Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
September 9, 2021
Label:
Nutrons Records – BS-001
Format:
Vinyl, 12", 45 RPM, EP
Country:
US
Released:
1982
Genre:
Rock
Style:
Hardcore, Punk
Battalion of Saints - Fighting Boys EP
Label:
Nutrons Records – BS-001
Format:
Vinyl, 12", 45 RPM, EP
Country:
US
Released:
1982
Genre:
Rock
Style:
Hardcore, Punk
September 9, 2021
https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1435787351704305666
Gavin Newsom @GavinNewsom Listen to @AOC - grab your ballot. Vote NO. And mail it by September 14
There’s too much on the line. Make sure your voice is heard!!https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1435787351704305666
September 9, 2021
https://twitter.com/KempoJesse/status/1435579799364415492
https://twitter.com/Rjaellis/status/1435403858470047748
The emergence of police officers as one of the most strongly anti-vax mandate groups in the country
is *something* to behold.https://twitter.com/KempoJesse/status/1435579799364415492
https://twitter.com/Rjaellis/status/1435403858470047748
September 8, 2021
https://husohem.se/artiklar/20210809/5-stora-sovrumstrender-hosten-2021/
1. Warm earthy shades
The warm and earthy shades continue to warm us this season as well. The palette, which is mainly seen on bed sets, pillows, rugs and bedspreads, is often matched with wood, gray and decorative details or lighting in brass.
2. Soothing blue scale
Classic - but at least as trendy. In the autumn of 2021, the blue color scale will once again take place in our bedrooms. Either you choose well-selected details and textiles in the beautiful color or you let it take on walls and furniture.
3. Tactile surfaces
We want bedroom furnishings that are as comfortable to look at as to touch, and this season we are not getting enough of headboards with soft rounds, ribbed bedspreads and tactile carpets.
4. Wood details
We continue to be inspired by nature and wood as a material is becoming increasingly important - not least in our bedrooms. This season, no kind of wood feels wrong, but in the bedroom there is a little extra craze for darker wood and rattan.
snip
5 major Swedish bedroom trends in the fall of 2021
Soft headboards, warm shades, blue accents and wooden details. Let the bedroom be a cozy and cozy oasis this fall! We suggest 5 great trends to be inspired by.https://husohem.se/artiklar/20210809/5-stora-sovrumstrender-hosten-2021/
1. Warm earthy shades
The warm and earthy shades continue to warm us this season as well. The palette, which is mainly seen on bed sets, pillows, rugs and bedspreads, is often matched with wood, gray and decorative details or lighting in brass.
2. Soothing blue scale
Classic - but at least as trendy. In the autumn of 2021, the blue color scale will once again take place in our bedrooms. Either you choose well-selected details and textiles in the beautiful color or you let it take on walls and furniture.
3. Tactile surfaces
We want bedroom furnishings that are as comfortable to look at as to touch, and this season we are not getting enough of headboards with soft rounds, ribbed bedspreads and tactile carpets.
4. Wood details
We continue to be inspired by nature and wood as a material is becoming increasingly important - not least in our bedrooms. This season, no kind of wood feels wrong, but in the bedroom there is a little extra craze for darker wood and rattan.
snip
September 8, 2021
Emma Raducanu has made history as the youngest British player to reach the quarter finals of the US Open. Olivia Marks meets the 18 year-old tennis star who’s captured the nation’s hearts and imagination.
https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/emma-raducanu-interview
Swoosh! Emma Raducanu’s tennis racket slices through the air to the approving coos of spectators, as dust rises from where her feet have gracefully landed on the ground. From underneath her cap, she stares straight ahead, focused, serious. Then the camera clicks and the 18-year-old from Kent breaks into a wide, toothy grin. Raducanu—the young tennis star who, this summer, appeared as if from nowhere to become the nation’s most exciting player in a decade—is in a north London studio being photographed for British Vogue, offering the assorted collection of delighted onlookers (stylist, make-up artist, assistants) a tiny snapshot of the talent that helped make her the first debuting British woman in 42 years to get to the fourth round of Wimbledon.
