What Danes consider healthy children’s television • Hacker News Board

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#161

Post by saulrh » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #131

marcusgarvey wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those youtube videos of people with toys are nuts What is this referring to, exactly? Videos of (adults?) playing with toys?

There is a woman who calls herself "Ms. Hands" ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV6P5rRVmiTL637byUZBTrQ ) and I can only assume she's a billionaire given how often I hear her awful voice as she pops toys out of Play Doh "eggs". I find the whole genre depressing as hell because I can't help but think of kids watching the videos who have 0 hope of ever actually playing with those toys. OTOH, I've been thinking off an…

> I find the whole genre depressing as hell because I can't help but think of kids watching the videos who have 0 hope of ever actually playing with those toys.

To be completely fair, I subscribe to more than a few blacksmithing, metalworking, machining, woodworking, and other heavy-duty crafty channels, and there's little-to-no chance that I'll ever get a lathe or a mill.

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#162

Post by rukuu001 » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 10:05 PM UTC

david-given wrote: post #58

tclancy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am old enough (40) with a daughter who is almost 3, to be a little horrified by kids' TV. It's not that there isn't a ton of "good" stuff for her, it's that there is only "good" stuff. There isn't anything not geared toward teaching her math, reading or morals. When I was a kid, that was PBS and a handful of other shows and the rest of it was people whacking the crap out of each other to make me bug my parents to b…

Go look up some old British children's television. It was made in an era when... um... let's just say that it wasn't focus grouped. Chorlton and the Wheelies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Ng7VMqet0 Noggin the Nog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bKAYH3Sl8s The Trapdoor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eEXyg1lsZc Bod: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfFoj-gFP2M Bagpuss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9beAp3TG…

We got all of these in Australia when I was a kid, including Australia's own effort at anarchistic kids telly, Aunty Jack: https://youtu.be/vIqqiK4ncfs

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#163

Post by andrewstuart » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #159

interknot wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll punt as to the accuracy of your "moralizing America" sneer, but remember that Disney chose their mascot--not the American public. Additionally, my understanding is that Donald Duck had at least a few American fans. Though their numbers are probably limited to the few Americans who enjoy Looney Tunes, Homer Simpson, and the stereotypical sitcom dad (among other characters).

TIL that Donald Duck isn't very popular in the US. I grew up with a weekly Disney comic book that was a collection of mostly Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse (detective) stories. Almost always skipped Mickey, he's just way too boring as a character. But didn't you guys have Duck Tales as well? I thought that was massively popular.

I didn't like Donald Duck on TV but I loved the comic books.

I collected hundreds of them at flea markets about 40 years ago.

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#164

Post by jonah » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 10:26 PM UTC

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Mr. Roger's Neighborhood yet. One of the best if not the very best childrens' program in the US. It was slow-paced and deliberate like the Danish shows are described, but instead of being crass and letting things play out, he dealt with serious topics in a simple, honest, and caring way. He also encouraged curiosity and investigation and broke gender and ethnic mores way before it was the in thing to do.

Well worth checking out.

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#165

Post by rospaya » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 10:51 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #11

At the risk of making a tu quoque argument - if you want to see unhealthy children television, look no further than Cartoon Network.

Not sure if Johnny Bravo and Cow and Chicken were good influences, but Dexter's Laboratory and Powerpuff Girls, while very visually busy, definitely did make an impact on me.

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#166

Post by larsiusprime » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

aedron wrote: post #44

The most astute observation is that characters on Danish kids TV are often completely, unapologetically flawed. This makes them relatable to kids, and kids enjoy watching them in all their dysfunction. And I actually disagree with the premise that this contains no lessons or morals. Children are able to see clearly how ridiculous and ill-advised the behavior of these characters is, and so learn to recognize it in the…

Donald Duck's specific popularity has a lot to do with World War II and the marshall plan -- whereas the USA had TV And Radio, Europe's infrastructure was devastated and the influx of american comic books formed a cheap form of entertainment. One of those happened to be Donald Duck -- which was ALSO popular in the USA at the time and ran in lots of newspapers.

But in the USA, Donald Duck (and comics in general) had growing competition whereas in europe he had time to become a nostalgic tradition.

