Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–279 of 279 posts

Re: The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

#271

Post by fallous »

cobbzilla wrote: post #88
fallous wrote: post #64

The New Yorker turned into Pat Robertson and the 700 Club so quickly I didn't even notice. Robertson divined the nefarious gay-agenda purpose of Teletubbies and now Ms. Tolentino discovers the totalitarianism that is Thomas & Friends. One can only imagine the undisguised communism of Barney & Friends (caring means sharing!) awaiting discovery or the Satanic influences of Lyrick/HIT (owners and distributors of Barney…

In all fairness, Teletubbies had no dialog. With enough creativity, you could read whatever you want into it. When an insubordinate train car is bricked up "for always and always" and the narrator comments "I think he deserved his punishment, don’t you?", well, um, I think it's OK to say there's some seriously old-school moralizing going on.

Depends how "old" the school of morality you're subscribing to is I guess and the strain of philosophy. Considering major Western Philosophies... New Testament circa 33AD not so much, pre-Enlightenment Catholic Church probably, Enlightenment era to pre-Marx, not so much, Marxist/Leninist and Progressive era of say 1900 and beyond then absolutely.

Re: The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

#272

Post by thatsethnz »

arjie wrote: post #218
dao- wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason you teach a toddler this should be blindingly obvious. Not at all. People should help out others out of altruism, because they understand that society is cooperative, or because they value other people. "Be helpful or be punished" isn't a lesson I'd want to teach my kid.

Do you have a kid? And were the first words out of her mouth a statement of the categorical imperative?

I dunno about you but my sons firsts words were "Duty! Sublime and mighty name that embraces nothing charming or insinuating but requires submission, and yet does not seek to move the will by threatening anything that would arouse natural aversion or terror in the mind but only holds forth a law that of itself finds entry into the mind and yet gains reluctant reverence..."

Re: The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

#273

Post by bjourne »

_urga wrote: post #246
bjourne wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What argument is that? I am also a product of the Enlightenment who has read the Bible and I can tell you that the message is markedly different in the Old vs the New Testament. You just have to read about all the rules outlined in Leviticus to understand that. In the OT, someone who breaks the rules mostly end up facing divine retribution. In the NT, they are supposed to be forgiven and brought back to the herd. Who…

Are you suggesting Jesus never saw himself as YHWH? According to Jesus, "What would Jesus do?" and "What would YHWH do?" are one and the same, see John 14: "Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”" "Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

No. I am suggesting that the stories of Jesus (written by the evangelists) exposes a different and more humane moral philosophy than those written in the OT. Turn the other cheek is incompatible with an eye for an eye.

Re: The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

#274

Post by bjourne »

geowwy wrote: post #121
humanrebar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the New Testament disagrees with your characterization of the Old Testament. Pretty much the entire New Testament goes on about how the Old Testament is a series of stories about how cycles of rule making and rule breaking do not lead to real justice, peace, or life. In particular, both Romans and Hebrews (though not exclusively those books) cite Old Testament stories to make the case that the Old Testament (…

Agreed. That characterization of Old Testament vs. New Testament is one of my pet peeves. There's some horrific brutality and violence in the Old Testament. But the overall story is one of Yahweh's love and compassion for his people in a world where everything is falling apart around them. The same theme carries through into the New Testament. If the Old Testament is really as bad as people say then Judaism really ha…

> If the Old Testament is really as bad as people say then Judaism really has a problem. But in my experience Jews aren't any more violent than Christians.

Judaism has also developed a lot since antiquity. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, it developed into Rabbinic Judaism with a number of rabbis creating authoritative interpretations of the Halacha, or Jewish law. One such famous rabbi was Maimonides who lived in the 12th century.

Re: The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

#275

Post by _urga »

bjourne wrote: post #273
_urga wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting Jesus never saw himself as YHWH? According to Jesus, "What would Jesus do?" and "What would YHWH do?" are one and the same, see John 14: "Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”" "Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

No. I am suggesting that the stories of Jesus (written by the evangelists) exposes a different and more humane moral philosophy than those written in the OT. Turn the other cheek is incompatible with an eye for an eye.

"Turn the other cheek is incompatible with an eye for an eye."

Only if you remove or add to the context in which both were given.

The principle of eye for an eye was to __restrict__ compensation to the value of the loss, where the wickedness of man would otherwise tend to overreach. One has only to see Lamech for an early example of judicial overreach: "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

And if you study the Sermon on the Mount in context, you will see that Jesus was not in fact referring to the OT when he said, "you have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but I say to you..." but rather to the Pharisees' weakening, distortion and misuse of the OT.

