89
"Funniest" joke book ever and a page on the topic of lawyers. (This book is 556 pages long by the way.) (lemmy.today)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/funny@lemmy.world
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 25 points 1 day ago

Jesus, can't wait to see the page about CEOs

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 21 points 1 day ago

    It helps to remember that, like most joke book jokes, these are meant to be told to people who are rip roaring drunk.

    i'm drunk

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 11 points 1 day ago (9 children)

    I've never understood the hate that lawyers get. We need people that understand the law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Because (almost) every legal battle is pay-to-win. Yes, lawyers understand the law, and they charge a whole lot for that knowledge. Unless the case the EXTREMELY in your favour, you're practically defenseless if your opponent out-moneyed you.

    So I guess the hate is more towards the justice system, rather than just lawyers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Yeah, IANAL but I'm in the legal field, and I watch people try to handle their case pro se, or for oneself or on one's own behalf would be the literal translation. It generally means someone didn't want to pay a lawyer and they have time to waste, and they're also a little crazy. And that probably sounds unfair, but I have yet to work with a pro se litigant who I thought was a rational, grounded individual.

    Entering litigation is expensive. Trying to solve problems before litigation is encouraged, even by judges. Lawyers are a last resort, and they will make it very hard on the other side.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Anyone who decides to be their own lawyer has an idiot for a client. It is quite true.

    And nobody has to take your word for it if they don't want to. I have zero connection with anything legal (erm, maybe I should rephrase that hehe) but I watch youtube videos since a lot started streaming around Covid, and almost all of the pro se people reeeeaaaaallllyyyyy shoulda gotten a lawyer.

    Of course, there is some selection bias as it's the interesting stuff that generally gets posted, but still. Even if you're quite sane, knowing what to do even before a very friendly and sympathetic judge is not easy and you are likely to make mistakes that cost you the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Every single one I have dealt with is fucking awful. I'm currently being billed for being billed by my current (and about to be previous) lawyer. Yes, this is illegal. They put their hourly rates up without informing me, which is a requirement - supposed to be 14 days notice. They charged almost $20k for a template with some blanks filled in, riddled with typos. They take a month to respond to simple corrections.

    Every lawyer I have dealt with in every area of law has been a painful teeth pulling experience that tries to scam the shit out of you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Damn, that sounds awful. Every lawyer I've dealt with has been so professional that I've thought "They're expensive, but at least they definitely know their stuff." And then they've been pretty quick with meetings and such.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [+] -29 points 1 day ago (12 children)

    The last one is straightforwardly antisemitic, the others are just unnecessarily hateful if you know a lawyer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Are all vampires Jewish?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 1 day ago

    No, but "Jews drinking blood" is an old classic of the genre.

    I'm not a Zionist, I'm just pointing out a historical linguistic parallel. 😄

    If I was a Zionist I'd probably call all of these anti-semitic because "Jewish lawyer" is also a thing. However, not nearly a strong enough thing to be antisemitic on its own, which is why I picked out the vampire one. Two insults usually aimed at Jewish people? That nudges it above the level for me.

    Bear in mind, I do not think the author was a bigot, or racist, any of that. I definitely don't think anyone would be a bigot for posting this. I just wanted to point out the interesting origins of a classic old joke.

    Maybe it would be more accurate to say "The vampire one has more direct antisemitic roots, while the others probably just originate from people who lost in court."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    A joke neither directly referencing, vaguely alluding to, or attempting to draw parallels to Jews, being described as “straightforwardly antisemetic” is the most manufactured outrage I’ve seen on Lemmy so far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I agree, "straightforwardly antisemitic" really needs some direct reference to Judaism in the material. I definitely got that wrong. Dunno what I was thinking there. "I straightforwardly noticed an indirect reference to a bigoted trope" maybe got whacked around in my blender of a mind.

    Downvotes deserved. 😄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Based on this and the reest of the subthread, while I can't upvote the initial comment, I'm just pointing out that I've upvoted the entire subthread because we should encourage such discussions - especially ones that don't devolve into personal attacks and arguments. This subthread discussed the issue and pretty much cleared things up. While I knew basically all of this in this instance, with these types of discussions, I often learn things that are good to know.

    So I encourage folks to see this as a positive, and encourage it. :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Indeed! I am always a bit happy to get corrected on something, because it means I just learned something. It also means I will start spreading more accurate information in all my discussions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Please explain how that could possibly be "anti-semetic"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

    Classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:

    because the totality of antisemitic tropes include some about blood sucking, some Zionists and other misguided people assume that all blood sucking tropes are antisemitic. 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I just didn't see what it had to do with lawyers. Mind you, the bottom of the sea has nothing to do with lawyers either and I don't think I associate that with anti-mermaid tropes.

    What can I say, I got this one totally wrong. Cheers all for putting it right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •