6 ms·

> The show unashamedly depicts an intact household with two loving, heterosexual parents. It's "stunning and brave" in the current culture. Eh? I'm trying to t

> The show unashamedly depicts an intact household with two loving, heterosexual parents. It's "stunning and brave" in the current culture. Eh? I'm trying to think of peer shows of Bluey... Peppa Pig and Daniel Tiger come to mind (Trash Truck anyone? Charming little show), heterosexual parents are by far and away the norm. The idea that it's "brave" to show them feels like a conservative talking point that's out of step with reality. > unconcerned with their sexual identity, despite the current narrative being that they are the age at which they should be Speaking of conservative talking points... again, I'm really struggling to think of peer shows that have six year olds discussing their sexual identity.

geraldwhen 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- skyyler 3y ago
  Chrissie is based on a character from the original Mr Rogers show. You are trying to find things to be mad about, it seems. "interracial household"? That's something you take issue with?
- afavour 3y ago
  > Daniel tiger jams in diversity at every opportunity. It clearly doesn't given that Daniel Tiger's family, the primary family unit of the show, is a heterosexual couple. > interracial I guess I'm losing track of what we're supposed to be offended about now. OP suggested that depicting a heterosexual couple was “brave”, I pointed out that it happens all the time. Are we now arguing that there should be absolutely no instances of mixed-race, orientation or disabilities in kids shows at all?
- nindalf 3y ago
  > Miscellena is from an interracial household I’m so sorry you and your child had to witness that. Must have been quite traumatic.
- sophacles 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - theultdev 3y ago
    He never said he was offended by those things. Just those things don't always need to be in all kid shows. You can support those ideals and not want pandering in your show. Crazy, I know.
    - sophacles 3y ago
      Is it pandering? None of those things are rare, and I'd be surprised to find out any significant portion of the population wouldn't encounter them in their own school. It's literally just a representation of the real world. I guess preparing children for the world that exists is "woke" or something.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        Bluey prepares kids more for the real world more than the corporate HR messages the US shows have. It's not about checking diversity boxes, it's about handling your emotions. And yes, we're all tired of "woke" shit, that's not the real world, but it tries to parade as it is.
        bcrosby95 3y ago
        In my 8 year old's classroom there is: A kid in a wheelchair. Another with mild autism. Another whose being raised by the grandparents because her mother is a drug addict. Another with pretty severe alopecia (this being her "best friend"). One of her other friends has been very sad because her aunt was killed in Israel. This is all "real world". And it affects us despite it not happening to our family. At least not yet.
        theultdev 3y ago
        You teach morals to handle all situations. You don't have to directly have brokenness, sex, rape, drugs, and murder in kids shows even if those things exist in the real world.
- eterpstra 3y ago
  Jack has ADD Chili's sister is infertile Winton, Judo, and the Terriers are from single parent households There's a deaf kid featured in Turtleboy There's a wheelchair kid in Quiet Game "Chocolate Milk" from Tradies is in a mixed breed relationship In fact, the whole fact that different breeds are interacting is an allegory for racial inclusion. So yeah, Bluey gets a little "woke" here and there. Sorry, not sorry.
- fredoliveira 3y ago
  > Owl doesn’t have a mother. Miscellena is from an interracial household. Crissy has a physical disability of some kind and cannot walk. Oh man, god forbid a child being exposed to the vile, vile ideas of single parenthood, interracial love, or physical disability! How dare they, I say! Sigh.
- evan_ 3y ago
  [flagged]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  So the argument is no longer that presenting an intact heterosexual nuclear family is worthy of positive note, but that instead presenting exclusively intact monoracial nuclear families is worthy of positive note? With the former, I would agree, except that its so common that while it may be positive its hardly noteworthy; with the latter... just no.
  - geraldwhen 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > You misunderstand. No, I don't. A standard was set that the problem was the absence of media depicting intact nuclear families. Daniel Tiger depicts intact nuclear families, but was argued to not be a counterexample to the complaint because it also shows other families and because one of the intact nuclear families it shows is interracial. This clearly shows that the problem is not the absence of depictions of intact nuclear families, but the presence of other families (and interracial families, even when they are intact nuclear families.) And you’ve reinforced that with this post, complaining that there is insufficient story justification for these deviations from your preferred norm, which, again, demonstrates that your problem is not the absence of positive depictions of intact nuclear fanilies but the presence of other families (and interracial nuclear families) without sufficient justification for the departure from your preferred exclusive norm.
    - dang 3y ago
      Can you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've done it repeatedly, not just in this thread and not just on this topic, and you've repeatedly broken HN's guidelines. (e.g. like you did with the swipe at the end of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38715161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38715161 - you went from making substantive points to a cheap putdown which was obvious flamebait.) I'm sure you have substantive things to say, but when you toss in Molotov cocktails along the way, it becomes flamebait and you're breaking HN's rules—regardless of which position you're fighting for or against. You've been doing that repeatedly, it isn't cool, and it's also not in your interest because it makes your comments less persuasive. People will react to the provocations, lose your substantive points, and in the process the thread turns ugly. By doing this, you damage not only the thread but the community. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note these: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."
netchkin 3y ago
This reminds me I never cracked how society works in Bing, as well as how kids are born.
rglullis 3y ago
Never seen Daniel Tiger, but Peppa Pig makes the Dad the butt of the joke and portrays him as the overconfident idiot in pretty much every story, while all moms are always infallible. It's not something that kids might consciously notice, but it's grating and not what I'd exactly call a positive message.
- mywacaday 3y ago
  My wife and I don't like Peppa for that very reason. One of its main catchphrases is "silly daddy".
- Aeolun 3y ago
  > It's not something that kids might consciously notice, but it's grating and not what I'd exactly call a positive message. While I agree it’s not a real positive note, it does seem to reflect reality to some extend (in the sense that my wife thinks she’s always right). I’m fairly certain Peppa’s dad is just modelled on an overconfident 50’s dad. It’s funny though, so I can live with it.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Well that de-escalated quickly! One moment it's considered brave to even feature a single, intact heterosexual couple of married pigs in a cartoon, but when challenged on this being an insane take, utterly divorced from reality, we've fallen back to "sometimes the cartoon pig dad has humourous foibles as part of his character"?
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Have you realized that you are talking about comments made by two different people?
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      Yes. I don't really know why you thought it was an appropriate direction to take the "there are no heterosexual couples depicted in modern children's TV! / Yes there are, are you mad?" thread though. Maybe you can enlighten us?