Whirlwind doesn’t adequately describe the life-changing days that the teenager experienced on the fabled grass courts, which saw a wild card—then ranked world number 338, she is, at the time of writing, 184—take on three of the world’s top players (Vitalia Diatchenko, Sorana Cîrstea, Markéta Vondroušová) and eviscerate each one. Then, five days after her first match, when she was the only Briton left in the singles, Raducanu’s tournament ended as dramatically as it began, when she had to bow out of her match against Ajla Tomljanovic halfway through the second set, after she started experiencing difficulties with her breathing. It was a crushing disappointment for Raducanu and her new legion of fans. But no matter: she had already claimed the hearts of the British public, arguably the hardest-to-win prize of all.
“At one point mid-game, I just let my racket go because I just didn’t believe I made that shot,” she says two weeks later, shaking her head, still in disbelief. Throughout the tournament, her sheer, unabashed enjoyment of the game was, she believes, “genuinely shining through,” which is one of the reasons she thinks she got the public on side so quickly—“and also the fact that I feel I relate to the younger audience, you know, who are still in school.” Until a few months ago, Raducanu was too. She’s still awaiting her A-level results when we meet, and the night before her Vogue shoot, she was dressed up to the nines on a golf course in Orpington at her school prom (she attended a nearby grammar, the same, coincidentally, as another of Britain’s superstar athletes, Dina Asher-Smith) surrounded by her proud, gobsmacked classmates. To them, Raducanu laughs, she is still the “kid from year seven,” the “quiet one who didn’t really raise her hand.”
Trying to reconcile the young woman in front of me leaping through the air in an Alexander McQueen gown – the same one that I watched whip up the crowd on Centre Court, enjoying shouts of “It’s coming home, Emma!”– with the image that she paints of herself as the shy schoolgirl, is nigh on impossible. “I think the confidence comes from just inner belief,” Raducanu says, tucking into a lunch of tuna and salad in a break between photos. “My mum comes from a Chinese background, they have very good self-belief. It’s not necessarily about telling everyone how good you are, but it’s about believing it within yourself. I really respect that about the culture.”
snip
Meet Emma Raducanu, the British Teen Taking Tennis By Storm
“If You Have Inner Strength, You Can Achieve Whatever You Want”: Vogue Meets Emma Raducanu, The British Teen Taking Tennis By StormEmma Raducanu has made history as the youngest British player to reach the quarter finals of the US Open. Olivia Marks meets the 18 year-old tennis star who’s captured the nation’s hearts and imagination.
https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/emma-raducanu-interview
Swoosh! Emma Raducanu’s tennis racket slices through the air to the approving coos of spectators, as dust rises from where her feet have gracefully landed on the ground. From underneath her cap, she stares straight ahead, focused, serious. Then the camera clicks and the 18-year-old from Kent breaks into a wide, toothy grin. Raducanu—the young tennis star who, this summer, appeared as if from nowhere to become the nation’s most exciting player in a decade—is in a north London studio being photographed for British Vogue, offering the assorted collection of delighted onlookers (stylist, make-up artist, assistants) a tiny snapshot of the talent that helped make her the first debuting British woman in 42 years to get to the fourth round of Wimbledon.
Whirlwind doesn’t adequately describe the life-changing days that the teenager experienced on the fabled grass courts, which saw a wild card—then ranked world number 338, she is, at the time of writing, 184—take on three of the world’s top players (Vitalia Diatchenko, Sorana Cîrstea, Markéta Vondroušová) and eviscerate each one. Then, five days after her first match, when she was the only Briton left in the singles, Raducanu’s tournament ended as dramatically as it began, when she had to bow out of her match against Ajla Tomljanovic halfway through the second set, after she started experiencing difficulties with her breathing. It was a crushing disappointment for Raducanu and her new legion of fans. But no matter: she had already claimed the hearts of the British public, arguably the hardest-to-win prize of all.
