And yes, I’m also shocked and saddened that there is a Caillou fandom site.
Cailou is a little whiny brat and always has been. I hated that show when my son was younger.
We stuck with Blue’s Clues.
That said, my wife and I were convinced that Steve had severe brain damage and was living in his own inner world. When he “went off to college,” he was actually being institutionalized.
You have to entertain yourself somehow with this stuff when you have to sit through it every day.
At least she wasn’t into Barney or Teletubbies.
These days at least we have streaming services. If you can get them hooked on the good stuff (eg Bluey) or the tolerable stuff (eg Octonauts) you can (mostly) get away from the worst stuff (Cocomelon and it’s million somehow even more cheaply made derivatives).
Blues Clues was good. We banned Barney from the git go. We loved Wow wow Wubsy, Wonderpets and The Backyardigans. I didn’t mind those at all.
Ours were Blues Clues, In the Night Garden (a British show from the people who made Teletubbies, but amazingly not annoying) and classic Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers on YouTube.
I did let her watch Dora despite how awful it was. Because that was some me time. I was a stay at home dad.
Steve had severe brain damage
I read that before! It really puts an interesting spin on the show and it’s fun to think about.
Really? We just came up with that on our own.
That said, he did this a few years ago and I think it’s amazing.
Ah, that’s a funny coincidence. I did a quick search only to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating. But yeah, it turns out that people have all kinds of conspiracies to explain the story behind the show and they’re all dark as heck. Some people think he’s a drug addict and such dating back decades.
There have already been theories online that Steve is actually in an asylum or has lost his mind in some way
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/-theory-blues-clues-make-so-much-sense_n_59300cf0e4b0e09b11edeb54
This one’s from 2017. Crazy!
Jeez. We were just saying it as a joke.
Thats QAnon nonsense.
His mom tho.
They had to be careful how they drew her in swimwear or doing yoga, sadly.
I mean, it says that he acted like prick but always learned his lesson in the end, what’s the issue?
Toddler brains are usually not developed enough to go, “oh! Okay! I get it now!” from a TV show.
Because a lot of kids wouldn’t watch the whole episode and think the first part is how they’re supposed to behave… Kids don’t have a very long attention span and caillous visuals were kinda odd. I remember feeling as a kid “These edges of the screen really take me out of the immersion”, or at least the kid-equivalent of that feeling.
All episodes of Caillou were banned in my house. That little shit taught my son how to whine.
That’s called being a kid.
My kids never got caillou but they still figured out the whining bit.
reading that list, they just didnt like airing normal but negative young-chlid behavior. gotta keep it sterile, dontchaknow
no taking toys, no throwing tantrums. no pointing out when your parents are exhausted.
I agree with what you’re saying in principle, but I don’t think toddlers need realistic depictions of toddlers on TV to emulate.
i thought the point of the show was to depict real world solutions to those problematic behaviors, which the show seemed to do well. it wasnt just kids being jerks and ‘fini’
Yeah, but toddlers aren’t too bright. You show Caillou throwing sand in his friend’s eyes, they might copy that even if Caillou learned his lesson. Because they didn’t learn Caillou’s lesson.
Toddlers have a lot of difficulty putting themselves in someone else’s shoes, but very little trouble copying behavior they see on TV.
I mean I didn’t show my kid Caillou in the first place because he’s an annoying little shit and why would I have when there’s an internet full of classic Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers for her to watch? Between that and Blue’s Clues, we were pretty set with stuff to keep her entertained during TV time.
i had no problem showing this kind of stuff to my 4 kids oh so long ago. i dont recall anything negative happening because of it. its definitely not, ‘set them in front and walk away material’… parents need to be present to explain stuff to the very young.
i also had the classics, but they seem to gravitate towards spongebob as their long term favorite even as they aged.
This might just come down to the kids too. My eldest would likely be like yours and pick up the lesson ,but my youngest would 1000% emulate the bad behavior, dodge the lesson, and think it was funny that he got the same consequences as the kid on tv.
