@Derp said in Separating Art From Artist:
Despite may vocal voices to the contrary, there is not an objectively wrong belief or practice. For every argument against, there is almost always an equally valid argument for.
Ew. No. Good lord, no. Just because people disagree on morality doesn't make it subjective. Yech. This is how we get FGM apologia.
I don't have enough energy to be mad at mediocre fantasy writers. I'd be perpetually screaming.
@Kestrel said in Well, this sums up why I RP:
Philip Pullman is an atheist who literally wrote an anti-establishment book series for children about killing God and challenging religious dogma and oppression. Before it was cool.
Also, His Dark Materials isn't just pretendy stuff. It's heavily political, for exactly these reasons. It's like saying people are getting mad at China Mieville for writing pretend stuff. Yeah, it's pretend stuff that's hardcore Marxist. Art can be very political!
The only "cancelling" I can think of recently is people being pissed off at Rowling, and that's not because of anything in her novels. It's because she's a shitty fucking TERF.
3Blue1Brown: Math, explained really well.
PBS Spacetime: Astronomy and quantum physics, done really well.
Primitive Technology: Some weirdo building things by hand in nature, done really well.
Adam Neely: A guy explaining music, especially jazz, done really well.
Scott Manley: A guy explaining orbital mechanics and how the fuck to get those fucking stupid little fuckers onto the Mun holy shit what is wrong with you various difficult aspects of Kerbal Space Program, done really well.
crafsman: The strange offspring of ASMR and DIY tutorials. An unfairly soothing voice.
Seconding Babish, Contrapoints, kurzgesagt.
@faraday said in The Art of Lawyering:
@Ganymede said in The Art of Lawyering:
All I can say is that you should believe nothing you read on the internet about cases. Most of the articles are written by non-lawyers.
Are there even any good sources for laypeople? Something like Legal Eagle - though I know you didn't seem to thrilled with his stuff specifically earlier in the thread. I find that kind of thing fascinating but it's hard to know the pedigree of the information.
Yes. NPR's Nina Totenberg does a good job of explaining cases in front of the Supreme Court, and SCOTUSblog provides excellent sources and explanations for people interested in a case.
Also, I am definitely an Elcor under @Ganymede 's schema.
@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:
So Lawyers, do you have a favorite case? Not necessarily yours, but one that is, I don't know.. unique in some way? Stands out?
I'm partial to Gideon v. Wainwright, which established that states are required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants.
Okay I retract my earlier statement. You should never make these jokes, because they are bad jokes.
@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:
Such interesting answers!
@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:
Do lawyers have stereotypes of other kinds of lawyers?
Probably, but I think they fade away as fields you have no interest in get forgotten and you get to know your fellow practitioners better.
@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:
Are all lawyers pessimistic?
You should walk into courtrooms not merely hoping to win, but actively expecting to do so. I'm one of the more pessimistic lawyers I know. Most are very... driven, I guess is the right word, in a way that doesn't allow for pessimism.
@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:
Are you all amazing in social situations because of your jobs? Or do you think that it's a prerequisite?
...have you seen the shit I post? Anyway, no, while lawyers maybe tend to be a bit more social than others, lots of us are actively not. Waiters, for example, are going to better at social stuff.
Is there a lawyer joke you just should absolutely not ever make under any circumstances?
I'm sure one exists, but I usually just roll my eyes. I will give impromptu lessons on the history of the constitution to anyone who dares utter the word "technicality" in my range of hearing.
@Derp said in The Art of Lawyering:
Why you gotta be rebels, with your weird bar exam business and your parishes instead of counties?
Y'all make fun of us for the civil law but last I checked we have a United States CODE
Louisiana's most common reason for sanction is, by far, conversion of client funds in the IOLTA.
ETA: In Louisiana, if you're suspended for over a year, you have to take the bar exam again. Year and a day suspensions are very common for that reason.
@Ominous said in The Art of Lawyering:
Partners own the firm, do they make the big decisions, get the best cases, and make the most money.
Only the first two parts of this are universally true. Getting the best cases and making the most money may (does) happen in large, established firms, but when money is tight in new firms it's the partners who take the hit.
@Derp said in The Art of Lawyering:
(Louisiana does not use the MBE. I don't remember what they use, but it's not the MBE. @Rinel?)
Louisiana has a unique bar exam consisting of nine separate tests spread out over 3 days:
Monday: 3 separate tests covering unique aspects of the Civil Code (Persons, Family Law, Property, Successions, Trusts, Obligations, Sale, Lease, Conflict of Laws, &c.)
Wednesday: Louisiana Civil Procedure. Torts. Business Entities (they stopped testing negotiable instruments the year after I took it).
Friday: Constitutional Law. Criminal Law & Evidence. Federal Civil Procedure.
In total, it's 21 hours of testing, and by the time I walked out of the door on Friday I literally could not tell you what the questions I had just answered were.
@Auspice said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:
I have no idea what that indicates, but I guess since I have a (brief) contract extension at work I can consider doctor.
IANAD, but... tons of referred pain happens in that area because of how heavily it's innervated. When I get my panic attacks, I get pure heart attack symptoms, because (as far as anyone can tell) my esophagus and/or diaphragm go into spasm, which irritates the nerves in the area and give me the good old crushing sensation radiating outwards.
Go to the doctor, but, speaking as a well-practiced hypochondriac, try not to freak out about it.
@Auspice said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:
I know y'all are just being caring and supportive but I think I'm reaching a point of 'all the above freak me out' so I appreciate it but I need to spend some more time just telling myself it's just a weird response to cedar pollen.
Legitimately my first thought was costochondritis or some other inflammation of the muscles. You probably pulled something from coughing or sneezing. It is very unlikely to be something serious, but it's good to go to the doctor for your peace of mind. 
@Ganymede said in The Art of Lawyering:
The criminal attorneys have a different perspective on judges and juries than I.
I prefer judges in administrative matters, and possibly in civil ones. But for defense? It's a tactical decision. Most of the time, I'd rather a jury.
Nobody said it was easy. 
My work is one of the things on my mind every time I do confession. 
@saosmash said in The Art of Lawyering:
The point is, no matter what someone has done, they're not beyond human caring.
Frame this shit and put it up in lights.
@Ominous said in The Art of Lawyering:
Bail is between you and the state. A bail bond is an agreement for a bondsman to cover your bail.
This is true! Nobody ever can afford the first, though, so