“At one point mid-game, I just let my racket go because I just didn’t believe I made that shot,” she says two weeks later, shaking her head, still in disbelief. Throughout the tournament, her sheer, unabashed enjoyment of the game was, she believes, “genuinely shining through,” which is one of the reasons she thinks she got the public on side so quickly—“and also the fact that I feel I relate to the younger audience, you know, who are still in school.” Until a few months ago, Raducanu was too. She’s still awaiting her A-level results when we meet, and the night before her Vogue shoot, she was dressed up to the nines on a golf course in Orpington at her school prom (she attended a nearby grammar, the same, coincidentally, as another of Britain’s superstar athletes, Dina Asher-Smith) surrounded by her proud, gobsmacked classmates. To them, Raducanu laughs, she is still the “kid from year seven,” the “quiet one who didn’t really raise her hand.”
Trying to reconcile the young woman in front of me leaping through the air in an Alexander McQueen gown – the same one that I watched whip up the crowd on Centre Court, enjoying shouts of “It’s coming home, Emma!”– with the image that she paints of herself as the shy schoolgirl, is nigh on impossible. “I think the confidence comes from just inner belief,” Raducanu says, tucking into a lunch of tuna and salad in a break between photos. “My mum comes from a Chinese background, they have very good self-belief. It’s not necessarily about telling everyone how good you are, but it’s about believing it within yourself. I really respect that about the culture.”
snip
September 7, 2021
MEXICO CITY, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Mexico's Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday that penalizing abortion is unconstitutional, a major victory for advocates of women's health and human rights, just as parts of the United States enact tougher laws against the practice.
The court ruling in the majority Roman Catholic nation follows moves to decriminalize abortion at state level, although most of the country still has tough laws in place against women terminating their pregnancy early. "This is a historic step for the rights of women," said Supreme Court Justice Luis Maria Aguilar.
A number of U.S. states have recently taken steps to restrict women's access to abortion, particularly Texas, which last week enacted the strictest anti-abortion law in the country after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. read more
The Mexican ruling opens the door to the possibility for the release of women incarcerated for having had abortions. It could also lead to U.S. women in states such as Texas deciding to travel south of the border to terminate their pregnancies. In July, the state of Veracruz became just the fourth of Mexico's 32 regions to decriminalize abortion.
snip
Mexican Supreme Court decriminalizes abortion in historic shift
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexico-supreme-court-rules-criminalizing-abortion-is-unconstitutional-2021-09-07/MEXICO CITY, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Mexico's Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday that penalizing abortion is unconstitutional, a major victory for advocates of women's health and human rights, just as parts of the United States enact tougher laws against the practice.
The court ruling in the majority Roman Catholic nation follows moves to decriminalize abortion at state level, although most of the country still has tough laws in place against women terminating their pregnancy early. "This is a historic step for the rights of women," said Supreme Court Justice Luis Maria Aguilar.
A number of U.S. states have recently taken steps to restrict women's access to abortion, particularly Texas, which last week enacted the strictest anti-abortion law in the country after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. read more
The Mexican ruling opens the door to the possibility for the release of women incarcerated for having had abortions. It could also lead to U.S. women in states such as Texas deciding to travel south of the border to terminate their pregnancies. In July, the state of Veracruz became just the fourth of Mexico's 32 regions to decriminalize abortion.
snip
September 7, 2021
https://thebanter.substack.com/p/the-texas-abortion-law-is-a-blueprint
If you are not angry about the Texas abortion law, you should be. If you’re not furious at the Republican extremists on the Supreme Court for allowing it to go into effect, you should be. If you’re not absolutely terrified about the larger ramifications of the type of law used to strip women of their constitutional rights, you, like most of the press, do not understand how depraved the Republican Party is. This bounty hunter law, if allowed to stand, will allow Republicans to reshape America in their image in every conceivable detail. If this law becomes normalized, it will become the blueprint for Republican tyranny. This is no more an exaggeration than Hillary Clinton’s warning that Trump would appoint enough extremists to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Law Gives The Judiciary Ultimate Power By Taking It Away
Vox has a very detailed explanation of how this law works which is worth reading in full, but the basics are as follows. The federal and state governments have something called “sovereign immunity”. This means the public cannot sue them unless they allow us to. There are caveats though, and this immunity is not absolute. We can sue the people in the government who enforce the law. Not Jane or John Doe the government employee personally, but their agency/office/position. We sue the Attorney General or the DMV or the IRS. Thus, laws passed by the legislative branch (federal or state) are subject to review by the judiciary to see if they are constitutional before they go into effect. The Texas law “gets around” this by handing off enforcement to anyone except a government employee (in this case, a Texas state government employee because it’s a Texas state law). If no one in the government is enforcing the law, the legal theory goes, there is no one to sue in order for the courts to rule on its constitutionality.
