Fail Quotes

[Ibrahim90]

I sincerely hope that's a hoax. I can't imagine anyone brazen enough to place that on their neighbor's door. If they did, let's all sit back and wait for the law suit.

that's because you're"

1-a decent person (and endowed with a healthy mind, praise be).
2-you clearly haven't seen the kind of shit people stoop to.


either way, Hoax or not, this is just douchebaggery.

[AnCap Dave]

A letter sent from a mother to her neighbor, the mother of an autistic son.



This was from Oshawa, Toronto.

[MrBogosity]

I sincerely hope that's a hoax. I can't imagine anyone brazen enough to place that on their neighbor's door. If they did, let's all sit back and wait for the law suit.

They've already said it's not a hate crime: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/08/20/autistic-boy-family-receives-euthanize-letter-ontario-newscastle.html

Not than I'm sanguine about hate crimes as a category, but if this isn't one, what the hell is???

[Travis Retriever]

They've already said it's not a hate crime: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/08/20/autistic-boy-family-receives-euthanize-letter-ontario-newscastle.html

Not than I'm sanguine about hate crimes as a category, but if this isn't one, what the hell is???

Why am I not surprised?

[dallen68]

They've already said it's not a hate crime: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/08/20/autistic-boy-family-receives-euthanize-letter-ontario-newscastle.html

Not than I'm sanguine about hate crimes as a category, but if this isn't one, what the hell is???

Which, thank-fully, doesn't mean the parent(s) of this unfortunate child can't go to the QCB, or the provincial equivalent, and seek grievances. 

[BogosityForumUser]

I'm not surprised either.  This is close to the line, but I don't think it crosses it.  The Canadian criminal code (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/) defines hate crimes in 318, 319 and 718.2 (in a roundabout way).  They match the more common law definitions used in most Western countries.  Basically, for something to be a hate crime, it needs to be based on the characteristics of a group the person belongs to, not just the individual.  In this case, the actions are based on the individual (the "noise" he makes) rather than the fact that he is autistic.  That is the real problem with hate crimes, how can you really know if they hate the group, rather than the person.  Just a little too much mind reading is necessary for my tastes.

[BlameThe1st]

I should've checked this thread before posting this as the BBE/IE nomination. Just found out about it.

That letter pisses me off both as an English major and as someone with Aspergers Syndrome (Which is on the autistic spectrum).

Seriously, that woman can go to the moon!

[yt]k4f9m4OYkCY[/yt]

[nilecroc]

I don't know if this counts as a fail quote but oh well.

"Love breeds sacrifice... which breeds hatred... Then you can know pain." From random anime.

[tnu]

Talking about Robin Hood brought this Image to mind.

[MrBogosity]

I'm not surprised either.  This is close to the line, but I don't think it crosses it.  The Canadian criminal code (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/) defines hate crimes in 318, 319 and 718.2 (in a roundabout way).  They match the more common law definitions used in most Western countries.  Basically, for something to be a hate crime, it needs to be based on the characteristics of a group the person belongs to, not just the individual.  In this case, the actions are based on the individual (the "noise" he makes) rather than the fact that he is autistic.  That is the real problem with hate crimes, how can you really know if they hate the group, rather than the person.  Just a little too much mind reading is necessary for my tastes.

That sort of thing IS characteristic of autistics.

[BlameThe1st]

To show how much fail this picture is, here is the actual context of that quote:

In his 1987 book "Freedom Under Siege: The US Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote about sexual harassment in the workplace, "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?''

In another passage, Paul wrote, "The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care."

On Fox News Sunday this morning, host Chris Wallace asked Paul, now a top contender in the Republican presidential race, whether he still agreed with those statements.

On the sexual harassment issue, Paul distinguished between verbal and physical harassment but said neither one warranted a federal law to prevent it.

"If it's just because somebody told a joke to somebody who was offended, they don't have a right to go to the federal government and have a policeman come in and put penalties on those individuals," Paul said of verbal harassment. "They have to say maybe this is not a very good environment. They have the right to work there or not work there."

Paul continued: "Because people are insulted by rude behavior, I don't think we should make a federal case about it. I don't think we need federal laws to deal with that. People should deal with that at home."

Paul said a federal law against harassment also is not needed for physical violence, because there are already laws prohibiting assault and rape.

[dallen68]

To show how much fail this picture is, here is the actual context of that quote:

These are situations where I think we actually do need rules. We can argue about who should make the rules, later, I guess. While I sorta see Pauls point, one person against a group can be daunting in the absence of standards.

That being said, what bothers me about the rules most corporations/government agencies/non-government agencies have concerning harassment ARE NOT RULES. Basically, in most cases, harassment is "anything I out of my ass decide offends me, regardless of whether any body else agrees, or whether a reasonable person would be offended, or any other factors." (I can't remember the complete list of things the professional victims say don't fucking matter.)

It would solve so much to have a set of relatively concrete guidelines (flexible enough to take into account shit no ones heard of, of course).

[Lord T Hawkeye]

It does always beg the question why people stick it out with a place of employment that's abusive.

"I can't just find another job!  There aren't any!"

If I was feeling particularily vindictive one day, I'd sarcastically say "Yes there is!  Didn't you hear?  Obama stimulated the economy!  It's all fixed now!"

[dallen68]

It does always beg the question why people stick it out with a place of employment that's abusive.

"I can't just find another job!  There aren't any!"

If I was feeling particularily vindictive one day, I'd sarcastically say "Yes there is!  Didn't you hear?  Obama stimulated the economy!  It's all fixed now!"

But then again, if you quit your job every time someone makes you mildly uncomfortable, (or are expected to do so), essentially the bully wins. As I (intended) to hint at in my previous post, clear definitions of what is and what is not harassment (as opposed to something somebody may or may not like) are essential to good order, and consistent policy making.

[tnu]

But then again, if you quit your job every time someone makes you mildly uncomfortable, (or are expected to do so), essentially the bully wins. As I (intended) to hint at in my previous post, clear definitions of what is and what is not harassment (as opposed to something somebody may or may not like) are essential to good order, and consistent policy making.

It's really a matter for the owners/managers to settle disputes between workers and/or clientele and deal with them accordingly.