Oh my gawd. Holla Forums I had no idea…my gaws my children are watching Paw Patrol right now in the other room…...

Oh my gawd. Holla Forums I had no idea…my gaws my children are watching Paw Patrol right now in the other room….what should I do. They're fascist now. I cant just tell them to turn it off. What if I get Paw Patrolled!

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/WEowQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

juden
Everytime.

What?
Bananas in Pajamas has a literal jew rat as a regular antagonist or token evil team mate and is this the fascist… wait, fascist? What's so fascist about them?

Ryder is most definitely not white and the mayor in paw patrol is a Mexican lady

WARNING: MAXIMUM AUTISM
archive.is/WEowQ
(CNN)Parents like to see themselves as purveyors of possibility. We want our children to inhabit a world in which identities are both mutable and equal, and imagination and empathy reign supreme!
But young children, as dictated by their tastes in popular culture, have something else in mind. They're drawn to worlds in which identities are fixed, order trumps imagination and transgressions are met with routine punishment.

This clash between what parents desire for their children and what children desire for themselves is most easily observable in cartoon preferences. So often, the more parents dislike a show, the more their children love it.
Two of the most divisive shows are "Thomas the Tank Engine" and "Paw Patrol," both of which have been eviscerated by grown-ups on discussion boards, in social media and in widely shared essays in prestigious publications.
"Thomas," the long-running television franchise about a group of working trains chugging away on the Island of Sodor, has been called a "premodern corporate-totalitarian dystopia" in the New Yorker, imperialist and sinister in Slate, and classist, sexist and anti-environmentalist in the Guardian. And yet people – presumably parents – spend $1 billion on "Thomas" merchandise every year.
"Paw Patrol" is equally polarizing. The show, about a group of rescue dogs led by a boy named Ryder, is a regular source of complaint among parents and of adoration among their kids.
Buzzfeed called the show "terrible" and pointed to instances of gender and social inequality that go unchecked on the show. In the Guardian, Ryder is described as a megalomaniac with an implied "unstoppable God complex." Nevertheless, "Paw Patrol" is ubiquitous. Branded merchandise featuring Ryder and the gang outsells most other television shows, according to recent data from the Licensing Industry Merchandisers' Association. A recent Amazon search for "Paw Patrol" yielded 24,814 results.
It's tempting as a parent – especially those of us who are aghast at contemporary politics – to be disturbed by the notion of our children tuning in for a regular dose of primary-colored authoritarianism. What ever happened to "Free to Be … You and Me?"
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.
Despite their reputation of innocence, children are bubbling cauldrons of conflicting feelings and impulses. This is especially the case during toddler and preschool years, when they become aware of their capacity to do bad things and struggle with understanding those urges.
The neat moral order of shows like "Thomas" and "Paw Patrol" gives them a context for these feelings, explained Tovah Klein, director of the Barnard College Center for Toddler Development and author of "How Toddlers Thrive." Good and bad are clearly articulated states in those shows, she said, and should one misbehave, the repercussions are clear and predictable.
"This is an age group that is constantly dealing with all these negative feelings in themselves. 'Am I good?' 'Am I bad?' They are trying to figure out what that means," Klein said.
These shows also help children navigate their paradoxical relationship with power. On one hand, they desperately want some power. Watching the pups in "Paw Patrol" go on a mission or the trains in "Thomas" being useful allows them to feel as though they too have an important role to play.
On the other hand, children take comfort in the idea that someone is in charge. To them, Ryder isn't a megalomaniac, and Sir Topham Hatt of "Thomas" isn't a neocolonial autocrat. They're just the guys delegating responsibilities to their eager inferiors. And the fact that these leaders, both white males, look like most figures in position of authority in the real world is not lost on children.
"Children know there are a lot of scary things in the world, that there are a lot of bad things that can happen, and these shows make them feel like they could be part of fixing it," Klein said. "But they know at some level that they can't take care of things solely on their own, and being part of a team makes them feel safe."
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.

