Comment on Anon doesn't like Shrek
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
It’s okay to mock heartless sociopaths in positions of public leadership.
It’s always morally correct.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The point has already been made, but they didn’t use MS Paint so I didn’t listen then. Thank you.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
How dare you imply I care about short people.
Know your place, short kings. GUILLOTINED. LIKE ALL MONARCHS.
Making you even shorter btw.
Gullible@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
If we lived in a society where scrutiny and vitriol were pointed only at the ruling class, we’d live in a utopia, but we do not and therefore should not. As society sits, making fun of someone’s physical appearance or disability yields the ultimate conclusion that everyone should feel, for these characteristics, innately lesser, and that’s not cool.
For instance, and to be topical, would you feel comfortable hearing someone refer to Neil Gaiman as a twiggy, autistic rapist? Because I wouldn’t. No need to associate weight and processing difficulties with the propensity and desire to hurt other.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Gaiman isn’t in charge of a country or a ruling body, so I’d be with you on that one. I stand by what I specifically said, even though I don’t take as hard of a line on it as some others in the comments. Rulers who are malignantly narcissistic cannot be dealt with politely. It has sadly been tried.
Gullible@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
In the end, I don’t disagree with the idea of making fun of someone in power, only the language used to do it. Diversifying and sharpening the average person’s lexicon, or creating/repurposing words, would yield the same benefit without the detriment. Obviously the latter is simpler than the former so it’s my pick. I was a fan of that trend circa ~2012. Affluenza still gets a giggle out of me.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I’m not contesting any of the logic of your position, but I’m just not there at the moment. If you can take the high road while people are dying, I think that’s perfectly admirable. It’s just not me.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
I disagree I think adding animalistic aggressiom to politics is stupid. Talk about why their politics are bad and harmful, don’t call them fatty mcfatfat small handchubs.
HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Also, normalising insults based on immutable characteristics is just not good. It harms the good people with those same characteristics
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Whether it harms “good” people is irrelevant, we shouldn’t stoop to name-calling. Full stop.
HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
That’s a nice dream, and in my perfect world that would be how it worked
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 weeks ago
When you mock them based on traits that have nothing to do with their fuckwad-ery, you also hit innocents who happen to have those same traits.
Socsa@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
It depends. I have a tiny dick, but that doesn’t case me to buy guns and trucks to compensate, so I don’t feel attacked when someone makes fun of some assholes Truck dick.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
That’s not really making fun of them for having a small penis though: most of the people making those jokes have no idea what their penises look like. Those jokes are based on their behavior and an assumed source of the person’s inferiority complex (which is still fucked up, because it reinforces the idea that having a small penis makes one inferior).
The small hands jokes aren’t even based on trump actually having small hands (at least, they seem pretty average sized to me), but more on a perceived insecurity.
Honestly, the diaper jokes seem the most likely to inadvertently hurt someone for something they can’t help. Everything else is based on his reactions to his physical attributes.
Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
How do you choose to compensate out of interest (asking for a friend.)
Socsa@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Cooking and oral sex
essell@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Then I think it’s fair to ask, “Does his height have nothing to do with his fuckwad-ery?”
blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
More than likely it does. Little man syndrome is a thing for a reason. Turns out making fun of people for traits they can’t change through our their life kinda turns them into a fuckwad.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 5 weeks ago
Can confirm. I’m 5’3 and spent a good chunk of my young adulthood struggling to not be a fuckwad after being picked on about it my whole life. Doing much better now though (I think).
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
I think that’s missing the point. Sure, it would be nice to not have collateral damage, but the goals of any public criticism should be to change the behavior we’re opposed to, and that can be either through shaming them into changing a policy, or changing the public’s opinion about a policy to change the outcome of the next election.
Public insults only serve to rile up your side and put the other side on the defensive, it doesn’t change anyone’s mind and may actually encourage those in the middle to support the one you’re attacking (i.e. if they see them as an underdog).
The proper approach is to criticize arguments in such a way that anyone who’s going to read it understands your argument. Saying Trump is unfit to be the President because he has small hands may give you and those on “your side” a few chuckles, but it’ll drive those in the middle to support him (is that their best argument??). Saying Trump is unfit to be the President because his anti-immigration policy will hurt the US economy because it limits the supply of cheap labor (and thus drives up prices and drives down production) may get someone to change their mind. If I thought a bit harder, I could probably come up with an even easier to understand argument that could change minds.
So don’t hold back because you’re worried about offending someone else entirely, hold back because that’s more likely to get the outcome you want, both now and in the future.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 weeks ago
I really don’t agree. I mean, that may also be true, but I strongly believe that even if it were effective to do so, it would still be morally wrong to harm innocents in order to also hurt your political opponents.
