Cull the real life section: probably not appropriate given the trope — and it had turned into a personal complaining outlet.
- Forget characters, a lot of players are like this. Go and play a First-Person Shooter online and get a few kills. You'll probably get one or two angry messages calling you anywhere from cheap to an outright hacker. If they're feeling nice, they might blame lag instead, but don't get your hopes up.
- For more information, see Rules 3 through 6
.
- For more information, see Rules 3 through 6
- Apple's newest iPhone has some major issues regarding antenna placement, and dropped calls as a result. Apple's response is to not to attempt to fix the issue, but accuse every other phone maker in existence of the same thing.
- On deviantART, a lot of people post things that they shouldn't, by the site's rules. If they are warned by well-meaning users, they tend to hide comments. If they are reported and the piece is deleted, they often write an angry journal directed at dA's mods and/or flame the person who reported them. Often they will actually post the same material again.
- In World Of Warcraft, this often happens in wipes. If a tank died, the healers will often say that the tank wasn't appropriately geared or skilled, while the tanks will often say the healer failed to keep them up. If the healers or DPS die, they will suggest the tank couldn't keep threat, while the tanks will often suggest that the dead party members were reckless and pulled threat. If the party can't kill the boss quickly enough, the rest of the party will blame the DPS, while the DPS may make some excuse (blaming the lower-performing members, the strategy or the healers being unable to keep them all up).
- People with narcissistic personality disorder are prone to do this. They simply don't know or can't accept that it was their fault and so, blame others. People with anti-social personality disorder, or sociopaths or psychopaths, will do this as well. Unlike the narcissists, they usually are aware that it was their fault, but they blame others, usually the weak-willed or the wimpy, so that they don't get the blame themselves.
- It's possible to get run over and then sued for the damage your fleshy body did to the vehicle. Or have your house broken into and sued if the burglar injures himself. Or charged with assault for defending your person and property (especially if it's a guy vs. a woman assailant). Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that they'll win, but it's technically possible. And in all cases, there is such a thing as "countersuing" since in all three cases, it was the first offender's fault to begin with.
- There have been a (depressingly large) number of American civil suits where people have injured themselves using a product in a terribly unsafe fashion, and suing the manufacturer for not warning them about the threat, which is common sense to virtually everyone over the age of 7. Hence those Captain Obvious warnings you see on everything.
- Plenty of movie executives and network executives are this way. They'll demand unnecessary changes to a film or TV show thinking it will improve it. The changes the executive wants are actually horrible, fans hate it, and the show is cancelled. Who gets fired? The creator of the show, instead of the executive who demanded the changes in the first place!
- Blame in this case could go even higher than the meddling executives; since their job is to make movies and shows "more marketable", they have to give notes in order to justify their paychecks.
- There was one instance of a man going to McDonalds everyday and ordering five Big Macs for breakfast. He went on to sue McDonalds for making him obese.
- Christian Weston Chandler of Sonichu "fame". Nothing...nothing is his fault, and he posted a video stating that he is sure his old school is a conspiracy for making sure he remains a virgin, friendless, and poor.
- Having worked technical support, this trope is never in short supply. Apparently not reading the manual or the system requirements is never the fault of the caller. As a thinly-veiled jab, this is known as an ID-10-T Error. Also known as "PEBKAC" (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair).
Ok, is it just me, or is the hatedom for FBOFW kinda getting out of control? Most of the examples there sound more like Alternative Character Interpretations to me, but I could conceivably be wrong. But one part in particular I want to address:
", and everyone blames April for killing Farley. It goes hand in hand with their refusal to apologize for anything; since nothing can ever be their fault, they can't apologize. For the record, Farley died saving April from drowning in a swiftly-moving river. Makes one wonder where the threshold for this trope stops and the one for Jerk Ass begins..."
Seriously, did I read the same comic as the rest of you? Because I'm totally blanking on when this whole "Let's all abuse April" thing happened. What I DO remember is the family being (understandably) shocked and sad that the dog was dead, and talking about how April would have been dead if it hadn't been for him. I remember them being grateful that she didn't drown. I remember the VERY young April (she was, what, 4, 5?) suffering some amount of PTSD after the incident, which manifested largely as separation anxiety (she was very needy and clingy with her mother) and basically being treated rather sympathetically because of this. And I do vaguely remember April blaming herself for the incident, but that's another trope entirely...
From this entry, you'd think the entire family spent the second half of the arc using her as a tiny little punching bag or something. I mean, for heaven's sake, I know the strip suffered a severe drop in quality during it's last few years or so of syndication, and the recent redone oldies aren't doing it any favors, but does that really merit giving the entire main cast (except for April) the Ron the Death Eater treatment?
Pardon me for going on so long, this has just been bugging me for a while.
Edited by 174.64.18.72
John Pope at the 2nd battle of Bull Run (Manassas), in 1863 came up with stupid idea of flanking the confederate troops, by attacking Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson's group of soldiers. Long story short the attack failed and the confederates won the battle. The reason why was because Pope forgot to see where Longstreet's troops were located at. He then goes on to blame Fitz John Porter for the loss, not thinking that it was his stupidity, not Porter's actions that caused the confederates to win.