That's not so easy, however, explained Yalda T. Uhls, a research scientist who studies children and media at the University of California, Los Angeles, and for the nonprofit Common Sense Media. "Rigidness and simplicity of narrative (in children's television shows) is really important, because in the real world so much is going on. And young children aren't really capable of abstract thought."
Uhls said preschool-age children pay close attention to social cues and status, all in an attempt to figure out where they stand. The clearly articulated hierarchies in these cartoons confirm what they are struggling to understand in their own lives: mainly, that someone else, probably a parent or teacher, is in charge.
Parents concerned with the unsavory elements in shows like "Thomas" and "Paw Patrol" should talk to their children about them, but "don't overthink it," Uhls said.
"It takes a long time for a child to learn something from media and then apply it to their own life," she said. For example, children won't immediately take up bullying just because they saw it go unpunished on television.
Katherine DM Clover, a mother of a 2-year-old in Detroit who occasionally watches "Thomas," struggles with whether she should use the same criteria to judge her child's TV preferences as she does her own.
"I think there is a fine line that parents walk when it comes to media. Obviously, there are some things that are going to be totally off-limits and some things that are more in the 'I don't love it, but whatever' territory. … 'Thomas' feels like a very difficult call. Is this harmful, or is it just not to my taste?"
She said that for now, she still lets him occasionally watch the show, because Thomas is "so close to the line. And as a socially conscious parent, there are so many things that are way over it."
Sa'iyda Shabazz, who is based in Los Angeles, said she has no qualms letting her 4-year-old watch "Thomas," which is "his favorite thing in the entire world."
"I think it's evolved a lot over the years, which is why I don't really agree with the 'fascist' label," she said. "I think the characters show empathy more, and friendship is a bigger theme. And not for nothing, they're trains. Order and doing as you're told is important to running a successful train line."
Then there are the parents who are OK with the authoritarian elements in children's media but wish the authorities didn't always have to be white and male.
"I watched 'Paw Patrol' once with my daughter, and on that episode, Skye volunteered for a mission, but then Ryder picked two male pups," said Rebekah Pajak, a mother of a 2-year-old and a 1-year-old in Chicago. Skye is the only female in the core team of six rescue pups on the show. "I remember thinking, 'There's a glass ceiling in this cartoon!' "
Like many parents struggling with their children's media choices, Pajak doesn't want to get in the way of something her daughter enjoys – and she really enjoys "Paw Patrol." But the concern about her daughter absorbing patriarchal messages lingers.
"I don't want to think one cartoon is going to shape her, but if she sees 10 cartoons, then I do have a concern. It's systemic. What is this all telling her collectively?"
Here's an idea, gratis, for the creative team behind of "Paw Patrol" and "Thomas," should they want to broaden their appeal to parents without alienating their fan base: Ryder and Sir Topham Hatt retire and are replaced by their equally domineering sisters. This, in turn, boosts the social status of all the non-male characters. Children would still get the satisfaction of immersing themselves in an orderly universe where rules are rules, and everyone is in his or her place. Just without the white guy on top.
TL;DR: I should be able to watch kids shows and like them without degenerating into an autistic wreck

...

I can't even feign shitpost-y sarcasm for this.. What the fuck are they even on about now?
That makes Gawker and Salon look sane during the early GooberGloblin years.

MEGALOMANIAC WITH AN UNSTOPPABLE GOD COMPLEX

In other news.

The protagonists act civil and socially upright instead of trying to tear down and overturn society and rioting all over everywhere at the loosest pretext.

I'll take book burning bible thumpers over their pseudo intellectual fuckstains.

Im 22 years old and I dont even know what that means how would a 6 year old know

I’m not even sure most parents know what that means

Sometimes I run into people who say "oh, my parents wouldn't let me watch Pokemon as a kid because they thought it was satanic." In another fifteen years I'm looking forward to meeting the man who says "my parents wouldn't let me watch Thomas the Tank Engine as a kid because they though it was heteronormative cis-fascist".

This.

I was scared my autistic little nephew loved this series and would turn into a furry, but now I'm relieved.


Both burn books.

TL;DR : Children like fascist media as a stage in normal cognitive development

So, basically, people don't let their children watch Thomas are abusing them, like Anti-Vax parents.

What the fuck.