The law can still be challenged when the bounty hunter lawsuits are filed but a single person or organization can be hit with an unlimited number of lawsuits given anyone can sue them. They’ll have to fight every single case and if they lose even once, they can be ordered to pay anything from $10,000 (the minimum) up to Jeff Bezo’s annual earnings if the judge is one of the hundreds of anti-abortion extremists Republicans have placed on the bench. Even if the defendant wins them all, the cost of the multiple lawsuits will be astronomical. Which is precisely the point. You don’t dare risk it so the constitutionally protected medical procedure of abortion becomes a fugitive act that can destroy your life if you are caught. And the courts are powerless to stop it. The law allegedly takes away the power of the courts to review an unconstitutional law before it’s enacted. How, then, is it giving them ultimate power? It seems quite clear that the Republicans on the Supreme Court are more than ready to let this law stand as “constitutional” if it manages to reach them through the normal process of litigation. What comes next is a dark path to real tyranny.
Picking And Choosing (Republican) Winners
During the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, Republicans discovered that without a massive national tragedy, passing their legislative agenda beyond tax cuts was almost impossible. They could launch wars based on lies, unconstitutionally spy on Americans, and illegally torture people but they couldn’t privatize Social Security, a longtime Republican goal. During Trump’s tenure, they passed more tax cuts but couldn’t repeal the Affordable Care Act. At least Social Security had been in place for decades and enjoyed the benefit of incumbency, so to speak. The ACA was barely a decade old and Republicans slammed into a brick wall. Legislating is hard. Having extremist judges strike down laws and rewrite the legal code, on the other hand, is really easy. That is what Republicans have been working on for decades now. With a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and 5 wild radicals as Justices, it is time to reshape the country. That is where the Texas law comes in. By allowing this law to ban a constitutionally protected right and pretending the law itself is “out of their hands”, the extremists on the Court have cleared the way for Republicans to ban anything they want. Remember, the right is not truly defined by the things they want to do. They are defined by the things they want to take away from others. Should this law stand and be normalized, there is nothing to stop Republicans from expanding it to outlaw every form of contraceptive, another longtime goal of theirs.
After that, the sky is the limit. How many teachers will risk a $10,000 lawsuit for teaching evolution in the classroom? How many will risk it by saying the Civil War was fought over slavery? Hey, that gay couple over there are holding hands in public. That’s a $10,000 lawsuit. Black Lives Matter protesters are gathering to complain about police brutality? Get their names. A $10,000 lawsuit for each. Hey, look over there! Those people are registering Blacks and Latinos to vote! $10,000 lawsuit for you, you, and you! If this sounds implausible to you, I would ask you why. Is it because people wouldn’t stand for it? Or that Republicans would never go that far? Republicans have passed laws to make it legal to run over BLM protesters. They have passed laws to make it all but illegal to register voters. They have never stopped waging a war on LGBTQ rights. Republicans attempted to overthrow the government just eight months ago. Exactly where do you think the line is for Republicans? Let me assure you: they do not have one. Once this kind of law is incorporated into our legal system, Republicans will use it to ban everything they loathe. They will use the courts to win the culture wars they always lose. Lest you look for the silver lining that Democrats can use this scheme to ban things like guns and voter suppression, this is where the full extent of the judicial tyranny comes into view.
