'Profoundly unqualified'

The 82nd annual run of the Santa Train through Appalachian mountain towns kicked off this year with a special stop to bring holiday cheer to a community ravaged by Hurricane Helene in the Eastern United States. Santa Claus kicked off the celebration in Erwin, Tennessee, giving out gift bags, chicken dinners, and a close-up view […] The post Annual Santa Train Makes Special Stop to Deliver Joy to Hurricane Survivors Before Beloved Appalachia Whistlestop Tour appeared first on Good News Network.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion has made society meaner—mean enough to accept Hitlerian terms when describing out-groups and seeking to exact revenge on perceived oppressors.  This was all common sense to many of us years ago, but it’s nice that we now have a study that substantiates our perception. The report, released Nov. 25 by the always-good Network Contagion Research Institute and titled “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias,” describes how groups that were exposed to writings by DEI retailers Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo reacted compared to control groups that were instead given anodyne texts on technical material. Every time, members of the groups under the spell of Kendi and DiAngelo or similar writers looked for discrimination under every bed, found offense in “microaggressions” that did not exist, and, more worryingly, sought to penalize those they wrongly identified as having committed these transgressions. Lest we forget, this comes from an approach that promised “better discussions, decisions, and outcomes for everyone,” according to Google CEO Sundar Pichai. DEI is “the key to growth,” according to activist Jesse Jackson, and something that “creates safer and fairer workplaces,” according to Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif. However, as the Network Contagion Research Institute’s report confirms, none of these things are true. Interestingly, the Network Contagion Research Institute study focused “on diversity training interventions that emphasize awareness of and opposition to ‘systemic oppression,’ a trend fueled by the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement and popularized by texts such as Ibram X. Kendi’s, ‘How to Be an Antiracist,’” the report says. This was important because the claim of “systemic racism” forms the basis of the attempt to have a revolutionary systemic overhaul of society that is at the heart of much of DEI. While the assertion of “systemic racism” goes back to the origin of critical race theory, the discipline’s foundational book speaks of the “exercise of racial power” as being “systemic and ingrained.” It was not until the arrival of BLM, and especially its 2020 riots, that America’s cultural gatekeepers began to accept the claim as fact. “While not representative of all DEI pedagogy, ‘anti-racism’ and ‘anti-oppression’ pedagogy and intervention materials have seen widespread adoption across sectors like higher education and healthcare,” says the report. The Network Contagion Research Institute study surveyed reactions to three characteristics: race, religion, and caste. For race, it used writings from Kendi, DiAngelo, and others of their ilk. For religion, it subjected those under study to “content from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, commonly used in sensitivity training on Islamophobia.” For caste, it featured writings from Equality Labs, a North American group that provides training on caste discrimination among people with origins in South Asia. “Rhetoric from these materials was excerpted and administered in psychological surveys measuring explicit bias, social distancing, demonization, and authoritarian tendencies. Participants were randomly assigned to review these materials or neutral control material,” said the report’s writers of the methodology they used. Here’s how it worked in the racial group scenario: While one group was given passages by Kendi and DiAngelo, the texts given to the control group had to do with corn production. After reading the texts, both groups were asked to evaluate this racially neutral scenario: A student applied to an elite East Coast university in Fall 2024. During the application process, he was interviewed by an admissions officer. Ultimately, the student’s application was rejected. The participants in the experiments were given questions designed to see how much they perceived racial bias, but the questions themselves were neutral and avoided “any mention of either the student’s or admission officer’s race or ethnicity and provides no evidence of racism. Thus, if they perceive racism in the interaction, they are introducing something that is objectively absent.” Surprise, surprise, those subjects of the experiment that read Kendi and DiAngelo “developed a hostile attribution bias.” “They perceived the admissions officer as significantly more prejudiced than did those who read the neutral corn essay. Specifically, participants exposed to the anti-racist rhetoric perceived more discrimination from the admissions officer (~21%), despite the complete absence of evidence of discrimination. They believed the admissions officer was more unfair to the applicant (~12%), had caused more harm to the applicant (~26%), and had committed more microaggressions (~35%),” says the report. The Kendi/DiAngelo readers also turned more punitive: “Compared to controls who read about corn, respondents who read the Kendi/DiAngelo intervention were 12% more willing to support suspending the admissions officer for a semester, 16% more willing to demand a public apology to the applicant, and 12% more willing to require additional DEI training to correct the officer.” The same results were obtained in the religious group, where those who read the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding material looked for Islamophobia everywhere, and in the group that was tested on caste-based discrimination among Hindu Americans by reading material from Equality Labs. In that case, the control groups read dry academic texts from professors at Cambridge, Berkeley, etc. The Equality Labs material was thick with the language of activism: “Shudras and Dalits are caste-oppressed; they experience profound injustices, including socioeconomic hardship and brutal violence at the hands of the upper castes. Dalits live in segregated ghettos, are banned from temples, and are denied access to schools and public amenities. The 2,500-year-old caste system is enforced by violence and maintained by one of the world’s oldest, most persistent cultures.” The passage they were asked to analyze was completely bereft of any mention of oppression. However: “Raj Kumar applied to an elite East Coast university in Fall 2022. During the application process, he was interviewed by an admissions officer, Anand Prakash. Ultimately, Raj’s application was rejected.” Those who read the Equality Labs material again had a much higher perception of microaggression, harm, and bias. Not only that, the caste-study group read a passage from Hitler where the word “Jew” was substituted with “Brahmin” (the upper caste in Hinduism). “Participants exposed to the DEI content were markedly more likely to endorse Hitler’s demonization statements, agreeing that Brahmins are ‘parasites’ (+35.4%), ‘viruses’ (+33.8%), and ‘the devil personified’ (+27.1%),” says the report, adding that, “These findings suggest that exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism.” Sadly, this is precisely what we have seen happen in America in the past decade—a process that has accelerated in the past four years. Our society has turned meaner and more willing to inflict pain and punishment on those perceived to be oppressors. Something else has happened: media complicity. National Review reported that the Network Contagion Research Institute study “was set to be covered by Bloomberg and the New York Times, although both publications axed their articles just before publication, according to communications reviewed by National Review.” “Unfortunately, both publications jumped on the story enthusiastically only for it to be inexplicably pulled at the highest editorial levels,” a Network Contagion Research Institute researcher told the outlet. “This has never happened to the NCRI in its 5-year history.” This is the state of affairs that the American voter has asked President-elect Donald Trump to fix. Here’s hoping he can. Originally published by The Washington Examiner. The post DEI Has Made America Meaner appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Australia is gearing up to roll out some of the world’s strictest social media rules, with Parliament having pushed through legislation to bar anyone under 16 from creating accounts on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. It’s a sweeping measure but, as the ink dries, the questions are piling up. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government and the opposition teamed up on Thursday to pass the new restrictions with bipartisan enthusiasm. And why not? Opinion polls show a whopping 77% of Australians are behind the idea. Protecting kids online is an easy sell which is why it’s often used to usher in the most draconian of laws. Still, the devil—as always—is in the details. Proof of Age, But at What Cost? Everyone will have to verify their ID to use social media. Here’s the crux of the new law: to use social media, Australians will need to prove they’re old enough. That means showing ID, effectively ending the anonymity that’s long been a feature (or flaw, depending on your perspective) of the online experience. In theory, this makes sense—keeping kids out of online spaces designed for adults is hardly controversial. But in practice, it’s like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. For one, there’s no clear blueprint for how this will work. Will social media platforms require passports and birth certificates at sign-up? Who’s going to handle and secure this flood of personal information? The government hasn’t offered much clarity and, until it does, the logistics look shaky. And then there’s the matter of enforcement. Teenagers are famously tech-savvy, and history has shown that banning them from a platform is more of a speed bump than a roadblock. With VPNs, fake IDs, and alternate accounts already standard fare for navigating internet restrictions, how effective can this law really be? The Hasty Debate Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese Critics on both sides of Parliament flagged concerns about the speed with which this legislation moved forward. But the Albanese government pressed ahead, arguing that urgent action was needed to protect young people. Their opponents in the Liberal-National coalition, not wanting to appear soft on tech regulation, fell in line. The result? A law that feels more like a political statement than a well-thought-out policy. There’s no denying the appeal of bold action on Big Tech. Headlines about online predators and harmful content make it easy to rally public support. But there’s a fine line between decisive governance and reactionary policymaking. Big Questions, Few Answers The most glaring issue is privacy. Forcing users to hand over ID to access social media opens up a Pandora’s box of security concerns. Centralizing sensitive personal data creates a tempting target for hackers, and Australia’s track record with large-scale data breaches isn’t exactly reassuring. There’s also the question of what happens when kids inevitably find workarounds. Locking them out of mainstream platforms doesn’t mean they’ll stop using the internet—it just pushes them into less regulated, potentially more harmful digital spaces. Is that really a win for online safety? A Global Watch Party Australia’s bold move is already drawing attention from abroad. Governments worldwide are grappling with how to regulate social media, and this legislation could set a precedent. But whether it becomes a model for others or a cautionary tale remains to be seen. For now, the Albanese government has delivered a strong message: protecting children online is a priority. But the lack of clear answers about enforcement and privacy leaves the impression that this is a solution in search of a strategy. All on the Platforms Under the new social media law, the responsibility for enforcement doesn’t rest with the government, but with the very companies it targets. Platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram will be tasked with ensuring no Australian under 16 manages to slip through the digital gates. If they fail? They’ll face fines of up to A$50 million (about $32.4 million USD). That’s a steep price for failing to solve a problem the government itself hasn’t figured out how to address. The legislation offers little in the way of specifics, leaving tech giants to essentially guess how they’re supposed to pull off this feat. The law vaguely mentions taking “reasonable steps” to verify age but skips the critical part: defining what “reasonable” means. The Industry Pushback Tech companies, predictably, are not thrilled. Meta, in its submission to a Senate inquiry, called the law “rushed” and out of touch with the current limitations of age-verification technology. “The social media ban overlooks the practical reality of age assurance technology,” Meta argued. Translation? The tools to make this work either don’t exist or aren’t reliable enough to enforce at scale. X didn’t hold back either. The platform warned of potential misuse of the sweeping powers the legislation grants to the minister for communications. X CEO Linda Yaccarino’s team even raised concerns that these powers could be used to curb free speech — another way of saying that regulating who gets to log on could quickly evolve into regulating what they’re allowed to say. And it’s not just the tech companies pushing back. The Human Rights Law Centre questioned the lawfulness of the bill, highlighting how it opens the door to intrusive data collection while offering no safeguards against abuse. Promises, Assurances, and Ambiguities The government insists it won’t force people to hand over passports, licenses, or tap into the contentious new digital ID system to prove their age. But here’s the catch: there’s nothing in the current law explicitly preventing that, either. The government is effectively asking Australians to trust that these measures won’t lead to broader surveillance—even as the legislation creates the infrastructure to make it possible. This uncertainty was laid bare during the bill’s rushed four-hour review. Liberal National Senator Matt Canavan pressed for clarity, and while the Coalition managed to extract a promise for amendments preventing platforms from demanding IDs outright, it still feels like a band-aid on an otherwise sprawling mess. A Law in Search of a Strategy Part of the problem is that the government itself doesn’t seem entirely sure how this law will work. A trial of age-assurance technology is planned for mid-2025—long after the law is expected to take effect. The communications minister, Michelle Rowland, will ultimately decide what enforcement methods apply to which platforms, wielding what critics describe as “expansive” and potentially unchecked authority. It’s a power dynamic that brings to mind a comment from Rowland’s predecessor, Stephen Conroy, who once bragged about his ability to make telecommunications companies “wear red underpants on [their] head” if he so desired. Tech companies now face the unenviable task of interpreting a vague law while bracing for whatever decisions the minister might make in the future. The list of platforms affected by the law is another moving target. Government officials have dropped hints in interviews—YouTube, for example, might not make the cut—but these decisions will ultimately be left to the minister. This pick-and-choose approach adds another layer of uncertainty, leaving tech companies and users alike guessing at what’s coming next. The Bigger Picture The debate around this legislation is as much about philosophy as it is about enforcement. On one hand, the government is trying to address legitimate concerns about children’s safety online. On the other, it’s doing so in a way that raises serious questions about privacy, free speech, and the limits of state power over the digital realm. Australia’s experiment could become a model for other countries grappling with the same challenges—or a cautionary tale of what happens when governments legislate without a clear plan. For now, the only certainty is uncertainty. In a year’s time, Australians might find themselves proving their age every time they try to log in—or watching the system collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The End of Online Anonymity? Australia’s New Law Pushes Digital ID for Everyone To Ban Kids From Social Media appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

