What’s a “Carrington” or a “Robinson” in the first place?

I wouldn’t presume to speak for anyone else, but I’m a human, and I thought the rest of us were too.

I don’t think whether or not they’re “good” people and the clients they end up representing have anything to do with each other.

It’s just a part of their job that they end up sometimes representing people who are charged with, and potentially even obviously guilty of, heinous crimes.

And their code of ethics specifically demands that they do their best to represent their client’s interests regardless of any and all other considerations.

So even just there, it could be the case that one defense attorney is a vile scumbag who gets off on the idea of freeing obvious criminals and it could just as easily be the case that another defense attorney is a veritable saint who sincerely believes that all people are fundamentally good and that it’s their purpose in life to help anyone who needs it, no matter who or what they’re deemed to be.

Both of those things undoubtedly exist, and pretty much any position one might imagine between the two, so I don’t think there’s any way to correlate who they represent and their own qualities.

Now all that said, I certainly couldn’t do what they do, and specifically because I couldn’t effectively represent someone who was certainly guilty. But that’s just me.

I’ve never even quite understood what it is that people are thinking about when they refer to “the meaning of life.” I mean - I know the definition - I know what the phrase is intended to communicate. I just don’t get what it is that people actually expect.

I don’t think I ever even considered the idea of life having some sort of intrinsic meaning until I was old enough to start getting into philosophy and discovered that not only do people believe that life has some intrinsic meaning, but that it’s such a common belief that there’s a sort of reflexive negative view of anyone who doesn’t share that belief.

In spite of that, I saw and still see no reason to believe that life has intrinsic meaning (either empirically, logically or even psychologically) and more than enough reason to believe that it does not.

Now none of that’s to say that my life is meaningless. It’s stuffed full of meaning. It’s just that all of that meaning is things I’ve found and adopted - none of it’s intrinsic, nor does it need to be.

And I still don’t really understand why anyone believes that it does need to be intrinsic. How is all of the meaning they’re free to find and adopt not enough?

For whatever any of that’s worth…

No.

My immediate reaction is that if it’s not genuinely sincere, it’s meaningless.

It doesn’t really matter if that’s true or not - the mere fact that that was my first reaction means that it’s a doubt that would continue to haunt me, and that’s more than enough of a problem all by itself.

Slurp gobble.

I just don’t make u-turns at busy intersections, specifically because they’re problematic.

If I need to go back the way I just came, I make a left into a parking lot, turn around there, then pull back out onto the street, or if that’s not possible, I simply go around the block.

My view is that doing unnecessary things that interrupt the flow of traffic is always a bad idea.

All other considerations aside “Thiel-backed” guarantees all by itself that it’s technofascist bullshit explicitly intended to benrfit the oligarchs at the expense of everyone else.

Weird how so many techbro ideas boil down to registering your identification with the tech oligarchs…

Absolutely not - it’s a good idea

It would be a 2:1 ratio of kidney beans to black beans.

Perfect.

The correct answer to any question of the form, "I’m facing [this risk], so should I take [this safety precaution]? is always “Yes.”

Concern trolling about the fediverse or lemmy.

Chrono Trigger - SNES, 1995