The Dark Theory Of "Hey Arnold!"

The Dark Theory Of "Hey Arnold!"

I'm here to ruin your childhood, one article at a time.
18783
views

If you're a true 90s kid or had at least a halfway decent childhood, then you've probably watched "Hey Arnold!" While it was probably one of the best classic Nickelodeon shows, there's a dark theory behind it.

Arnold's grandparents really weren't his "grandparents." They're actually his real parents and the story about his parents getting lost after a plane accident is a just a lie. Gertie and Phil, the grandparents, had Arnold at a rather elderly age and unfortunately for Arnold, this led to some health conditions.

Arnold was born with hydrocephalus, which gives Arnold his uniquely-shaped head. Arnold's name was actually inspired by a specific form of hydrocephalus, known as Arnold Chiari Syndrome. But wait, Arnold isn't the only one with an oddly-shaped head! Yes, this is where another one of Arnold's health conditions comes into play.

In the real world, Arnold is severely bullied for the shape/size of his head. All this distress paired along with his conditions allows him to hallucinate a world where everyone has oddly shaped heads. This helps Arnold feel normal, because no one can make fun of his head because theirs are equally f*cked up.

So where did this idea originate from? Some claim that the creator of the show had an encounter with the child of two rather elderly adults. The child was noticeably mentally unstable and spoke of his imaginary friends and their wild adventures. It's said that the creator had gained permission to share the boy's story and in exchange he would improve his life. Instead, the creator broke his promise and got rich by making a TV show (douchebag).

So is any of this true? Nope. Craig Barlett, the creator, actually got the inspiration for the show based on who he was as a kid, a vivid daydreamer. Bartlett had always wanted to make an animated series. While working on "Rugrats," he approached Nickelodeon and told them about his vision.

So where did the dark theory come from? Fans of the show always wondered what had happened to Arnold's parents. Bartlett really hadn't thought of a solid backstory for his parents yet, so fans started to make their own. This resulted in fans believing that the parents Arnold always envisioned did not actually exist, and that his grandparents are his true parents. This theory spread rather fast, faster than Bartlett could release an episode explaining the parent's backstory, and so the theory lived.

Luckily, Arnold is not the result of delusional elders. Arnold is just a regular boy who lives with his crazy grandparents in a neighborhood of oddly shaped people. Moral of the story: explain everything to your fans or else they'll ruin the reputation of your show and you.

Cover Image Credit: Beliefnet

Popular Right Now

I'm A Woman And You Can't Convince Me Breastfeeding In Public Is OK In 2019

Sorry, not sorry.

54510
views

Lately, I have seen so many people going off on social media about how people shouldn't be upset with mothers breastfeeding in public. You know what? I disagree.

There's a huge difference between being modest while breastfeeding and just being straight up careless, trashy and disrespectful to those around you. Why don't you try popping out a boob without a baby attached to it and see how long it takes for you to get arrested for public indecency? Strange how that works, right?

So many people talking about it bring up the point of how we shouldn't "sexualize" breastfeeding and seeing a woman's breasts while doing so. Actually, all of these people are missing the point. It's not sexual, it's just purely immodest and disrespectful.

If you see a girl in a shirt cut too low, you call her a slut. If you see a celebrity post a nude photo, you call them immodest and a terrible role model. What makes you think that pulling out a breast in the middle of public is different, regardless of what you're doing with it?

If I'm eating in a restaurant, I would be disgusted if the person at the table next to me had their bare feet out while they were eating. It's just not appropriate. Neither is pulling out your breast for the entire general public to see.

Nobody asked you to put a blanket over your kid's head to feed them. Nobody asked you to go feed them in a dirty bathroom. But you don't need to basically be topless to feed your kid. Growing up, I watched my mom feed my younger siblings in public. She never shied away from it, but the way she did it was always tasteful and never drew attention. She would cover herself up while doing it. She would make sure that nothing inappropriate could be seen. She was lowkey about it.

Mindblowing, right? Wait, you can actually breastfeed in public and not have to show everyone what you're doing? What a revolutionary idea!

There is nothing wrong with feeding your baby. It's something you need to do, it's a part of life. But there is definitely something wrong with thinking it's fine to expose yourself to the entire world while doing it. Nobody wants to see it. Nobody cares if you're feeding your kid. Nobody cares if you're trying to make some sort of weird "feminist" statement by showing them your boobs.

Cover up. Be modest. Be mindful. Be respectful. Don't want to see my boobs? Good, I don't want to see yours either. Hard to believe, I know.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

My AP Environmental Science Class' Cookie Mining Experiment Shows Why Capitalism Is Destroying The Planet

Who cares about the environment with profits this high?

12
views

With the AP exams in May approaching quickly, my AP Environmental Science class has wasted no time in jumping right into labs. To demonstrate the damage to the environment done by strip mining, we were instructed to remove the chocolate chips from cookies.

The experiment in itself was rather simple. We profited from fully or partially extracted chips ($8 for a full piece and $4 for a partial) and lost from buying tools, using time and area and incurring fines.

This might seem simplistic, but it showcased the nature of disastrous fossil fuel companies.

We were fined a $1 per minute we spent mining. It cost $4 per tool we bought (either tweezers or paper clips) and 50 cents for every square centimeter of cookie we mined.

Despite the seemingly overbearing charges compared to the sole way to profit, it was actually really easy to profit.

If we found even a partial chocolate chip per minute, that's $3 profit or utilization elsewhere. Tools were an investment that could be made up each with a partial chip, and clearly we were able to find much, much more than just one partial chip per tool.

Perhaps the most disproportionally easiest thing to get around were the fines. We were liable to be fined for habitat destruction, dangerous mining conditions with faulty tools, clutter, mess and noise level. No one in the class got fined for noise level nor faulty tools, but we got hit with habitat destruction and clutter, both of which added up to a mere $6.

We managed to avoid higher fines by deceiving our teacher by pushing together the broken cookie landscapes and swiping away the majority of our mess before being examined for fining purposes. This was amidst all of our cookies being broken into at least three portions.

After finding many, many chips, despite the costs of mining, we profited over $100. We earned a Franklin for destroying our sugary environment.

We weren't even the worst group.

It was kind of funny the situations other groups simulated to their cookies. We were meant to represent strip mining, but one group decided to represent mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal is where companies go to extract resources from the tops of mountains via explosions to literally blow the tops off. This group did this by literally pulverizing their cookies to bits and pieces with their fists.

They incurred the maximum fine of $45. They didn't profit $100, however.

They profited over $500 dollars.

In the context of our environmental science class, these situations were anywhere from funny to satisfying. In the context of the real world, however, the consequences are devastating our environment.

Without even mentioning the current trajectory we're on approaching a near irreversible global temperature increase even if we took drastic measures this moment, mining and fracking is literally destroying ecosystems.



We think of earthquakes as creating mass amounts of sudden movement and unholy deep trenches as they fracture our crust. With dangerous mining habits, we do this ourselves.

Bigger companies not even related to mining end up destroying the planet and even hundreds of thousands of lives. ExxonMobil, BP? Still thriving in business after serial oil spills over the course of their operation. Purdue Pharma, the company who has misled the medical community for decades about the effects of OxyContin and its potential for abuse, is still running and ruining multitudes more lives every single day.

Did these companies receive fines? Yes.

But their business model is too profitable to make the fines have just about any effect upon their operation.

In our cookie mining simulation, we found that completely obliterating the landscape was much more profitable than being careful and walking on eggshells around the laws. Large, too-big-to-fail companies have held the future of our planet in their greedy paws and have likewise pulverized our environment, soon enough to be unable to return from.

Related Content

Facebook Comments