I am well aware of why people choose to go to law school.
Whaddaya want? For people to stop telling lawyer jokes?
That’s not going to happen.
I think it’s a lot like politicians. Everybody hates them, but they all love their guy.
Just curious whether you would give the same response if the “joke” suggested it would be a “good start” if a hundred people identified by race, ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation were drowned at the bottom of the sea?
FWIW, as a Canadian myself, I would think the lawyer jokes are referencing American lawyers. Up here, I’d like to think we’ve retained at least a bit of our highbrow English judicial etiquette.
IANAL, YMMV, Offer not valid where prohibited, etc.
Nope. But those aren’t choices people made.
Some jokes are just nasty–I’ll grant that–but it would be rare in the extreme for the person telling them to actually mean them. Nobody wants to drown all the lawyers (though I know several who ought to at least be pushed off the deep end of the swimming pool).
Depends what you mean by “mean”. Literally? Likely not. But de-humanizing, by putting into discussion the concept that it’s funny to think of members of certain groups being killed? That’s what the joke/teller is meaning.
I’m a Canadian lawyer, speaking about jokes I’ve heard during the course of my career.
Telling a joke isn’t necessarily supposed to be funny. Often, it’s merely cathartic. Lawyers and the legal system have screwed over a lot of people, so it’s natural for there to be some anger there.
What’s the difference between a bad lawyer and a good lawyer?
A bad lawyer can cause your case to be drawn out for years.
A good lawyer can draw it out forever.
There is a lot of truth to that.
Actually, I’ve always taken that quote as a compliment. It’s spoken by a revolutionary who wants to tear down established order, appropriate other people’s property, and so on.
In a weird way, it’s a recognition that lawyers have a crucial role in protecting people’s rights, and the first thing a violent revolutionary needs to do is get rid of them.
The lawyers sitting on the floors of US airports soon after Trump took office, tapping out habeas petitions for travellers who were detained without notice, is a good example.
Yes, i think everyone recognizes that there are good lawyers who protect us from evil.
Actually, I’ve encountered people who deny that, and see no social value in lawyers. So I wouldn’t say everyone recognizes that.
Speaking of which, xkcd is published a couple times a week. Most of the steps are jokes, they are never mean, they are rarely puns, and they are often funny, at least to the right audience.
I’m an actuary. A significant fraction of my professional life has involved fitting curves to data to draw conclusions or predict the future. So this is one of my favorites:
(I especially like “i clicked smooth lines in Excel”, because, well, i admit I’ve done that once or twice, although never for anything important. Maybe never for anything at work…)
Mulaney is doing an (exaggerated) impression of the airline agents being nasty people. That’s what they’re laughing at, not him. They’re also laughing at themselves because they’ve been in frustrating situations with airlines and it’s not unusual to perceive the agents in the same way while at the same time knowing that’s an exaggeration.
Oliver is complaining about how tough it is for him to run a top-rated show and covering it with a laugh.
In any case, self-deprecating humor is the safest because you are in control. It’s usually much harder to be the butt of the joke and only grin and bear it. Unless the butt just doesn’t give a fuck.
Interesting. I first heard this joke in Sweden regarding how Swedes (who are often very introverted, until you add alcohol) behave with each other. I hadn’t ever heard it about members of a profession, but perhaps the personality types are similar.
Yeah, no reason to cringe about 100 dead lawyers at the bottom of the sea being a good start. Just some light hearted fun. All I’m saying is be consistent in your rules. If it’s not right to tell a blond joke because it’s demeaning, then it’s not right to tell a lawyer joke because it’s demeaning. Both rely on making a stereotype about a group of people in order for the jokes to work.
First it’s ok because lawyers are rich, now it’s okay because they can defend themselves. Using your reasoning, blond jokes are fine since they can defend themselves. Unless you actually believe blonds are too dumb to do so.
I can certainly respect that you find many lawyer jokes to be offensive, but lumping lawyers as the butt of some jokes in with oppressed minorities is too far.
Again jokes can be weapons. When targeted at oppressed minorities the impact of the weapon is to reinforce the oppression and discrimination and to reinforce widely held negative stereotypes.
Jokes, and a few scattered individuals aside, lawyers are not in that position. Again they instead are generally held with respect. Actual polling data is that lawyers are near the top of jobs with most respect, jobs parents would be happiest about their children having. Above such stalwarts as nurses and firefighters! (Scientist is at the top, so clearly it is not based on thinking well paid.)
Jokes aimed against groups based on gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, so on, help underpin violence against members of those groups for being members of those groups, support systems that give those with those group memberships poorer housing, healthcare, and job opportunities. Some groups that historically have in fact been rounded up and killed for the group membership.
Your sensitivity should be respected. But placing lawyer jokes in the same class as that … are you joking? 
I see why people think of that sort of lawyer joke as in a different class than jokes about ethnicity, religion, gender. But I still think they’re nasty, and I’ve never liked them. And I’m not a lawyer.
It also seems to me that there’s a drastic difference between jokes like the one about drowned lawyers, and ones like the one about introverted actuaries (or Swedes.) I can readily see the latter type being told as an in-joke, but not the former. The first type is an explicit attack.
So it’s okay to joke about killing me?
When is it okay to joke about killing a group of people, in your opinion?
Thank you. I’ve long ceased to be impressed at how nearly unanimously that quote has been misused. And on a site aimed at dispelling ignorance, no less! 
I appreciate your forthcoming concise list that everyone will agree upon describing which groups which persons can joke about in which settings, and which groups which persons cannot. Thanks in advance.
And I’m tending towards “yes” and “almost always” as responses - with the caveat that the joke teller ought to be prepared for listeners to tell them that their attempted humor is in bad taste - or worse. Time, place and manner restrictions can be challenging for the overly sensitive and insensitive alike.
Just a few links. Notice the common theme?