geraldwhen 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
skyyler 3y ago
Chrissie is based on a character from the original Mr Rogers show. You are trying to find things to be mad about, it seems. "interracial household"? That's something you take issue with?
afavour 3y ago
> Daniel tiger jams in diversity at every opportunity. It clearly doesn't given that Daniel Tiger's family, the primary family unit of the show, is a heterosexual couple. > interracial I guess I'm losing track of what we're supposed to be offended about now. OP suggested that depicting a heterosexual couple was “brave”, I pointed out that it happens all the time. Are we now arguing that there should be absolutely no instances of mixed-race, orientation or disabilities in kids shows at all?
nindalf 3y ago
> Miscellena is from an interracial household I’m so sorry you and your child had to witness that. Must have been quite traumatic.
sophacles 3y ago
[flagged]
- theultdev 3y ago
  He never said he was offended by those things. Just those things don't always need to be in all kid shows. You can support those ideals and not want pandering in your show. Crazy, I know.
  - sophacles 3y ago
    Is it pandering? None of those things are rare, and I'd be surprised to find out any significant portion of the population wouldn't encounter them in their own school. It's literally just a representation of the real world. I guess preparing children for the world that exists is "woke" or something.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      Bluey prepares kids more for the real world more than the corporate HR messages the US shows have. It's not about checking diversity boxes, it's about handling your emotions. And yes, we're all tired of "woke" shit, that's not the real world, but it tries to parade as it is.
      - bcrosby95 3y ago
        In my 8 year old's classroom there is: A kid in a wheelchair. Another with mild autism. Another whose being raised by the grandparents because her mother is a drug addict. Another with pretty severe alopecia (this being her "best friend"). One of her other friends has been very sad because her aunt was killed in Israel. This is all "real world". And it affects us despite it not happening to our family. At least not yet.
        theultdev 3y ago
        You teach morals to handle all situations. You don't have to directly have brokenness, sex, rape, drugs, and murder in kids shows even if those things exist in the real world.
eterpstra 3y ago
Jack has ADD Chili's sister is infertile Winton, Judo, and the Terriers are from single parent households There's a deaf kid featured in Turtleboy There's a wheelchair kid in Quiet Game "Chocolate Milk" from Tradies is in a mixed breed relationship In fact, the whole fact that different breeds are interacting is an allegory for racial inclusion. So yeah, Bluey gets a little "woke" here and there. Sorry, not sorry.
fredoliveira 3y ago
> Owl doesn’t have a mother. Miscellena is from an interracial household. Crissy has a physical disability of some kind and cannot walk. Oh man, god forbid a child being exposed to the vile, vile ideas of single parenthood, interracial love, or physical disability! How dare they, I say! Sigh.
evan_ 3y ago
[flagged]
dragonwriter 3y ago
So the argument is no longer that presenting an intact heterosexual nuclear family is worthy of positive note, but that instead presenting exclusively intact monoracial nuclear families is worthy of positive note? With the former, I would agree, except that its so common that while it may be positive its hardly noteworthy; with the latter... just no.
- geraldwhen 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > You misunderstand. No, I don't. A standard was set that the problem was the absence of media depicting intact nuclear families. Daniel Tiger depicts intact nuclear families, but was argued to not be a counterexample to the complaint because it also shows other families and because one of the intact nuclear families it shows is interracial. This clearly shows that the problem is not the absence of depictions of intact nuclear families, but the presence of other families (and interracial families, even when they are intact nuclear families.) And you’ve reinforced that with this post, complaining that there is insufficient story justification for these deviations from your preferred norm, which, again, demonstrates that your problem is not the absence of positive depictions of intact nuclear fanilies but the presence of other families (and interracial nuclear families) without sufficient justification for the departure from your preferred exclusive norm.
  - dang 3y ago
    Can you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've done it repeatedly, not just in this thread and not just on this topic, and you've repeatedly broken HN's guidelines. (e.g. like you did with the swipe at the end of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38715161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38715161 - you went from making substantive points to a cheap putdown which was obvious flamebait.) I'm sure you have substantive things to say, but when you toss in Molotov cocktails along the way, it becomes flamebait and you're breaking HN's rules—regardless of which position you're fighting for or against. You've been doing that repeatedly, it isn't cool, and it's also not in your interest because it makes your comments less persuasive. People will react to the provocations, lose your substantive points, and in the process the thread turns ugly. By doing this, you damage not only the thread but the community. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note these: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."

