Anon doesn't like Shrek

It's okay to mock heartless sociopaths in positions of public leadership.

It's always morally correct.

162

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.

149
- It depends. I have a tiny dick, but that doesn't cause me to buy guns and trucks to compensate, so I don't feel attacked when someone makes fun of some assholes Truck dick.
  
  27
- Then I think it's fair to ask, "Does his height have nothing to do with his fuckwad-ery?"
  
  12
- 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.
  
  -1
- I don't want the world to become the way you want it to.
  
  -39
72
- The point has already been made, but they didn't use MS Paint so I didn't listen then. Thank you.
  
  46
- How dare you imply I care about short people.
  
  Know your place, short kings. GUILLOTINED. LIKE ALL MONARCHS.
  
  Making you even shorter btw.
  
  9
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.

26
- 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.
  
  2
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.

18
- Also, normalising insults based on immutable characteristics is just not good. It harms the good people with those same characteristics
  
  13

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.

115

Also he's supposed to look like wait Walt Disney, right?

20
- No, Michael Eisner, the then-CEO of Disney, whom Dreamworks founder Jeffrey Katzenberg fell out with while he worked at Disney.
  
  47

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.

10

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.

23
- Oh right I forgot that bit! Thanks!
  
  7

Did they ever laugh at or mock him for his height?

5

Yes.

Fiona: And what of my groom-to-be? Lord Farquaad? What's he like?

Shrek: Well, let me put it this way, princess.

(Shrek dumps Fiona to the ground unceremoniously and heads to a nearby pond to wash up)

Shrek: Men of Farquaad's stature are in..."short" supply.

(he chuckles and Donkey joins in)

Donkey: I don't know, Shrek. There are those who think..."little" of him.

(They laugh even harder)

Fiona: Stop it. Stop it, both of you. You're just jealous that you can never measure up to a great ruler like Lord Farquaad.

Shrek: Yeah, well, maybe you're right, princess. But I'll let you do the..."measuring"...when you see him tomorrow.

54
- In fairness, Shrek is supposed to be a thin-skinned asshole in the first movie, too. One of the other big themes of the first films 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.
  
  30
- Yeah I remember that now.
  
  2
Yes, a lot.

13

farkwad is basically a genocidal dictator i think the short thing is maybe even a reference to historical figures

3