It's one of their particularly unsettling traits.. Their obsessive desire to turn every platform and medium they get their hands on into a full-blown propaganda soapbox. They seem to feel a crippling guilt for not using every opportunity given to them to virtue signal on behalf of their cult-like greater good.. and when they see that someone else isn't, they feel an intense hostility and hatred towards them.

So, the kiddy show about talking trains that doesn't take time out of every episode to rail against the heteropatriarchy or to encourage kids to smash capitalism makes them froth at the mouth.

I have something to say to CNN as a company

Not the person you were responding to, but, my problem is that I was raised Liberal. I was enculturated to believe that conservatives (Christians especially) believed stupid things and were witch burners. They have always been backwards to me. I was raised with conservative fascism; I have learned to cope with it. I understand that most conservatives just want what the small children want: a world that gives them a sense of security by providing them with a clear place within it, an orderly world, a hierarchical world. Liberal fascism is new to me and I don't know how to cope with it.

I know in the news world there's no such thing as integrity but this is ridiculous.

Both are retarded and want to erase our hobbies

Bible-thumpers have limited power within society and only cause short-term damage. SJWs and ideologically kool-aid soaked journos help each other establish credibility and the illusion of expertise which misleads the public, governments, and future decisions. A bunch of extremist nutjobs saying their God wants them to burn comic books isn't the same as an army of useful idiots marching in the streets with the backing of politicians, championing idiotic causes that have no rooting in science, fact, reality, or common sense.

Dont go on and say bible thumpers had "limited power" sides change and powers shift what I fear is what is next.

I disagree. I would say that, at this point, they are both equally powerful and causing equal amounts of short- and long-term damage. Seventy years ago, Bible-thumpers were the "army of useful idiots marching in the streets with the backing of politicians, championing idiotic causes that have no rooting in science, fact, reality, or common sense" that established the Comics Code Authority.


I feel that I will be treated less harshly by conservatives for my godlessness and degenerate porn habit than I will be treated by liberals for just disagreeing with them (for instance, pointing out that the rate at which blacks are arrested is around the rate that they are killed by police, so maybe the policing isn't the problem and the glorification of criminality in black subculture is the problem).

How devout do you think people like Hillary Clinton or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jack Thompson were? All those people who tried going after vidya.
The Satanic panic only really affected Metalheads and D&D fags. The comics code was a secular decision that was SECONDED, by groups like the Catholic Legion of Decency.

Uh… I was going to ask about how old are you, but the I just remember there have been more than a decade after the Bush years.

The twenty something guys who only really knew Obama as a president might not remember why the bible belt was named like that.

I get what you're saying, but the past is not the future. While there are relative parallels and similar circumstances to the moral panics of previous generations, the religious right has never, ever achieved anything to the level that SJWs, Marxists, Leftists, and whatever else you want to call them and throw into the mix, have accomplished today. The total subversion of academia, damned near total control over hollywood and the new media. Full blown indoctrination in public schools. Tranny toddlers, pride parades, destroying the livelihood and lives of people over minor comments, destruction and revision of history.. Bible-thumpers are not without their guilt, but you cannot say that they were ever as bad as what we're seeing now. Maybe if they had the opportunity, the technology, and the interconnectivity of the modern age at their disposal 50 years ago, they would have been, but they weren't.

Not in our lifetimes, but in the past I would say yes, they did. The biggest problem is that the reason we haven't seen this in our lifetime was the constant call for change from Enlightenment thinkers. The original Liberals. People who, if they were raised today, would be Marxists. And that is the problem: the people fighting the excesses of the Religious Right are the Marxists. There are no longer Enlightenment Liberals to cast off religious bullshit who don't shove their own cock down your throat.

They were that got fucking Alcohol banned like the other user said they HAD power but overtime they faded.

I just miss it when the only enemies of the internet were conservatives and Scientologists

To much random bullshit nowadays Neo-Chicago authoritarian gay nazis or communist furry trans troglodytes

I guess you can try look into other political ideologies or just tell the liberal nutjobs to fuck off.

Hey Holla Forums

At least the conservative book burners buy the books first

Gonna let you in on a little secret: Prohibition was largely pushed through by women voters with nothing better to do. Giving them the vote has been one disastrous mistake after another.

