3 ms·

I didn't write "fascist" but "authoritarian", here's the relevant quotes: >disturbed by the notion of our children tuning in for a regular dose of primary-colo

by _0ffh 5y ago

I didn't write "fascist" but "authoritarian", here's the relevant quotes: >disturbed by the notion of our children tuning in for a regular dose of primary-colored authoritarianism >Then there are the parents who are OK with the authoritarian elements in children's media That's from the author of the article, I wasn't referring to Ms. Uhls. Edit: And I get to neo-Marxist because it's always those types who're at the forefront of denouncing and smearing anything that reeks of individualism or liberty. They hate it with a passion, because their goal is the submission of the individual to the collective for the "common good", if necessary by force. For that reason their heritage of pillage and murder is unparalleled in history.

eesmith 5y ago
??? Paw Patrol isn't about individualism. It's about a team. Same for Thomas. ("Order and doing as you're told is important to running a successful train line.") When Marshall declares "these paws uphold the laws", that's a declaration that he is subordinate to the "common good." This article, in your terms, is written to tell readers that the "neo-Marxists" are too out-there. The two quotes you gave are NOT meant to be followed. The context of your first quote is: 'It's tempting as a parent ... to be disturbed by the notion of our children tuning in for a regular dose of primary-colored authoritarianism" followed by "But, rage as we might, these shows are a source of comfort for our young children, whose id-driven brains seek out the order, stability and even punishment in their entertainment." Followed by quote from 'Tovah Klein, director of the Barnard College Center for Toddler Development' about how children need that. This is call out that such "tempting" parental views are contrary to what children need. The second context is "Among these cartoons' many critics exists a subgroup of parents who are OK with some degree of autocracy and Manichean dualistic politics but just wish they would be presented with more nuance." followed this time by quoting "Yalda T. Uhls, a research scientist who studies children and media" showing that these views are not so easy to apply. I don't see how you can argue that complaints against the authoritarian portrayals in two children's shows can be seen as being opposed to individualism.
- _0ffh 5y ago
  You're right that the author is defending these "authoritarian" tendencies, but they're still presented as fact is what bugs me. Still, maybe I overshot with my criticism. I must admit that I feel a bit grumpy today. Just one last thing, voluntary team play does not conflict with individualism.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    I know less about Thomas than Paw Patrol (and I don't know that much about Paw Patrol), but I know enough to know Hatt's opinion about engines: “We'll see about that, engines on My Railway do as they are told” "My engines do not tell lies! They work hard with no shirking. I send lazy engines away!" That sounds pretty authoritarian, with final power in a single individual. Point taken. Those paws still uphold the law, and not everyone voluntarily agrees to follow those laws. If you're grumpy now, you might want to avoid a discussion of what "voluntary" means on Sodor. If Toby has no chance of employment elsewhere, then what what happens if he doesn't meet Hatt's requirements for hard work?

by _0ffh 5y ago

eesmith 5y ago

??? Paw Patrol isn't about individualism. It's about a team. Same for Thomas. ("Order and doing as you're told is important to running a successful train line.") When Marshall declares "these paws uphold the laws", that's a declaration that he is subordinate to the "common good." This article, in your terms, is written to tell readers that the "neo-Marxists" are too out-there. The two quotes you gave are NOT meant to be followed. The context of your first quote is: 'It's tempting as a parent ... to be disturbed by the notion of our children tuning in for a regular dose of primary-colored authoritarianism" followed by "But, rage as we might, these shows are a source of comfort for our young children, whose id-driven brains seek out the order, stability and even punishment in their entertainment." Followed by quote from 'Tovah Klein, director of the Barnard College Center for Toddler Development' about how children need that. This is call out that such "tempting" parental views are contrary to what children need. The second context is "Among these cartoons' many critics exists a subgroup of parents who are OK with some degree of autocracy and Manichean dualistic politics but just wish they would be presented with more nuance." followed this time by quoting "Yalda T. Uhls, a research scientist who studies children and media" showing that these views are not so easy to apply. I don't see how you can argue that complaints against the authoritarian portrayals in two children's shows can be seen as being opposed to individualism.

_0ffh 5y ago
You're right that the author is defending these "authoritarian" tendencies, but they're still presented as fact is what bugs me. Still, maybe I overshot with my criticism. I must admit that I feel a bit grumpy today. Just one last thing, voluntary team play does not conflict with individualism.
- eesmith 5y ago
  I know less about Thomas than Paw Patrol (and I don't know that much about Paw Patrol), but I know enough to know Hatt's opinion about engines: “We'll see about that, engines on My Railway do as they are told” "My engines do not tell lies! They work hard with no shirking. I send lazy engines away!" That sounds pretty authoritarian, with final power in a single individual. Point taken. Those paws still uphold the law, and not everyone voluntarily agrees to follow those laws. If you're grumpy now, you might want to avoid a discussion of what "voluntary" means on Sodor. If Toby has no chance of employment elsewhere, then what what happens if he doesn't meet Hatt's requirements for hard work?