When I googled “ship breakers game” all I get are results for Hardspace: Shipbreakers. Are they the same thing?

I seem to recall food stores paying armed security to guard their trash. They spent money guarding trash with guns rather than letting someone survive that capitalism has deemed “unworthy”

I keep hearing that. Does anyone have a primary source for it?

DeJoy was appointed by the USPS board of governors, not Trump. He’s still in charge. You’ll notice that mail in voting worked and Trump lost, and also that even with a hideous bucket of fuck like DeJoy doing his best to cripple it in order to drive business to UPS and FedEx the USPS still delivers more places, faster and cheaper than all it’s competitors. USPS is strong. It should function as a mail service, an official part of the electoral system and it’s function as a bank should be restored. I wouldn’t be mad if it ended up running a significant backbone of the US internet as well.

Hey now, that’s not fair. We also got to see one of them take a global superpower and make it into a regional contender while the other took a space program that had been to the moon and turned it into a space program that can nearly reach orbit.

How much sugar did you add to bottle carb? I’ve found about 1 oz/gallon of table sugar hits just about right.

This. There’s clearly a filtering implementation in place locally as it’s clearing the blocked user’s comments from my inbox. They just reappear when I refresh. That filter method just needs to be called again on the local data and a list of blocked userIds stored locally.

In America, race and sexuality being irrelevant is a privilege of straight white men. When someone has done you violence because of who you are, you’ll spend every second of the rest of your life with who you are and how likely the people around you are to try to kill you over it in the forefront of your mind. When I, as a queer person, walk into a room I immediately sort everyone in the room into threats, allies, and people who will just stand off to the side because experience has taught me that if I don’t some people will beat the shit out of me and others will tell me that I deserve it for “being a f*g about things”. Ask your black friend, or your gay friend, or your woman friend. I guarantee you every one of them is more on guard than you because race, gender and sexual orientation will never be irrelevant to them.

This isn’t about forcing people to disclose their sexuality. “Why does he have to be gay?” Is almost always an effort to force people not to disclose their sexuality, but it’s only ever used when the sexuality being disclosed is non-straight. You have never seen and will never see any reaction at all to a straight cis male character simply using the phrase “my wife” but a cis female character doing exactly the same will elicit a backlash. They’ll dress it up as being against unnecessary sexualization, but the only sexualization that’s ever unnecessary is queer sexualization. Straight sexualization is never a problem.

The article, where they say the cops rammed him off the road, that he was shot in the back of the head and that the subsequent investigation found no weapons

I still only have ever heard “Tim shot Eric dead.” I’ve never seen it any other way except in this headlines.

I’d love to see an example of “I shot dead him”. I’m not trying to be defensive, I’d really enjoy seeing it. Dialects fascinate me.

But we absolutely see backlash of the type of “why does he have to be gay” in response to something as simple as two men holding hands, or other things that would never be seen as “making a point to mention someone’s sexuality” if that sexuality is straight. I’m generalizing away from this particular example and addressing the idea that anything that isn’t cishet is abnormal and requires justification.

Did they run out of monkeys?

I’d love to know what “recently linked to a firearms incident” actually means, especially given that it seems to have been flagged by an automated system and that “firearms incident” was seen as justification to ram a car off the road and then shoot the occupant in the back before any actual threat was verified.

It’s only a stupid judicial precedent if you assume the police are there to enforce the law and help people.

Okay but no one says “shot dead black man”. It would be “shot black man dead”.

Why are straight white people the only people who don’t need a plot justification to exist?

Imagine how difficult it is to try to tell people that you are, globally, the pre-eminent batman researcher…

The headline is technically grammatically correct but ambiguous. “…shot and killed unarmed black man” would have been better. If you absolutely need to stick to word/character count, “shot unarmed black man dead” would be less ambiguous and more in keeping with how people actually use “shot dead”. I’ve watched a lot of westerns and I can think of quite a few where someone says “I shot him dead” but not one where someone says “I shot dead him”.