snip
The Texas Abortion Law Is A Blueprint For Republican Tyranny
This bounty hunter law, if allowed to stand, will allow Republicans to reshape America in their image in every conceivable detail.https://thebanter.substack.com/p/the-texas-abortion-law-is-a-blueprint
If you are not angry about the Texas abortion law, you should be. If you’re not furious at the Republican extremists on the Supreme Court for allowing it to go into effect, you should be. If you’re not absolutely terrified about the larger ramifications of the type of law used to strip women of their constitutional rights, you, like most of the press, do not understand how depraved the Republican Party is. This bounty hunter law, if allowed to stand, will allow Republicans to reshape America in their image in every conceivable detail. If this law becomes normalized, it will become the blueprint for Republican tyranny. This is no more an exaggeration than Hillary Clinton’s warning that Trump would appoint enough extremists to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Law Gives The Judiciary Ultimate Power By Taking It Away
Vox has a very detailed explanation of how this law works which is worth reading in full, but the basics are as follows. The federal and state governments have something called “sovereign immunity”. This means the public cannot sue them unless they allow us to. There are caveats though, and this immunity is not absolute. We can sue the people in the government who enforce the law. Not Jane or John Doe the government employee personally, but their agency/office/position. We sue the Attorney General or the DMV or the IRS. Thus, laws passed by the legislative branch (federal or state) are subject to review by the judiciary to see if they are constitutional before they go into effect. The Texas law “gets around” this by handing off enforcement to anyone except a government employee (in this case, a Texas state government employee because it’s a Texas state law). If no one in the government is enforcing the law, the legal theory goes, there is no one to sue in order for the courts to rule on its constitutionality.
The law can still be challenged when the bounty hunter lawsuits are filed but a single person or organization can be hit with an unlimited number of lawsuits given anyone can sue them. They’ll have to fight every single case and if they lose even once, they can be ordered to pay anything from $10,000 (the minimum) up to Jeff Bezo’s annual earnings if the judge is one of the hundreds of anti-abortion extremists Republicans have placed on the bench. Even if the defendant wins them all, the cost of the multiple lawsuits will be astronomical. Which is precisely the point. You don’t dare risk it so the constitutionally protected medical procedure of abortion becomes a fugitive act that can destroy your life if you are caught. And the courts are powerless to stop it. The law allegedly takes away the power of the courts to review an unconstitutional law before it’s enacted. How, then, is it giving them ultimate power? It seems quite clear that the Republicans on the Supreme Court are more than ready to let this law stand as “constitutional” if it manages to reach them through the normal process of litigation. What comes next is a dark path to real tyranny.
Picking And Choosing (Republican) Winners
During the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, Republicans discovered that without a massive national tragedy, passing their legislative agenda beyond tax cuts was almost impossible. They could launch wars based on lies, unconstitutionally spy on Americans, and illegally torture people but they couldn’t privatize Social Security, a longtime Republican goal. During Trump’s tenure, they passed more tax cuts but couldn’t repeal the Affordable Care Act. At least Social Security had been in place for decades and enjoyed the benefit of incumbency, so to speak. The ACA was barely a decade old and Republicans slammed into a brick wall. Legislating is hard. Having extremist judges strike down laws and rewrite the legal code, on the other hand, is really easy. That is what Republicans have been working on for decades now. With a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and 5 wild radicals as Justices, it is time to reshape the country. That is where the Texas law comes in. By allowing this law to ban a constitutionally protected right and pretending the law itself is “out of their hands”, the extremists on the Court have cleared the way for Republicans to ban anything they want. Remember, the right is not truly defined by the things they want to do. They are defined by the things they want to take away from others. Should this law stand and be normalized, there is nothing to stop Republicans from expanding it to outlaw every form of contraceptive, another longtime goal of theirs.
After that, the sky is the limit. How many teachers will risk a $10,000 lawsuit for teaching evolution in the classroom? How many will risk it by saying the Civil War was fought over slavery? Hey, that gay couple over there are holding hands in public. That’s a $10,000 lawsuit. Black Lives Matter protesters are gathering to complain about police brutality? Get their names. A $10,000 lawsuit for each. Hey, look over there! Those people are registering Blacks and Latinos to vote! $10,000 lawsuit for you, you, and you! If this sounds implausible to you, I would ask you why. Is it because people wouldn’t stand for it? Or that Republicans would never go that far? Republicans have passed laws to make it legal to run over BLM protesters. They have passed laws to make it all but illegal to register voters. They have never stopped waging a war on LGBTQ rights. Republicans attempted to overthrow the government just eight months ago. Exactly where do you think the line is for Republicans? Let me assure you: they do not have one. Once this kind of law is incorporated into our legal system, Republicans will use it to ban everything they loathe. They will use the courts to win the culture wars they always lose. Lest you look for the silver lining that Democrats can use this scheme to ban things like guns and voter suppression, this is where the full extent of the judicial tyranny comes into view.
snip
September 7, 2021
Occupy Democrats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Democrats
Occupy Democrats is a United States-based, left-wing media outlet built around a Facebook Group and corresponding website. Established in 2012, it publishes false information, hyperpartisan content, and clickbait. Posts originating from the Occupy Democrats Facebook Group are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.