It’s been a big year for ARPGs, with Diablo 4 Vessel of Hatred and the 1.0 launch of Last Epoch both turning out excellently, and Path of Exile 2 early access looking seriously promising as it comes around the corner. If you’re eager to fill the space until then, however, Dwarven Realms Season 2 might be just the thing to do it. Created by two-person indie team Crater Studios, it offers a simple but pleasingly intricate set of systems, making it a perfect option to fill that space in your calendar, and its new update adds more items and skills while further expanding the endgame. Continue reading Indie Diablo rival Dwarven Realms adds new endgame as season two begins MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best roguelikes, Best games like Diablo, Best indie games

There’s nothing quite like the precision of mechanical key switches actuating beneath your fingertips, and this Black Friday gaming keyboard deal enables you to join the mechanical keyboard club for just $49.99. If you’re still persevering with a budget membrane keyboard, and you’ve been waiting for the right price, then now is the time to make the (ahem) switch with this Corsair K70 Core RGB offer. You can already get an idea of the quality of this Corsair keyboard from the fact that it has 211 five-star reviews (out of 290) on Best Buy, but we can also bolster this with our Corsair K70 Core RGB review, where we described it as “a brilliant entry-level gaming keyboard,” thanks to its sturdy build quality with its aluminum top plate, as well as its surprisingly quiet operation. We thought it offered decent value at its usual price of $99.99, so it’s a genuine bargain at $49.99. Continue reading This $49.99 Corsair K70 Core RGB mechanical gaming keyboard deal is a steal MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Corsair HS80 Max headset review, Corsair M75 Air mouse review, Best gaming keyboard

Andy Ngô DROPS Tim Kaine for Trying to Get in Elon Musk's FACE Over Traitor Alexander Vindman and DAMN

FBI Statement re: Trump's Patel Pick Drowned Out by Chorus of Whoops From Several Former Agents

President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday said Lebanese American businessman Massad Boulos would serve as senior adviser on Arab and Middle Eastern affairs.He made the announcement on Truth Social. Boulos, the father-in-law of Trump's daughter Tiffany, met repeatedly with Arab...

The Biden administration's lawsuits and regulatory actions against Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are likely to be withdrawn under President-elect Donald Trump's administration, as he had made it a campaign priority to make American a global leader in digital...