I actually am totally ok with targeting your opponent themselves. That shouldn’t be the only thing you do, and when you do it needs to be carefully crafted and accurate, but I am totally ok with, for example, the recent “weird” meme being applied to MAGAists. As I explained above I think it works because it doesn’t have collateral damage, but does work surprisingly well at upsetting its targets, and also highlights a truth and a dishonesty of the targets.
But avoiding collateral damage is very important. You can’t necessarily be 100% successful at it, but at least trying is important. Society has, as a whole, agreed it’s not acceptable to say “lol that’s gay” as a criticism. Because that implies that being gay is bad and gay people should be ashamed. It’s increasingly also becoming true that fatphobic comments and comments about mental health terms being used as insults are not accepted, for the same reason. It belittles all fat or autistic or whatever people. Criticism on the basis of height or genital size really isn’t different.
Though a comment about how someone might be “compensating” rides more of a line, IMO. Because that’s a comment about their internal motivation rather than per se about the trait in question. You’re actually critiquing their own insecurity. Personally I’m still not a huge fan of them, but I can see the other side.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
There are different levels of harm. As long as you’re attacking arguments instead of people, you’ll only hurt those who attach their identify to those arguments. For example, if you say an argument that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry is bigoted, that may offend religious types who firmly believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, but that doesn’t make your argument any less valid. Or you could argue that increasing welfare benefits is fiscally irresponsible while running a deficit, which could imply that those who receive those benefits are also fiscally irresponsible and simultaneously not worth the benefits they receive.
Collateral damage should be avoided in a well-structured argument, but it shouldn’t prevent you from making an important argument. But as long as you attack the argument and not individuals or groups, I don’t think you have any need to feel guilty for those who take offense at your arguments.
There are also two types of arguments: arguments for something and arguments against something. For the first group, you should attack nameless “others” that are to blame for you not having nice things, such as “big tech” designing obsolescence into their products so you can’t repair your own stuff. The counter should attack that argument, not the person making that argument.
But what’s the benefit? All it does is give “your side” some chuckles and causes “their side” to become defensive and attack you for something equally irrelevant.
And it does have collateral damage, because you’re implying that anyone who is considering voting for them is “weird.” If the best argument the opposition has is personal attacks, that makes the attacked party more attractive and defensible. I’d rather vote for a “weird” candidate that’s genuine instead of a “normal” establishment candidate who’s guaranteed to disappoint.
Sure, but insecurity isn’t an argument, and it’s just going to put people who sympathize with them on the defensive.
For example, if you say “truck drivers are compensating for something,” that puts all truck drivers as well as anyone who thinks owning a truck would be cool to be on the defensive. They’re going to ignore the rest of your argument, even if it could convince them to change what they value.
Instead of that, attack the people selling these products to insecure people. Say something like, “truck companies want you to think ‘real men’ buy big trucks, but the truth is they’re just trying to manipulate you to take your money. Look at average truck sale prices, they’re getting more and more expensive. Look past the marketing BS and get something more reasonable that still meets your needs so you can afford to do more cool stuff, like trips with the family or home improvement projects. A ‘real man’ makes his own choices, so make yours.” That way you turn their insecurity into a way for them to take control, while also painting the thing you want to discourage in a bad light. So instead of “you’re a fool for buying that stupid truck,” it’s “you’re smart for seeing through their lies and manipulation”).
I probably could have worded it better, but hopefully my point is clear. It could be that people are hurt by this type of argument (i.e. “you’re saying I’m stupid because I fell for their marketing? I made that choice”), but if avoiding that reduces your reach, it’s worth breaking a few eggs to get the message out there. But the message needs to be constructive and shift the blame to be effective.
Comment105@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
I don’t want the world to become the way you want it to.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 weeks ago
You don’t want a kinder and more just world? That’s unfortunate.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
That guy took things in a direction I never intended. The social contact doesn’t protect those who don’t uphold it IMO, so people like Farquad and his IRL counterparts should not be safe from low minded trollery. E.G. A lot of people think I’m weird and I’ve faced some ostracism for it, but it doesn’t bother me to see weirdness used as a playground insult against Trump. It’s understood that it’s only being said because it upsets him.
Comment105@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
It’s not a kinder world you want.
It’s a cautious, fragile world.
You don’t see kindness between friends who play with insults. Progressives like to claim the working class as their constituents while pursuing the culture of pompous nobles if high court, apparently loving the idea of living a life where anyone could carelessly drop a pin and the room would figuratively shatter from the tension.
Fuck you. Fuck everything you stand for. I hate it.