The jokes were less about his height directly and more about how he was so self-centered, egotistical, power-corrupt (and insecure!) that he had to overcompensate for said height at every possible opportunity.
Anon doesn't like Shrek
Submitted 8 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to greentext@sh.itjust.works
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/8e83dd2d-75e6-4df6-b9c2-5d85e499b169.jpeg
Comments
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Also he’s supposed to look like wait Walt Disney, right?
Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 months ago
No, Michael Eisner, the then-CEO of Disney, whom Dreamworks founder Jeffrey Katzenberg fell out with while he worked at Disney.
Blooper@lemmynsfw.com 8 months ago
I’ll admit it I made it well into adulthood without knowing that Disney was clearly saying “Lord Fuckwad” to my adolescent face for years. It’s maybe the coolest thing about my childhood upon reflection. Fucking hilarious.
NickwithaC@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It famously wasn’t Disney. It was DreamWorks which was started by ex Disney employees and this is the first thing they did. The whole thing is taking the piss out of Disney’s fairytale storytelling and flipping their previous employer several middle fingers.
Blooper@lemmynsfw.com 8 months ago
Oh right I forgot that bit! Thanks!
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 8 months ago
Did they ever laugh at or mock him for his height?
Zozano@lemy.lol 8 months ago
Yes.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 months ago
In fairness, Shrek is supposed to be a thin-skinned asshole in the first movie, too. One of the other big themes of the movie is “Power makes you an asshole”. Farquaad has enormous political power, but Shrek has substantial physical power. That’s what brings them into conflict, and that’s what drives Fiona away from them both before the end of the movie.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 8 months ago
Yeah I remember that now.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yes, a lot.
lowered_lifted@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
farkwad is basically a genocidal dictator i think the short thing is maybe even a reference to historical figures
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It’s okay to mock heartless sociopaths in positions of public leadership.
It’s always morally correct.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 months 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 8 months 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.
essell@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Then I think it’s fair to ask, “Does his height have nothing to do with his fuckwad-ery?”
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 8 months 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.
Comment105@lemm.ee 8 months ago
I don’t want the world to become the way you want it to.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Image
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 8 months 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 8 months 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 8 months 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 8 months 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.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 8 months 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 8 months ago
Also, normalising insults based on immutable characteristics is just not good. It harms the good people with those same characteristics