I would have learned the lesson then emulated the behavior anyway because I was a little shit.
I think it’s unlikely that they got enough complaints to remove those episodes from rebroadcasts if kids weren’t imitating his behavior.
Broadcasters are weak willed and the people complaining about things are usually Karens. And since Karens bitch loudly, they often get their way just so they will shut the fuck up.
Just look at some of the things the MPAA considers as essentially requirements to force things into a higher rating tier. They’re basically just applying puritanical beliefs into the ratings to try and appease Karens, regardless of reality. And even those are applied wildly inconsistently.
The Kings Speech was given an R rating for language. The word Fuck is used several times in one scene ina. Medical context of speech therapy. Meanwhile, Gunner Palace, a documentary about soldiers in the Iraq War, uses the word Fuck 42 times, twice in a sexual context, and was only rated PG-13.
“I had no problem running a mile so people with broken legs should be just fine too”
I’m just poking fun. I think most leftists would agree parents should be present and engaging with young children during screen time. But maybe, just maybe it’s good to show a role model that behaves instead of being a little shit.
There is currently an epidemic of objectively cognitively impaired long-COVID stricken iPad kids literally ruining the teaching industry. Many households have both adults working 12 hour days just to make ends meet. Many others have time but don’t give a shit.
An entire generation was just ruined by lifelong mental disability and being raised by iPad autoplay and nobody gives a shit. Well, it makes it easier for me to get good jobs but mark my words, in 10-20 more years we’re going to be in some serious shit.
I mean, it doesn’t really matter if you don’t think toddlers need realistic depictions, if it’s running that means that toddlers are watching it or the parents of toddlers want realistic depictions.
What should they be watching? Superheroes? Other toddlers that behave like perfect angels? I’m sure there are enough other options out there, if they were watching those all the time then the realistic depictions wouldn’t be on air still. I remember watching Caillou and that was like 25 years ago, so obviously it’s probably doing something right.
Caillou was doing something right… except in the multiple episodes where they decided not to rebroadcast because they got too many complaints.
I really don’t think showing a toddler a kid on TV throwing sand in another kid’s face is a good idea even if that kid on TV learns that it’s bad. Not when there’s enough parents not watching the show with their kids.
Yes you can certainly blame the parents for that, but that’s not much comfort to the parents of the other kid who got sand in their eyes that wouldn’t have if the first kid didn’t think of the idea after watching Caillou do it.
I don’t think anyone would suggest that Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers were doing wrong things overall just because there were also episodes of those shows that they decided to never rebroadcast.
https://collider.com/mister-rogers-neighborhood-lost-episodes-controversy/
One episode he punches a baby. That is like number 1 on the list of things you don’t punch. There are the obvious examples of types of babies that are ok to punch. E.g. zombie, demon, Hitler, etc.
Punching a knife might be worse
Medically yes. Morally, maybe not.
That depends, is this knife a baby?
Or a baby threatening me with a knife
A baby made of horribly caustic acid that is actively moving toward other babies, and all you have available to stop it is punches. Good to punch, or bad to punch? 🤔
(The baby is much faster than you. It will reach the other babies before you can. It is about to pass you, though it hasn’t yet done so, and all you have time to do is to give it a quick, decisive strike to knock it off-course)
Decoy baby!
Dang it, so close hahaha
https://caillou.antifandom.com/wiki/Banned_episodes
You’re welcome, dear lemming.
I am confused.
Fandom engages in a lot of anti-user and anti-creator practices. There are mirrors to it that privacy and content respecting, particularly Antifandom and BreezeWiki. If you are interested in making the switch, there are plugins that will automatically redirect you away from Fandom towards one of these mirrors.
Ah, thank you for explaining.
Me too, all the time.
I’ll concede that I am confused all the time too. Hooray for being old.
“Caillou” is what we would call out our kids for being whiny. We used him as an example of how not to act and would call our kids “Caillou” when they started getting out line. Surprisingly effective.