Edited by 75.199.32.108
This real life example had turned into a natter thread:
- And a woman sued McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on herself, claiming that there was no indication that the coffee was hot enough to cause burns. Because of incidents like this, many products have warning labels pointing out the complete obvious in oder to prevent more lawsuits. In her defense, the coffee was hot enough to give Third Degree burns, which Mc Donalds couldn't explain away in court. More details here.
- Of course, the real adherent to this trope is Mc Donald's, when you hear the full story (the woman didn't sue because she burned herself on the coffee. She sued because Mc Donald's wouldn't let her use their phone to call 911 after she burned herself. The story was spun to make her look like an idiot by Mc Donald's, who, by virtue of being Mc Donald's, needs to deflect all the negative publicity it can).
- On the other hand, the woman herself apparently thinks it's Mc Donalds' fault that she was too clumsy to open a cup of coffee without spilling it all over herself. Apparently, being a klutz means you deserve to become a multimillionaire.
- Of course, the real adherent to this trope is Mc Donald's, when you hear the full story (the woman didn't sue because she burned herself on the coffee. She sued because Mc Donald's wouldn't let her use their phone to call 911 after she burned herself. The story was spun to make her look like an idiot by Mc Donald's, who, by virtue of being Mc Donald's, needs to deflect all the negative publicity it can).
- And a woman sued McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on herself, claiming that there was no indication that the coffee was hot enough to cause burns. Because of incidents like this, many products have warning labels pointing out the complete obvious in oder to prevent more lawsuits. In her defense, the coffee was hot enough to give Third Degree burns, which Mc Donalds couldn't explain away in court. More details here
I should mention that the resulting burns resulted in the necessity of reconstructive surgery along her thighs buttocks and genitals due to the third degree burns. Is your coffee hot enough to do that? Do you honestly think the store that kept the coffee at that insane temperature and handed it out to people in moving vehicles with nothing but a thin plastic top that peels off easily is in no way negligent to the fact that people are imperfect and someone spilling coffee on themselves was a possibility? As for the multimillion dollar suing, if she sued for a few grand, why would Mc Donalds care? In order to make sure a corporation fears being sued for negligence, they have to sue for an amount enough to make the corporation feel some pain.
This is the old discussion, from when the trope was called "You Blockhead".
Ungvichian: Proposed trope: Screaming With Binky, as the opposite of All My Fault. Look at this page for examples. Of course, there are non-Binky examples: Lucy blames Charlie Brown for missing a game-deciding last-second FG in a Peanuts special, and Homer Simpson's Flash Back to a floor gymnastics tumble in the "Bart Star" episode.
Hold any water?
Ununnilium: I've looked at the page and its explanation of the "Screaming with Binky" shorts and I still don't understand what you mean.
Ungvichian: Binky yells at jeweler, then blames him for miscutting a diamond. Lucy pulls football, then blames Charlie Brown for missing a field goal. Abe yells at Homer, then blames him for falling during his routine. There's a common theme here...
Ununnilium: Ah, well, shoulda just said. I'm not sure, this feels more like... a character type, perhaps?
Ungvichian: It's clearly situational, actually.
Susan Davis: It's something that Tsundere characters frequently do, so it can be character-linked (it's way in character for Lucy, for example, but it wouldn't be for Sally), but it's not just a character type. I think.
Ungvichian: Picking up a few months later, considering that Lucy's example is pretty famous, how about... You Blockhead?
Lale: "Blockhead" may be Lucy's Catch Phrase, but I remember Sally's rant at Linus in It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown! where she calls him a blockhead like three times. That's got to be the best "You blockhead!" scene in that show ever.
I removed the Mc Donald's coffee example, because it's actually a bad one: The coffee was way too hot to be served to a human (it scalded her genitals and fused her labia shut) but Mc Donald's served it anyway. See here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
- The other real-life examples need specific citations, as they sound like urban legends. Also, there's a difference between "sued" and "successfully sued."
- Ohgi holds resentment towards Zero for his abandonment during the Black Rebellion and subsequent one-year disappearance when he sells him out to Schneizel for Japan, yet never takes responsibility for his relationship with Villetta, the person linked to at least some degree with the two, or his resulting carelessness, and part of the reason Lelouch was missing, into account. Also, his deal, if successful, would have left not only Lelouch possibly dead, but the rest of the UFN up the creek without a paddle, so he's hardly one to talk about abandonment.
Okay, this Code Geass example is slowly getting into edit war territory. For starters this trope aplies only if someone deflects their own fault onto others. Zero dissapeared during the Black Rebelion because his sister was kidnapped, something done 100% by VV. Viletta was amnesiac at the time, Ougi had no way of knowing that she was britanian agent. This doesn't explain his carelessness, but Viletta had nothing to do with Nunally's kidnaping and Ougi had no idea that Zero's sister is at school, because Zero never told him, not to mention they never knew WHY Zero disspaeared, because when he came out he only told them that "it was nessecary to defeat Britania". While his deal with Schneisel was underhanded these are two entirely seperate incidents and Ougi had nothing to do with the first one, meaning that there is no way to fit him into this trope.