this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
819 points (98.9% liked)

Greentext

4127 readers
1416 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

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

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 162 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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

It's always morally correct.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 149 points 1 month ago (23 children)

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 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month 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 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How do you choose to compensate out of interest (asking for a friend.)

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

Cooking and oral sex

[–] essell@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then I think it's fair to ask, "Does his height have nothing to do with his fuckwad-ery?"

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 out their life kinda turns them into a fuckwad.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 8 points 1 month 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).

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month 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 9 points 1 month 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 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I just can’t see how commenting on the physical characteristics of an individual helps to reduce their power and, therefore, body count. It’s part of what I like about the “weird” dig at trump. Reframing a personality with petty insults>Smol hand fatty

[–] FiniteBanjo 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 115 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 47 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

Yes. At Disney Eisner was called Lord Fuckwad behind his back. Hence Lord Farquaad.

[–] Blooper@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 7 points 1 month ago

Oh right I forgot that bit! Thanks!

[–] FiniteBanjo 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 54 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 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.

[–] FiniteBanjo 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah I remember that now.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Yes, a lot.

load more comments
view more: next ›