3 ms·

I agree with what you're saying! I am currently studying forensic psychology, and this was a compulsory reading, along with a few others. This one stood out to

I agree with what you're saying! I am currently studying forensic psychology, and this was a compulsory reading, along with a few others. This one stood out to me as I felt it wasn't very objective, and I was surprised it was mandatory. I asked myself if the entire paper was just the author's excuse to watch Paw Patrol with his kid. Oddly, this was the most interesting one I read today for many of the reasons you described. I felt that there were a few comments the author made that were food for thought, particularly the statement that the criminals are predominantly outsiders (migrants and visitors), which I felt was a really interesting observation that the author made, particularly in light of some other stuff I've been reading about group and intergroup relations and its impact on security, where perceived differences can lead to tensions and conflicts between groups. This observation makes me wonder how concepts of 'them vs us' are represented to young people through their engagement with media. Ultimately though, I came away from the reading feeling that many of the author's points were rather weak, particularly those regarding misogyny. My ultimate conclusion was that this was overthinking kids' cartoons, and the author was testing whether they could get away with submitting an academic paper on Paw Patrol.

bitsinthesky 3y ago
Oh, I didn't notice it was you sharing the article. I don't know why it hasn't generated more discussion! It's fun. How did you come across this one? How does this paper fit in with other works on children and criminal philosophy (hah)? I recall something while taking Russian classes. Soviet children's cartoons would contain societal critique/satire that nothing else could get away with, because it wouldn't occur to the state sensors to look at cartoons (I have no sources).
- Quinzel 3y ago
  It supposedly reproduces problematic narratives around crime and punishment that are based in neoliberalism, and also reinforces the idea that personal responsibility is achieved through intensified surveillance and more stringent border control. I can see how it would be important to pay attention to those themes, and have a good understanding of them. However my thoughts are that in this article the author does a weak job of relating the themes he discusses to how it has any impact on children’s development of opinions or behaviors relating to crime and punishment. I will probably read this particular article a few more times and I wonder if by the time I have, my perception of it will have changed, and I will look upon it more favourably for fostering a discussion around children’s television and reinforcing of damaging beliefs… or whatever.

bitsinthesky 3y ago

Oh, I didn't notice it was you sharing the article. I don't know why it hasn't generated more discussion! It's fun. How did you come across this one? How does this paper fit in with other works on children and criminal philosophy (hah)? I recall something while taking Russian classes. Soviet children's cartoons would contain societal critique/satire that nothing else could get away with, because it wouldn't occur to the state sensors to look at cartoons (I have no sources).

Quinzel 3y ago
It supposedly reproduces problematic narratives around crime and punishment that are based in neoliberalism, and also reinforces the idea that personal responsibility is achieved through intensified surveillance and more stringent border control. I can see how it would be important to pay attention to those themes, and have a good understanding of them. However my thoughts are that in this article the author does a weak job of relating the themes he discusses to how it has any impact on children’s development of opinions or behaviors relating to crime and punishment. I will probably read this particular article a few more times and I wonder if by the time I have, my perception of it will have changed, and I will look upon it more favourably for fostering a discussion around children’s television and reinforcing of damaging beliefs… or whatever.