Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Legacy Media Outlets Buried Research Showing DEI Makes People More Likely To Agree With Hitler

Published

4 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Wallace White

Two legacy media outlets refused to publish stories covering a study that said diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) education “increased hostility” and made people more likely to agree with the modified statements of Adolf Hitler.

The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) claimed The New York Times and Bloomberg informed them that they would not publish stories concerning their study, citing editorial concerns, according to communications obtained by the National Review. The study, titled “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias,” found that people who read material espousing left-wing ideas on race and identity often amplified “perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice.”

“Unfortunately, both publications jumped on the story enthusiastically only for it to be inexplicably pulled at the highest editorial levels,” a NCRI researcher told National Review. “This has never happened to the NCRI in its 5-year history.”

New York Times reporter told the NCRI that they would reconsider publishing the article on the study if the paper went under peer review, according to National Review.

“The piece was reported and ready for publication, but at the eleventh hour, the New York Times insisted the research undergo peer review after discussions with editorial staff — an unprecedented demand for our work,” a NCRI researcher told National Review. “The journalist involved had previously covered far more sensitive NCRI findings, such as our QAnon and January 6th studies, without any such request.”

The New York Times denied having an article ready to publish in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Our journalists are always considering potential topics for news coverage, evaluating them for newsworthiness, and often choose not to pursue further reporting for a variety of reasons,” a Times spokesperson told the DCNF. “Speculative claims from outside parties about The Times’s editorial process are just that. It’s not true that The Times had prepared a story ‘ready for publication’ on this topic.”

The two Bloomberg reporters had a piece ready to publish, but Nabila Ahmed, the team leader for Global Equality at Bloomberg News, informed the NCRI that they wouldn’t publish the article, saying it was an “editorial decision.” Ahmed’s responsibilities are to “elevate issues of race, gender, diversity and fairness within companies, governments and societies that Bloomberg News covers,” according to her LinkedIn.

The reporters previously communicated to the NCRI that the research would create “an important story” and they would’ve been “eager” to publish on it, according to National Review.

In the experiment, researchers took 850 participants and gave one group a neutral essay on the caste system in India, and gave the other caste-sensitivity-training material from Equality Labs, a left-wing human rights organization, according to the study.

When participants who read the DEI-inspired material viewed modified past statements from Hitler which replaced the word “Jew” with “Brahmin,” the upper class in the caste system, they were more likely to agree that Brahmins were “‘parasites’ (+35.4%), ‘viruses’ (+33.8%), and ‘the devil personified’ (+27.1%),” according to the study.

The DEI-charged material seemed to “engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment,” according to the study.

The NCRI and Bloomberg did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta bill would protect freedom of expression for doctors, nurses, other professionals

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘Peterson’s law,’ named for Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, was introduced by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Alberta’s Conservative government introduced a new law that will set “clear expectations” for professional regulatory bodies to respect freedom of speech on social media and online for doctors, nurses, engineers, and other professionals.

The new law, named “Peterson’s law” after Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was canceled by his regulatory body, was introduced Thursday by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

“Professionals should never fear losing their license or career because of a social media post, an interview, or a personal opinion expressed on their own time,” Smith said in a press release sent to media and LifeSiteNews.

“Alberta’s government is restoring fairness and neutrality so regulators focus on competence and ethics, not policing beliefs. Every Albertan has the right to speak freely without ideological enforcement or intimidation, and this legislation makes that protection real.”

The law, known as Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, will “set clear expectations for professional regulatory bodies to ensure professionals’ right to free expression is protected.”

According to the government, the new law will “Limit professional regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for expressive off-duty conduct, except in specific circumstances such as threats of physical violence or a criminal conviction.”

It will also restrict mandatory training “unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Bill 13, once it becomes law, which is all but guaranteed as Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) holds a majority, will also “create principles of neutrality that prohibit professional regulatory bodies from assigning value, blame or different treatment to individuals based on personally held views or political beliefs.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Peterson has been embattled with the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) after it  mandated he undergo social media “training” to keep his license following posts he made on X, formerly Twitter, criticizing Trudeau and LGBT activists.