The historical Jesus (according to all the earliest accounts, for which there is superfluously excellent textual reliability according to textual criticism) had a very high view of the OT, and deepened the OT, see the context of the Sermon on the Mount:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the __Pharisees__ and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

If I were predisposed to look for puerile contradictions in the Bible, I am sure I would find as many as I would give time, but Jesus himself saw none. I would encourage you to take Jesus more seriously.

Re: The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

#276

Post by bjourne »

_urga wrote: post #275
bjourne wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I am suggesting that the stories of Jesus (written by the evangelists) exposes a different and more humane moral philosophy than those written in the OT. Turn the other cheek is incompatible with an eye for an eye.

"Turn the other cheek is incompatible with an eye for an eye." Only if you remove or add to the context in which both were given. The principle of eye for an eye was to __restrict__ compensation to the value of the loss, where the wickedness of man would otherwise tend to overreach. One has only to see Lamech for an early example of judicial overreach: "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sev…

> The principle of eye for an eye was to __restrict__ compensation to the value of the loss

No. The principle was to restrict the scope of revenge. Yes, in the OT gouging someone's eye out to "compensate" for one of your family members having their eye gouged out was "fair compensation." But the NT turns completely against that idea. That's what "turn the other cheek" means.

While the Bible is so full of contradictions that you certainly can find support in some verse for whatever theory you want to prove, the concept of mercy and forgiveness is just not emphasized as much in the OT as it is in the NT.

Re: The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

#277

Post by _urga »

bjourne wrote: post #276
_urga wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Turn the other cheek is incompatible with an eye for an eye." Only if you remove or add to the context in which both were given. The principle of eye for an eye was to __restrict__ compensation to the value of the loss, where the wickedness of man would otherwise tend to overreach. One has only to see Lamech for an early example of judicial overreach: "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sev…

> The principle of eye for an eye was to __restrict__ compensation to the value of the loss No. The principle was to restrict the scope of revenge . Yes, in the OT gouging someone's eye out to "compensate" for one of your family members having their eye gouged out was "fair compensation." But the NT turns completely against that idea. That's what "turn the other cheek" means. While the Bible is so full of contradicti…

"The principle was to restrict the scope of revenge."

I think rather the principle is one of justice. Lamech is an example of revenge (not justice). Revenge is never given to men by God ("It is mine to avenge; I will repay").

"But the NT turns completely against that idea."

No, not at all, or when last did you read the Bible carefully?

Jesus taught plainly that to turn against the words of Moses at all even in the slightest is to turn against Jesus himself.

Jesus taught plainly that if you won't accept the words of Moses, you won't accept Jesus' own resurrection from the dead.

"the concept of mercy and forgiveness is just not emphasized as much in the OT as it is in the NT."

That is a gross misrepresentation of the OT. You've fallen for Marcion's error and worse.

  With the merciful you show yourself merciful;
  with the blameless man you show yourself blameless;
  with the purified you show yourself pure;
  and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous.
  For you save a humble people,
  but the haughty eyes you bring down.

Re: The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

#278

Post by NegativeLatency »

danbolt wrote: post #122
NegativeLatency wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a kid I also really loved Theodore the Tugboat. Similar kind of show, but with boats. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Tugboat

I remember watching that as a little kid too. Did it ever get syndicated outside of Canada? EDIT: I skimmed the Wikipedia article, and discovered it had a pretty wide distribution. I'm impressed!

Yeah, I watched it on KCTS (Seattle PBS station)

Re: The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of “Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends”

#279

Post by glenstein »

paulddraper wrote: post #153
glenstein wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it was still evident that he wasn't left in their forever, as he showed up again next time. "We shall take away your rails," he said. "And leave you here for always and always and always." They definitely wanted the viewer to believe it was permanent for purposes of that episode. And if you watch the scene (linked to elsewhere in the thread), the dominant emotional themes are stubbornness, arguing, physical confront…

I should have been more clear. The very next episode ("Henry To The Rescue"), Henry agrees to help, and leaves the tunnel (which conveniently, The New Yorker writer forgot to mention). https://youtu.be/dWtNGzGZTCo?t=2m28s I agree they left it kinda weird, especially if you only ever watch that one episode. And that's why it was later edited.

An episode is a self-contained narrative unit and it chose permanent incarceration as it's point of closure. I don't think a child audience, left with that impression until next weeks episode, puts two and two together in such a way as to dissipate the previously established creepy atmosphere.

I'm reminded of Roger Ebert's brilliant review of Fight Club, where he pointed out that, given the visual medium, the images and themes you choose to put in front of a viewer (again, a child audience!) speak for themselves, and whatever the writer "thinks the message is, that's not what most audience members will get."

Post reply on HN