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#167

Post by asjo » Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 11:57 PM UTC

iammyIP wrote: post #155

sixhobbits wrote: post #142

Can we please edit the title to match the (correct) original "children's" instead of the modified (incorrect) "childrens'"

'childrens' is 'more correct' because it makes the most grammatical sense. Since it's genitiv, why would you apostrophe it, add another character for what reason? Whose ball is it? The dogs ball. Whose exhaust is it? It's the rockets exhaust. The apostrophe is used to mark silent letters inbetween the slew of two words. It is -> It's ~ It(i)s.

Obligatory Bob the Angry Flower educational cartoon link: http://www.angryflower.com/247.html

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#168

Post by egypturnash » Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 12:03 AM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #116

tclancy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had the same thought but it's just not that easy. She's at an age where we are trying like hell to convince her hitting isn't the best option, so showing her things like "Hillbilly Hare" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SrXRNPRCA ) aren't the best idea. She's actually in love with old Pink Panther cartoons right now and it's amazing to see what we used to watch: smoking, violence, a lot of shotguns.

> it's amazing to see what we used to watch My wife and I are working through the old Tom and Jerry cartoons with our toddler, and we are shocked to see how much blackface there is. Like, okay, I get it was a different time- but the quantity is shocking. Episodes where it doesn't even have to happen, they'll just quickly mock black people and then get back to the plot.

I've watched a lot of old cartoons (it comes with the territory when you want to be an animator) and to be honest I'm not sure it was seen as "mocking" back then. It was just How You Drew Black People back then - a caricature based on a caricature.

If you want a complicated viewing experience, track down Clampett's "So White An' De Sebben Dwarves", which is positively bursting with energy and love, for both the craft of animation, and the jazz scene of the day... and a whoooole lotta visuals that just aren't okay any more.

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#169

Post by sverige » Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 12:27 AM UTC

justinjlynn wrote: post #57

sverige wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many kinds of evidence that are not reproducible.

Evidence refers to that which can be evidenced on demand, or rather more apropos, produced upon demand. Therefore, unless you mean something other than the commonly accepted meaning of the term 'evidence', then evidence must be reproducible. Perhaps if you could share some examples, we could explore your definition more fully?

I disagree that all evidence must be reproducible, which is the standard for experimental evidence (simple physics comes to mind). Just off the top of my head, there is historical evidence and geological evidence, for example.

Historical evidence (whether documentary or archaeological or otherwise) is certainly producible, but not reproducible in the sense that you can provide the exact same thing again.

Geological evidence (again, very simply, like rock strata) is not reproducible. Even saying that this kind of formation always accompanies another kind isn't reproducible. (The "all ravens are black" problem.")

There are other logical kinds of evidence that don't meet the "scientific" standard, and yet are quite valid. My objection really is that the original statement was far too narrow.

Re: What Danes consider healthy children’s television

#170

Post by egypturnash » Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 12:28 AM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #159

interknot wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll punt as to the accuracy of your "moralizing America" sneer, but remember that Disney chose their mascot--not the American public. Additionally, my understanding is that Donald Duck had at least a few American fans. Though their numbers are probably limited to the few Americans who enjoy Looney Tunes, Homer Simpson, and the stereotypical sitcom dad (among other characters).

TIL that Donald Duck isn't very popular in the US. I grew up with a weekly Disney comic book that was a collection of mostly Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse (detective) stories. Almost always skipped Mickey, he's just way too boring as a character. But didn't you guys have Duck Tales as well? I thought that was massively popular.

Donald comes off a lot better in comics, where he's not saddled with a comedy voice that renders him almost completely incomprehensible. Duck Tales was, indeed, pretty popular, with four seasons - and it focused almost entirely on the adventures of Uncle Scrooge and Donald's nephews. Who you could actually understand. (It was also largely based on the Carl Barks comics, so a lot of the stories would probably be super familiar to you.)

And yeah. Mickey's a boring goody-two-shoes. The earliest cartoons had him as an anarchic troublemaker but once he became the Disney mascot he got all the fun siphoned out of him and everyone quit giving a shit about him.