Guide to the legal profession: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
In 2019, from nowhere, publishers were forced into bouts of panicked defensive [[virtue-signalling]] when their “rigorous selection methodology” for inclusion in these guides — largely “recommending your buddies as a prank and then voting for each other” — was found to be doctrinally wanting by humourless [[Critical theory|critical legal theorist]]s.<ref>Or perhaps practitioners, ''posing'' as humourless critical legal theorists, who were disappointed not to have been included.</ref> | In 2019, from nowhere, publishers were forced into bouts of panicked defensive [[virtue-signalling]] when their “rigorous selection methodology” for inclusion in these guides — largely “recommending your buddies as a prank and then voting for each other” — was found to be doctrinally wanting by humourless [[Critical theory|critical legal theorist]]s.<ref>Or perhaps practitioners, ''posing'' as humourless critical legal theorists, who were disappointed not to have been included.</ref> | ||
The response, though | The response, though reasonable — “wait a minute: no-one ''reads'' these guides, do they? Doesn’t everyone just use them, like we do, to prop up their monitors?” — fell on deaf, [[Snowflake|delicate]] ears.<ref>But publishers are nothing if not resourceful, and they came out fighting, with yet more ways to arbitrarily divide up the city: the new “Chambers [[Diversity & inclusion|Diversity & Inclusion]]” guide, for example, catalogues the exclusive intersectionally-marginalised global elite (see: https://diversity.chambers.com/ ''“Diversity and inclusion is at the very heart of what we do and who we all are. We are, in that regard, all the same: we screen our people to make sure [[D&I]] is a fundamental part of their, and therefore our, DNA.”''</ref> | ||
====[[Covid]] goes ''virtual''==== | ====[[Covid]] goes ''virtual''==== | ||
But the trouble didn’t stop with a couple of beanish [[snowflakes]]. | But the trouble didn’t stop with a couple of beanish [[snowflakes]]. | ||
The [[Covid]] pandemic prompted legal almanac publishers to go digital, demonstrating exactly the same [[category error]] the [[Critical theory|critical theorist]]s made: to assume that people want professional guides in order to ''read'' them. | |||
But a moment’s reflection should tell us they do not: one looks up one’s own entry and, if it is there, sends a photocopy to mum and, if not, commends yet another quiet resentment to the eternal pool in one’s interior monologue, and then swiftly, bravely rallies , rises above it and gathers oneself. The best way to do this is to put the guide to any of its many better uses: propping up monitors, holding open fire-stop doors, dotting them around the department between pot plants to make the place look learned, or just loafing around passively on top of filing cabinets. Legal guides can survive this way for years. | |||
But it becomes less likely by the day that you you will. Covid | Now this being the case, an ''e-''version of a legal almanac is no good at all ''unless you print it out''. But that would blow a ream of virgin printer paper, and you are better just to use the ream as it is, lest you later need it to cover a late-night printing emergency. | ||
But it becomes less likely by the day that you you will need to do that. Covid has been a ''double'' bummer for almanac publishers, because since the working [[mediocritariat]] was ''forbidden'' from printing anything for eighteen months, it has largely now realised it ''doesn’t need to print anything'' and has got out of the habit, so even though we’re back in the office a day a week, no-one uses printers any more, and there are oodles of surplus reams of A4 lying around the office, which make ''perfect'' monitor stands... | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||