> Is like my great grandpa scolding us at the dinner table for laughing and talking
It's more like a non-familial, formal dinner setting. Think about a job interview where the CEO and interviewer take you and another interviewee to dinner in a fancy restaurant. You turn up in jeans and sneakers with your buddy and you laugh and crack jokes together, the other interviewee turns up in smart clothes and talks soberly. In a few cases (and perhaps only seen in Holywood movies about the American Dream) the CEO may love the irreverence and impertinence and see it as a strength and sign of strong individuality, in almost all cases the bosses will not appreciate it and you will not get a job. Great grandpa loves you, the boss at your place of work doesn't.
While the metaphor they chose may conflict with your personal experiences, you should still be able to do a good-faith reading of it and realize the underlying point.
But nah, probably better to nitpick over the details.
Would it make more sense if it was a funeral instead? A wedding?
I agree that the metaphor is good. The point is understood. However, the specific clothes that are considered OK in one context ore another are always changing and based in criteria that most of the time makes no sense.
Um, this is highly region dependent. If it were a hot day, I would be comfortable interviewing with a CEO in nice shorts and a clean t-shirt, and fully expect that they'd dress similarly.
The example wasn't just "an interview" it was "a high end restaurant" but TBF the outcome is indeed highly dependent on both region and the personal preference of the CEO.
I would say that job interview in the fancy restaurant is the first "unprofessional" step in this chain. The place to conduct serious interviews is called the office.
At my company when we bring you onsite for an interview takes you to lunch. The person who takes you to lunch is not allowed to talk to the people making the hiring decisions. You can thus talk about whatever you want. It is a relaxing situation where you can safely press about what work is like. If you talk about something that in an interview is illegal (likely family) it doesn't matter because that person doesn't have a say on if you are hired.
(I encourage anyone who does interviewing to have a similar policy - if someone flys in to talk to you that means you are buying them meals anyway. Ensuring there is time to talk about things that might or might not matter is important)
For engineers we wouldn't go to a fancy restaurant. However I'd expect executives probably would.
Why would interviewees believe you? I have heard such claims before and assumed they were false and treated lunch as just continuing the interview while doing something we all had to do anyway. If the interviewee raised numerous red flags, the interviewer would absolutely be sworn to silence? Even informally?
I wouldn't blame them for not. However our integraty means we will anyway. And that the lunch people don't have a voice is carefullp monitored by hr just in case something goes to court.
For higher tier jobs, the setting can be wherever looks good. I've met and been hired by CTOs at a local coffee shop and an Indian buffet. Nothing about a meeting room in an office is more conducive to an interview than a shaded patio with a nice chai.
Courts deal with serious life-changing issues and everyone involved in a court case is expected behave seriously. In fact, that is literally the primary role of the judge. And why judges are famously strict on procedure, demeanor, and the overall decorum of the courtroom. This is the only thing that prevents your average court case from turning into an episode of Jerry Springer.
The court is not a homely dinner between citizens, it's the pinnacle of state power and a place where people are judged by it. Even if the court would always be just and fair it would still be a place of tragedy and suffering for many of the participants.
A judge has the power to (effectively or actually) end someone's life. I am very glad this responsibility is taken seriously. As an adult I'm sick of memes and childish "stickers" etc everywhere as it is. It certainly doesn't belong in a court.
The legal system relies on an sense of awe. Gavels, neo-classical buildings, wigs, elevated benches, latin and yes formality in documents are all just ways to build and maintain that awe.
It’s just as terrible as a lawyer submitting a document written in a totally inappropriate register, like street slang littered with vulgar phrases. There’s a time and a place for cartoon dragons. A court of law is neither. If you don’t understand why, maybe it’s time for you to learn a thing or two about human communication.
If this was a small claims court over a $100 garden fence post being broken, maybe. An annoying distraction, for sure, and unprofessional for someone who's supposed to take your case seriously, but little harm done.
This is about a woman whose entire life hangs in the balance. A higher standard of care and professionalism is expected.
Plus, depending on where you live, judges may decide to hand out punishments for whatever power-tripping reasons they see fit. There have been plenty of videos online of judges handing out sentences to (black) people for not responding in whatever the American version of the Queen's English is. It's an absolutely fucked up system, but when you're operating in such a system, an appropriate amount of fear and respect for the judge is necessary.
You can play games with the court in your own time, but don't risk your clients' lives because you feel compelled to add your stupid mascot to official documents.
The judge is right, but unfortunately there is no easy way to handle it. Right now, effectively, what he did was give JAKELAW the free advertisement that he wanted to get when he submitted the document in the first place. Hell even I have memorised his phone number. That was not a watermark, that is intentionally put there to annoy and distress the reader so it becomes news. He knows his audience and played all his cards right. Gaslit the judge, put the judge in a situation where he has to be the “bad” guy (even though he’s right), and has even earned some leverage to criticize the system as being frivolous.
And to be honest we can waste our time indefinitely trying to argue the meta here that “maybe Jake is not that bad”, and let him catch us on his gaslighting trap, but the truth is that yes, he is the asshole playing with people’s lives, not the judge.
However, I have never understood notions like this: “it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon”
Is like my great grandpa scolding us at the dinner table for laughing and talking.