In their ongoing effort to destroy the world and all things that are good in it, CNN has really outdone itself this time. It’s purely speculative at this point, but you have to wonder if they are going for some secret left-wing journalism award for “craziest story accepted by liberals.” There’s really no other explanation for their recent headline that reads “Why Kids Love Fascist Cartoons Like Paw Patrol and Thomas [The Tank Engine].”
That’s right, you know those goofy, anthropomorphic locomotives? The one’s with the silly faces? If you believe CNN, they’re apparently enthusiastically whispering “Heil Hitler” to each other off-frame right in between scenes where they teach children to never give up, be polite, and engage in good sportsmanship. And that show about cute puppies rescuing people in danger? Paw Patrol is clearly trying to churn out little Hitler Youth brigades. These are vast right-wing conspiracies taking control of children’s minds nation-wide. Spooky!
There’s an often heard expression on the internet: liberalism is a mental disorder. With each passing day that statement becomes something that is hard to argue with or even laugh at.
Take Elissa Strauss, the journalist responsible for this dumpster fire of an article. She has some interesting and contradictory views on children and parenting. For instance, she begins her piece by implying that these shows (ones about talking trains and talking dogs, mind you) lack imagination. But only a few paragraphs later, she says she is upset about one of the main character’s “unstoppable god complex.” In other words, he believes he can achieve too much.
I guess Strauss doesn’t want children to imagine themselves capable of everything. So what does she want them to imagine? That answer came quickly. She wants them to imagine social inequality and social justice warrior dilemmas. The more interesting complaints Strauss raises are quickly vanquished by her own contradictions. She says that children see male cartoon figures and recognize that they “look like most figures in positions of authority” in the real world. One of these characters she’s referring to looks like a Jimmy Neutron on cocaine. The other is a fatter version of Mr. Monopoly. Just a couple sentences later, Strauss let’s it slip that a research scientist has told her that children from this age group aren’t really capable of abstract thought. In other words, they’re not seeing a young boy playing with puppies and thinking “wow, I will never be able to hold political office.”
Yet, Strauss moans about how “prestigious publications” like Buzzfeed and Slate have criticized the show and how serious adults in online forums have had heated discussions about the problems in children’s cartoons. Yes, she really called Slate and Buzzfeed prestigious. She warns that Buzzfeed called one show “terrible” and how Slate called another “imperialist and sinister.” It should be easy to laugh at these sorts of absurd comments on CNN, but the widespread criticism from adults that apparently have too much time on their hands and no concept of fun is rather depressing. It’s almost as if they think there aren’t any shows with a boisterous Hispanic female lead that believes she can go anywhere in the world on her own and that the sky is the limit…Dora Dora Dora.
When reading her petty rant, it soon becomes clear that she has two main problems: the main characters in these two shows are boys and the shows don’t push an anti-white and anti-male agenda. She calls this lack of liberal narrative a series of problematic “instances of gender and social inequality.” Frankly, if parents want their children to become brainwashed little liberal dirtbags, maybe they should try some parenting instead of letting a TV screen babysit? Otherwise, complaining that a show for preschoolers is not political enough comes off as a bit absurd.
While Strauss says that these shows are “primary-colored authoritarianism,” she doesn’t really seem to care about that. She even admits that children need structure in order to understand their world and that narratives of good and evil, of punishment and reward, are nurturing and good for their development. So what’s her beef? She’s perfectly fine with this sort of cartoon that is “fascist” so long as a white man isn’t the main character. She writes:
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.
In other words, this isn’t about fascism at all. This is about some crazy feminist that can’t stop thinking that some trains with faces happen to have a male voice. They’re fake cartoons, mind you, but god forbid some voice actor portraying them should have a penis!
Liberalism is a mental disorder.