Early this year, LifeSiteNews reported that the CPO had selected Peterson’s “re-education coach” for having publicly opposed the LGBT agenda.

The Alberta government directly referenced Peterson’s (who is from Alberta originally) plight with the CPO, noting “the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, demonstrate how regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal expression rather than professional competence.”

“Similar cases involving nurses, engineers and other professionals revealed a growing pattern: individuals facing investigations, penalties or compulsory ideological training for off-duty expressive conduct. These incidents became a catalyst, confirming the need for clear legislative boundaries that protect free expression while preserving professional standards.”

Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General Mickey Amery said regarding Bill 13 that the new law makes that protection of professionals “real and holds professional regulatory bodies to a clear standard.”

Last year, Peterson formally announced his departure from Canada in favor of moving to the United States, saying his birth nation has become a “totalitarian hell hole.” 

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Move over Soviet Russia: UK Police Make 10,000 Arrests Over “Offensive” Online Speech

Published on

logo

By

In a nation where 90 percent of crimes go unsolved, the real emergency seems to be someone being offensive online.

Let’s get something straight. If you’re reading this from inside the United Kingdom and you’ve ever committed the heinous act of sarcasm on the internet, better close the curtains. The police might be on their way. Armed, possibly. With body cams. And a warrant to seize your copy of The Complete Fawlty Towers, just in case.
Last year, British police arrested nearly 10,000 people for saying things online that someone, somewhere, decided were “offensive.”
According to data pried out of police forces by the Daily Mail, that’s around 26 people a day. And yes, some of those probably were saying awful things. But many were not. Many were simply annoying. And in the UK now, being annoying online is grounds for a knock at the door.
The arrests were made under laws like the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, pieces of legislation drafted before TikTok existed, and when “going viral” still referred to the flu.
These laws were originally written to stop actual threats. Not to stop someone from tweeting something sarcastic about climate protesters.
But times have changed. Cumbria Constabulary, apparently keen to earn their badge in “Feelings Policing,” clocked in 217 arrests last year. That’s 42.5 arrests per 100,000 residents.
Meanwhile, Staffordshire managed only 21. What were they doing instead, catching burglars? How outdated.
Gwent Police weren’t far behind, either. The Welsh force made 204 arrests.
Toby Young of the Free Speech Union called the number “alarmingly high.” His assessment may be generous.
What’s truly Olympic-level absurd is the sheer inconsistency. If you’re a bit spicy with your language in Cumbria, you might be arrested before the kettle boils. In Staffordshire, you’d likely get nothing but a raised eyebrow and a politely worded leaflet.
David Spencer from Policy Exchange nailed it when he said, “The variance in approach by police forces suggests that how much freedom of speech we are allowed depends on where we live.”
A troubling sentence, because once you need a zipcode to know what jokes are legal, the country starts to resemble something more out of Kafka.
Polling suggests only 7 percent of people think online “hate speech” should be a police priority. Seven percent! Yet Britain’s police are allocating significant resources to patrol the pixelated badlands of X and Facebook while 90 percent of actual crimes went unsolved last year.
So, to recap: Your house gets burgled? Fill out a form and cross your fingers. Criticize the government’s foreign policy on Facebook? Patrol car, cuffs, and possible prison time.
It doesn’t help that the laws in question use terms like “grossly offensive” and “insulting” without defining them. As Lord Frost pointed out in the House of Lords: “’Grossly offensive’, ‘abusive’, ‘insulting’ and ‘false’ – says who?” Exactly. It’s like trying to enforce a speed limit based on whether the officer feels you were driving too smugly.
Here’s the cherry on the dystopian sundae: According to Free Speech Union’s Toby Young, Russia arrested 3,253 people last year for online speech. Britain arrested four times that. That’s embarrassing and the sort of international statistic that ought to appear in Amnesty International reports.
Continue Reading

Trending

X