Accuracy
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/occupy-democrats/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/occupy-democrats/
Wikipedia bans Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, and InfoWars as fact sources
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/latest-links/wikipedia-bans-breitbart-occupy-democrats-fact-sources/
Samantha Cole writes: “Wikipedia editors voted to ban Breitbart as a source of fact in its articles. The consensus, reached late in September, agreed that the outlet ‘should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability.’
Wikipedia editors also decided that InfoWars is a ‘conspiracy theorist and fake news website,’ and that the ‘use of InfoWars as a reference should be generally prohibited.’ Wikipedia editors held a similar vote for Occupy Democrats, a progressive website.”
Occupy Democrats is not a valid site to be posting material from, including their tweets. OD pushes
fake news, false CT and wild rumour-mongering. I makes DU look bad having their often dodgy AF shite tossed up here.Occupy Democrats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Democrats
Occupy Democrats is a United States-based, left-wing media outlet built around a Facebook Group and corresponding website. Established in 2012, it publishes false information, hyperpartisan content, and clickbait. Posts originating from the Occupy Democrats Facebook Group are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.
Accuracy
Evaluation by academia
The Asan Institute for Policy Studies has said that Occupy Democrats "share[s] both real and fake news ... further blurring the line between fact and fiction". According to the University of Iowa library, Occupy Democrats "has been known to show misleading, fake, or exaggerated partisan content". The Valencia College library includes Occupy Democrats on a list of sources that "cannot usually be accepted at face value and need further verification from other sources to determine if information is credible". In a 2017 poster session developed by the library staff of the University of California at Merced, Occupy Democrats was rated "questionable" for its factual reporting and was noted for not having "a very good fact check record".
Evaluation by media
Occupy Democrats has repeatedly been caught by fact-checking websites for posting "exaggerated or invented news stories." Brooke Binkowski, a managing editor at Snopes, commented that Occupy Democrats' headlines were often "extremely misleading." According to The Atlantic, Occupy Democrats' posts are "studded with straightforwardly fake news". The Los Angeles Weekly reports that its posts are "free from the constraints of objectivity and, in some cases, facts". A 2016 BuzzFeed News analysis found it was "the least accurate left-wing page" of several Facebook pages it reviewed and cited one instance where it published a satirical story as fact. In the run-up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, The New York Times reported that Occupy Democrats "twisted facts to push a critical narrative about Republicans".
In 2017, PolitiFact included Occupy Democrats in its list of fake news websites. In 2017 however, PolitiFact removed Occupy Democrats from its list of fake news sites and, according to the Miami New Times, "admitted Occupy Democrats should never have been on the list in the first place." As of December 2020, PolitiFact classified 62% of 16 posts shared by Occupy Democrats it had evaluated as "not accurate". A further 31% it considered "half-true". In 2021, a post shared by Occupy Democrats claimed Nikki Haley had changed her first name to sound more "white" in order to further her political career. A fact check column by USA Today reported that Nikki was her legal middle name, she had used it as a given name since childhood, and that it was of ethnic Punjabi origin. The same year, Snopes rated "False" a claim by Occupy Democrats that "Republican Congress members had abjectly failed to applaud Biden’s stated goal of drastically reducing the rate of child poverty in the United States" during that year's State of the Union address.
Popular perception
In a 2017 survey among US readers, Occupy Democrats was voted the "least trusted news source" among American readers, just below Breitbart News and BuzzFeed. In September 2018, the English Wikipedia deprecated Occupy Democrats as a source of fact due to its unreliability. In an October 2018 Simmons Research survey of 38 news organizations, Occupy Democrats was ranked the third least trusted news organization by Americans, with InfoWars and The Daily Caller being lower-ranked.