P.S. Caillou means pebble en français.
I’m not going to question this image…
I am. Wtf. 🤨
Why are you saddened? (Other than the fact that it’s a fandom site)
I am saddened by the concept of fans of Caillou that aren’t toddlers.
Why? Is it so bad to care about something just because it’s made for kids? Something the editors very likely were at some point?
Or is it literally just the word “fan” in “fandom” that bothers you? Since the show is old and has been around for a long time, the wiki was probably created when the site was called wikia. Is that better?
If it’s so bad that someone made a collection of facts about a series, maybe don’t share their work.
Dude, lighten up.
I’m not actually saddened.
It was just a prank bro
I assume you know what that phrase means.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-just-a-prank
So which was I being, abusive, threatening or unethical?
I think doubling down signaled toxicity, rather than a light tone.
You really want to make this into some big awful thing I did when I was just joking around, something apparently everyone but you was aware of.
I’m not going to indulge you further, but I hope one day the concept of humor comes to your planet.
Chosing not to air is not the same as a ban.
“Banned from being re-aired” is the same as “choosing not to air.”
If it’s an official decree, then it must be in writing somewhere. The fanwiki is very short on references. One could assume it’s all speculation. Probably just self-censureship rather than a ban.
I’m not sure what you think the difference is between self-censoring rebroadcasts and banning rebroadcasts is. The same person who would make the decision regardless of what you called it. PBS has the broadcast rights and PBS is who allows their affiliates to re-broadcast content.
In this case, you’re talking about synonyms, but you apparently don’t care for one of the two for some reason I’m not understanding.
Makes fucking sense. We made the mistake of letting our 4 year old watch that show, he 17 now. But damn he would start acting all whiny and shit and became total brat. We quickly cut that show out of his watching habits. Funny me and his mom said his mother was a whore. Because his sister hair and his friends dad have the same hair color. We also joked that Caillou was dying from cancer why his parents and grandparents allowed him to be a little shit.
This list is just on a wiki with no sources, so unless the individual articles have that source, the source is as good as “I made it the fuck up”.
There are plenty of other articles talking about it. They just generally don’t list which episodes were banned or why.
For example:
Four early episodes of “Caillou” have been permanently banned from PBS Kids because the kid is such a demon seed: lying to his mother, tormenting the family cat, swatting his baby sister with a book. Even in later versions, where his bad behavior was toned down after criticism from parents, he’s thoughtless, selfish and impulsive.
https://www.freep.com/story/life/family/2015/08/21/kids-watch-tv/32143669/
The Detroit Free Press isn’t in the habit of making things up.
Thanks for verifying that. Fandom has a documented history of pushing objectively false information, so it’s reasonable for people to be skeptical of any unsourced posts on that site.
I hate to tell you this, but there’s a neologism for exactly this kind of problem called citogenesis, and the Kansas City Star’s (the Freep is just republishing this) lack of a source here makes me worried that their source is basically just user-generated content they found online and thought looked plausible (this Fandom article proceeds that Star article by about 7 years, so at least it’s confirmed it wasn’t this one). There are numerous times when this has happened because of Wikipedia alone. For instance, a couple months ago, Rachael Lillis, the voice actress for Misty, died. Want to know what happened? The first outlets to report her death – effectively glorified blogs like CBR etc. – said she died at 46. Their source? In all likelihood, her IMDb page. This escalated up to more and more credible sources, and eventually, USA Today, BBC News, etc. all started reporting 46.
Well the NYT actually bothered to reach out to her family, and they confirmed she died at 55. CBC News independently reached out and also verified that age. Some outlets corrected their articles, but if you look up Rachael Lillis’ obituaries, you’ll find a good chunk of them still report her as having died at age 46.
That aside, my actual concern is echoed by @Chozo@fedia.io’s comment, namely that a Fandom article without a source is almost as good as worthless.
Removed by mod
Stop doing that.
