sound like it's about equality of outcome, gender parity, or gender equality. Why don't conservatives conclude that feminism is either about equality of legal rights or gender equality or both?

Do some conservatives often read about the different waves of feminism and conclude that women's rights activism = feminism? Could anyone cite some examples of right-wing people critiquing the various waves of feminism?

NB: I've edited this post to better reflect different views on what the feminist movement is about currently and historically. I've also edited this post to reflect the fact that lots of self-described left-wing people are anti-woke. Many people have pointed out that both self-described left-wing and right-wing people are opposed to feminism, but I cannot change the title of my post.

Thanks for reading.

Controversial topics are nothing new. We had discussions about nuclear power and weapons, on any number of political or religious issues (evolution/creation) but the measures on dealing with a pandemic seems to slash through the whole of society on every level. What is so special about the COVID-19 ? And why are the political decisions questioned so ferociously?

He proposed a budget to Congress that would drastically cut critical funding for U.S. diplomacy, development, and trade assistance, promising instead to increase military spending—not to underwrite the international order, but to ensure that the United States is sufficiently strong, on its own, to be able to deter any potential adversary. And he pulled the United States out of a series of international agreements, including the TPP and, most recently, the Paris climate accord.

Were there any other measures that Trump introduced?

Thoughts?

I have the bad habit of reading through comments on right wing news sites. One trend I've noticed is that right wing MAGA folks are often strangely gleeful about the idea that AI would replace human musicians, actors, and film makers.

I find this to be a very confusing response....these are the same people who are typically concerned about 'big tech' taking over people's lives. Why would they suspend this belief to welcome the demise of human art through AI? Does it have to do with a populist contempt for elite artists (i.e. top 40 billionaire types, hollywood), or does it have to do with a more fundamental skepticism towards art?

I'm wondering if the realm of social science would have some insight into this, though I imagine that we'd also need to look to history, critical theory, and philosophy for a complete answer.

Hey all!

Have you seen this video of Jordan Peterson claiming that Unconscious Bias studies aren’t valid? His points are . . . interesting.

Jordan Peterson on The Misuse of Unconscious Bias Theory

It’s my understanding that Unconscious Bias is measurable but hasn’t been studied in a way that directly measures behavior. It’s also my understanding that treatments/interventions/training for this aren’t measurably effective at this point despite the fact that trainings are happening in companies all over the world.

Are you defending the body of evidence right now? If so, how are you explaining the validity of unconscious bias?

I feel like there is a sliver of truth in what JP is saying but he’s not leaving room for the validity of the evidence we have so far.

EDIT: There’s a lot of talk in the comments about JP as a person and some broad statements about conservatives and their support of him and others.

To be clear, I’m curious about whether the smart and hardworking scientists in this subreddit have any meta-analyses or other empirical evidence that refutes JPs specific argument about the test/retest reliability of the research in this field.

I think we will all get more out of this conversation if we stay focused on the facts of JPs claim and the facts that we have from empirical work in the social sciences.