netchkin 3y ago

This reminds me I never cracked how society works in Bing, as well as how kids are born.

rglullis 3y ago

Never seen Daniel Tiger, but Peppa Pig makes the Dad the butt of the joke and portrays him as the overconfident idiot in pretty much every story, while all moms are always infallible. It's not something that kids might consciously notice, but it's grating and not what I'd exactly call a positive message.

mywacaday 3y ago
My wife and I don't like Peppa for that very reason. One of its main catchphrases is "silly daddy".
Aeolun 3y ago
> It's not something that kids might consciously notice, but it's grating and not what I'd exactly call a positive message. While I agree it’s not a real positive note, it does seem to reflect reality to some extend (in the sense that my wife thinks she’s always right). I’m fairly certain Peppa’s dad is just modelled on an overconfident 50’s dad. It’s funny though, so I can live with it.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Well that de-escalated quickly! One moment it's considered brave to even feature a single, intact heterosexual couple of married pigs in a cartoon, but when challenged on this being an insane take, utterly divorced from reality, we've fallen back to "sometimes the cartoon pig dad has humourous foibles as part of his character"?
- rglullis 3y ago
  Have you realized that you are talking about comments made by two different people?
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    Yes. I don't really know why you thought it was an appropriate direction to take the "there are no heterosexual couples depicted in modern children's TV! / Yes there are, are you mad?" thread though. Maybe you can enlighten us?