The Asan Institute for Policy Studies has said that Occupy Democrats "share[s] both real and fake news ... further blurring the line between fact and fiction". According to the University of Iowa library, Occupy Democrats "has been known to show misleading, fake, or exaggerated partisan content". The Valencia College library includes Occupy Democrats on a list of sources that "cannot usually be accepted at face value and need further verification from other sources to determine if information is credible". In a 2017 poster session developed by the library staff of the University of California at Merced, Occupy Democrats was rated "questionable" for its factual reporting and was noted for not having "a very good fact check record".
Evaluation by media
Occupy Democrats has repeatedly been caught by fact-checking websites for posting "exaggerated or invented news stories." Brooke Binkowski, a managing editor at Snopes, commented that Occupy Democrats' headlines were often "extremely misleading." According to The Atlantic, Occupy Democrats' posts are "studded with straightforwardly fake news". The Los Angeles Weekly reports that its posts are "free from the constraints of objectivity and, in some cases, facts". A 2016 BuzzFeed News analysis found it was "the least accurate left-wing page" of several Facebook pages it reviewed and cited one instance where it published a satirical story as fact. In the run-up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, The New York Times reported that Occupy Democrats "twisted facts to push a critical narrative about Republicans".
In 2017, PolitiFact included Occupy Democrats in its list of fake news websites. In 2017 however, PolitiFact removed Occupy Democrats from its list of fake news sites and, according to the Miami New Times, "admitted Occupy Democrats should never have been on the list in the first place." As of December 2020, PolitiFact classified 62% of 16 posts shared by Occupy Democrats it had evaluated as "not accurate". A further 31% it considered "half-true". In 2021, a post shared by Occupy Democrats claimed Nikki Haley had changed her first name to sound more "white" in order to further her political career. A fact check column by USA Today reported that Nikki was her legal middle name, she had used it as a given name since childhood, and that it was of ethnic Punjabi origin. The same year, Snopes rated "False" a claim by Occupy Democrats that "Republican Congress members had abjectly failed to applaud Biden’s stated goal of drastically reducing the rate of child poverty in the United States" during that year's State of the Union address.
Popular perception
In a 2017 survey among US readers, Occupy Democrats was voted the "least trusted news source" among American readers, just below Breitbart News and BuzzFeed. In September 2018, the English Wikipedia deprecated Occupy Democrats as a source of fact due to its unreliability. In an October 2018 Simmons Research survey of 38 news organizations, Occupy Democrats was ranked the third least trusted news organization by Americans, with InfoWars and The Daily Caller being lower-ranked.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/occupy-democrats/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/occupy-democrats/
Wikipedia bans Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, and InfoWars as fact sources
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/latest-links/wikipedia-bans-breitbart-occupy-democrats-fact-sources/
Samantha Cole writes: “Wikipedia editors voted to ban Breitbart as a source of fact in its articles. The consensus, reached late in September, agreed that the outlet ‘should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability.’
Wikipedia editors also decided that InfoWars is a ‘conspiracy theorist and fake news website,’ and that the ‘use of InfoWars as a reference should be generally prohibited.’ Wikipedia editors held a similar vote for Occupy Democrats, a progressive website.”
September 7, 2021
https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/new-tv-shows-2021-premiere-date-schedule
snip
a tonne more at the top link
Every 2021 TV Show Premiere Date You Need to Know About
We hope you like always having something in your queue.https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/new-tv-shows-2021-premiere-date-schedule
In 2020, many people had more time than they expected to sit on their couches and watch countless hours of television. So far, 2021 hasn't been much different. The good news is that there's plenty of returning favourites and highly anticipated new shows to look forward to. Here are the upcoming 2021 TV series to put on your radar, and for even more things to watch in 2021, check out our annual summer preview and our lists of upcoming Netflix and HBO Max originals.
ALSO SEE: Our frequently updated list of the Best TV Shows of 2021
ALSO SEE: Our frequently updated list of the Best TV Shows of 2021
snip
a tonne more at the top link
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,581