I hope you like to poison your body with the illusion of satisfaction.

Does anybody else wish these pearl-clutching campaigns were accurate sometimes? It's a good recommendation, but whenever I check out so called "fascist" media it's just fucking ordinary.

2/10 Ryder did not seize power in a bloody coup.

Everything has gone mad. Every bit of common sense has been "debunked" by some stupid social science paper. Every bit of media is infested with Marxist garbage. Companies and people go against their self-interest to push a bullshit narrative. South Park has gone full bluepilled and somehow gotten worse than Zombie Simpsons. I gotten tired of all of the anti-SJW stuff because it all the same shit but nothing is changing. I'm just at point where I hope things burn to move on from all this garbage. Leftists and their human handpuppets are now treating lying journalists like some kind of priestly class that distrust towards them becomes a failure in our part.

It would be hilarious to tune in to a cartoon and find the smiling dogs and trains are leading a one-party state and rounding up dissidents in camps.

I've never watched Paw Patrol because I have no infant family members and the few toddlers in my family I do know don't even watch TV, but given the image I assume the plot is just "You have a firefighter dog, a police dog, a construction dog, etc. Some shit happens and the kid picks the dogs best suited to fix the problem and saves the day." That's not fascism, that's just teaching kids how shit works. If a house is being burglarized, you don't call the fire department for help. Likewise you wouldn't call in search and rescue people to help you build a skyscraper. Having order isn't "authoritarian," it's just doing what makes the most sense. By that logic, Handy Manny is also fascist since it's a show about anthropomorphic tools that teaches kids that you cannot pound a nail in with a saw or cut boards with a screwdriver, and that certain tools are best used for certain jobs. Hell, I recall that a lot of the plots in Handy Manny involved a tool that wasn't right for a specific job trying to fix something and making everything worse.

Also how the fuck is the Johnny Test-looking kid a "megalomaniac with a god complex?" I'm seriously trying to do my best TV Tropes-tier, looking-for-anything-to-be-offended-by logical gymnastics to try to see how this kid with a harem of rescue dogs is a megalomaniac, and I can't think of anything. Does he talk to his dogs like some bad Albert Wesker parody or something? Did he once punish the dogs for fucking up a rescue or something?

lol

Do you know what moderation is, or do you only believe in extremes?

Where do you think we are?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

Well. You tried.

It's just Rescue Heroes except with puppies and Ryder taking the head position instead of the firefighter with the overall tone lowered down to Bob the Builder.

Because he's a white male, straight too if what my sister thinks is true about the blonde girl who you always see being interested in him.

Rescue Heroes was really cool.

user NO
That path only leads to madness

As a kid, I enjoyed shows that a a strict sense of order and everything has it's place, that's where children need to start off, they need that sense of order and place so they can get used to chaotic adult life.

Anyone who uses logical thinking is a megalomaniac to them, the writers have some insecurities.

What did I miss? Why do I keep seeing this guy everywhere?

A hero user, a hero.

Fixed.

A hero who an hero'd?

Does Adolph sound like a jewish name to you?

If CNN were a German company, then no, Strauss does not sound Jewish.
Pic related.

The nose knows, you may pass

I'm not the Hitler poster tho

You can pass anyway, I don't care it's kinda a free country sometimes

Thanks m9

But why did he kill himself?

Because he was a greekabook, and ancient greeks like Socrates believe it is better to die than to live under tyranny.

That's a hebe.

Deny the jews the exp for his death. Generals always give massive xp and rewards. Now they have nothing, and he inspired others.

Makes sense. Children just watch what they like. Its before they force themselves to follow propaganda instead of their gut and follow whatever is being parroted.

He was a Croatian general who was put on trial for war crimes during the Yugoslav Wars, instead of letting himself be executed, he took out a vial of poison he had stashed in his suit, and poisoned himself.

Can someone elaborate on this? I assumed it was yet another low budget cgi piece of shit made to lower your kid's imagination by being slow as fuck and spend a minute repeating the answer to a very simple problem.

...

What kind of father are you?

Read the thread.