That’s not even all the issues related to the location itself. The parcel that the City of Atlanta owns and is using for Cop City is adjacent to [what used to be] Intrenchment Creek Park, a Dekalb County park. By law, once land is a park, it’s supposed to remain so in perpetuity. Nevertheless, Dekalb County decided to make a “land swap” deal with a nearby movie studio to give them that land in exchange for some (less valuable) mostly-unbuildable flood plain on the other side of Bouldercrest Road. Consequences of that debacle include:

1. It set a very dangerous precedent; no greenspace in Dekalb County (or possibly the entire State of Georgia) can be considered as safely protected as it used to be.

2. The park was largely destroyed, bulldozed by people hired by the studio (compare 2017 to the latest imagery)

3. One of the protestors occupying that park was murdered by police. That’s the first time in the United States that an environmental activist has been killed by police, by the way.

It’s small potatoes compared to the above, but it also gratuitously cut off access to the South River Trail from Bouldercrest Road even though the connection barely touches the disputed site (compare 2014 to the latest imagery), which as a cyclist I’m particularly salty about.

I’m kinda local and know some stuff about the situation (being vague to try not to completely doxx myself); AMA!

One shitty aspect of Cop City that the article barely mentions (which is fair, given that it’s aimed at a wider audience) is the abuse associated with the choice of location itself. It is being built on the site of the old Atlanta Prison Farm, which, much like the Chattahoochee Brick Company on the other side of town, is historically significant as a site of post-civil-war reenslavement of black people (watch this video on “neoslavery” to understand how that worked). Like the Chattahoochee Brick Company site, it deserves to be memorialized and turned into an asset for the Black community it previously helped oppress, but putting Cop City there perpetuates that institutional racism instead.

…says the guy that thinks there’s going to be a brokered convention that picks somebody other than Biden.

LOL, no they are not! If there’s one thing I know about Evangalion, it’s that.

Still less radiation than coal plants release in normal operation.

Inb4 the “[Choco] Leibniz — [Fig] Newton cookie controversy!”

That’s possible, but if that were the case I’d expect there to be a bunch of illegitimate children at his funeral.

I was gonna comment “yeah, but Leibniz fucks!” but then I decided to fact-check myself.

“Leibniz never married, and his funeral was only attended by his personal secretary.”

…well, shit. The meme checks out!

It used to be at least three felonies a day when violation of a website’s TOS was a violation of the CFAA (which can land you 25 years).

Did that stop being the case?

conspicuously on the same day as the Wikipedia Blackout protesting against SOPA / PIPA (PS: They’re still wanting to lock down the internet, which is why they want to kill Section 230).

Yeah, they’ve also tried to ram through ACTA, CISPA and the TPP since then.

Criminalizing homelessness is basically Black Codes 2.0

Whenever I do, someone will point out that houses today are, on average, bigger.

Houses are bigger because lots are bigger, so developers have to build bigger houses on them in order for the improvement value to be high enough to turn a profit.

Lots are bigger because the zoning code was designed to make them too expensive for minorities to afford, once the Fair Housing Act came through and de-jure segregation and restrictive deed restrictions were outlawed.

In other words, not only is “the houses today are bigger” not really the rebuttal people saying it think it is (because it’s not driven by genuine market forces), they’re also defending institutional racism.

Sigh… but when you try to go through on a bicycle, everybody loses their minds. 😡

Oh, so you’re saying the tax is a good start but should be a lot higher? Fair enough then, I agree!

They breed fewer of them when there’s less demand.

How do you do that?

By making beef more expensive so that fewer people want to buy it. We’ve been over this three times already.

Translation: “The law of supply and demand isn’t a thing because it conflicts with my cynical magical thinking!”

That’s nothin’! You wanna see some weird bombs? Watch this!

And raising the price on a good does what to the demand…?

C’mon, think back to your high-school economics class. I’m sure you can get the answer.