Actually yknow what. WTNV should be considered revolutionary and significant gay media that played an important role in the growth of gay representation in media especially in podcasts. When people talk about important gay media in the early 2000s I want wtnv to be one of the ones people talk about. No if ands or buts about it.
Actually I cant shut up about this. In 2012, people did not even think about putting gay representation in popular media. Gay representation wasn’t considered profitable yet. Gay marriage would not be legalized for another three years. The Legend of Korra, a show that fought to the death to have their main lead hold hands with another woman, just released their first episode earlier that spring. Steven Universe, a show well known for its gay representation, including having the first gay proposal + marriage on a kids cartoon tv show, would begin a year later in 2013, but wouldn’t show their gay representation hand until 2015 with the episode Jail Break. The Adventure Zone, a podcast currently well known for it LGBTQ+ representation, wouldn’t begin until 2014, and didn’t show their hand until 2015. In my young queer experience, representation was covert, secretive, only implied or dead.
and then in the summer of 2012, wtnv introduced itself to the world, proclaimed its main character gay in the first episode, and played it gay (pun intended) for years. Being gay wasn’t a trope, or a goof, it was normal. Cecil Gershwin Palmer was just a canon, gay character who fell in love and stayed in love and was happy. and that was that.
if we talk about revolutionary queer media, we talk about Welcome to Nightvale. No exceptions.
I think it’s really important Cecil Baldwin credit for this. I’m not saying Fink and Cranor and later Dylan Marron have nothing to do with it, because of course they do. But Cecil being gay was not something the writers intended. Because initially, Carlos was not intended to be a love interest for Cecil. He was just meant to be a character that showed up occasionally to be a tongue-in-cheek goof on scientist characters in shows like Fringe or the X-Files. But Cecil Baldwin made the decision to make his character utterly in love with Carlos, because he was gay, and wanted his character to be as well.
For those who don’t know Cecil Baldwin is HIV+, and he’s openly discussed his struggle with it. This is a large part of why his playing a man who is openly gay and sexually active is also really important. The importance I think of having LGBT people playing LGBT people really shines through with both Cecil and Dylan’s characters. They can be authentic, they can be a source of hope and representation. Behind the scenes, Night Vale is just as diverse as the show itself. Cecil Baldwin’s pretty incredible and it’s worth it to read what he’s had to say on WTNV if you have the time.
Let's say I really wanted to reduce the number of children who die in car accidents. Car accidents are really bad, right? Nobody disagrees about that. And it would be much better for both the environment and the kids' health if they spent more time walking, or taking the bus. Perfectly reasonable. More cars off the road, safer roads, fewer kids getting hurt, healthier kids. A win-win!
Therefore, let's ban children from traveling by car and require all cars to have a scanner on the door that scans the government ID of everyone who gets in the car to make sure no kids are in there. After all, kids get hurt in car accidents all the time! We need to ban this right away!
Sansa Stark of course one of the great characters of our times. what if a neurotic twelve year old choir kid got held hostage by her evil middle school boyfriend and then everyone called her dumb for believing that people should be nice. Great premise no notes. Anyhow, one of my favorite things about her is that she is a character who you can put in a cute lil winter outfit and pinch her cheeks and give her lemon cakes and then send her off to experience The Horrors
Earthquakes in Venezuela: What We Know by Caracas Chronicles
Key Information About Venezuela’s State of Emergency by Caracas Chronicles
VENEZUELA’S EARTHQUAKE STATE OF EMERGENCY: HOW TO HELP
We Love Foundation: Provinding food, water, medical support, hygiene kits, shelter supplies, logistics, and direct support for vulnerable families on the ground. They have worked with global partners and Venezuelan nonprofits for the past 13 years.
The Gio Foundation: Humanitarian and animal aid nonprofit organization accepting donations through their portal.
Aldeas Infantiles SOS: Accepts donations in bolívares (Venezuelan currency) through their Venezuelan branch. Donations in foreign currencies can be sent through Aldeas Infantiles SOS Spain.
Save the Children’s Emergency Fund: Donations will go towards providing urgent, life-saving support to Venezuelan children.
UNICEF Spain: Has launched an Emergency Fund for Venezuelan children.
Miami-based Venezuelan American Chamber of Commerce Foundation: Launched a fundraising campaign to provide food, water, medicine, shelter and emergency relief.
happy 20 year anniversary of Neil banging out the tunes!
though every rat is special, it's a wonderful and unusual thing for their accomplishments to be remembered and cherished by so many people so many years later. we're all so fortunate to know about the rat who banged out the tunes!
thank you to all the people who sent me reference photos of their beloved rats for this piece!!! credits under the cut!
@joe-spookyy Ben and Socrates
@gooseontheinternet Chamomile and Beefy
@runawayy-rat Bartholomäus and Emo
@theunholystromboli Macrogryphosaurus, Xenoceratops, and Graciliraptor
@techlecticwtch Solas and Dorian
@merlyn-bane Roslyn and Rizzoli
@logictoinsanity Luna and Buttercup
@hagsthehag Orphie, Psyche, Calypso, Ariadne, and Eury
"that time of the month" "monthly visitor" "feminine hygiene products" GRRAH!!! SHUT UP SHUT UP!!! PERIOD!! MENSTRUATION!!!! TAMPONS!!! PADS!! MENOPAUSE!!!!!!!!!!!
There's a lot of commentary about the pitt, particularly post-season 2, that claim people are unwilling to discuss or acknowledge the 'uglier' themes of the show. And I’m curious about the lens with which people view these discussion to be making those claims.
To be absolutely clear, I have no issues with the existence of feminist critique, anti-racist critique, or discussions of misogyny around the show. I think those conversations are valuable. More than valuable, really - they're necessary. Media doesn't exist in a vacuum, and neither do audiences. People bring their experiences, identities, and histories with them when they consume any form of media, and it would be absurd to suggest that racism, sexism, misogyny, class, and institutional bias aren't worth talking about.
What I find myself pushing back against is something slightly different. Because, increasingly, it feels like some conversations have stopped asking questions and started assuming answers. And I think that's an important distinction. There's a difference between asking "could misogyny be shaping this dynamic?", and beginning from the premise that misogyny already is the answer, and that disagreement with that conclusion represents an unwillingness to engage seriously with the material. Likewise, there's a difference between saying, "I think season 2 marginalised Samira in ways that I find troubling", and saying, "season 2's fundamental problem is racism and misogyny".
Those aren't the same claim. And I think the latter requires a degree of certainty that I'm not sure the text itself supports. Because one thing I find myself returning to over and over is that many of the ideas which have become central to certain corners of the fandom are, in my view, beautiful interpretations. But they still read like interpretations.
Samira as Robby's younger self. Samira as his true heir. Robby projecting his self-loathing onto her. His inability to articulate his admiration of her. Her craving his approval. Their relationship being simultaneously loving, toxic, and professionally harmful. His impossible expectations of her stemming from his belief in her exceptional potential.
These are all compelling readings, truly. But I don't think they're all canonical truths. Fandom does this all the time. We all do. We find threads; we connect dots; we construct emotional throughlines; we invest in possibilities. That's part of the joy of engaging deeply with fiction. But I think problems emerge when interpretations slowly become treated as facts.
"I think this relationship is central to the show" becomes "This relationship is clearly the emotional core" which becomes "The writers abandoned their own story" which eventually becomes "The writers have revealed their misogyny".
And somewhere in that progression, what began as an interpretation becomes transformed into a moral accusation. I think that's what I've found difficult. Not criticism, not disappointment, not even anger. But the way in which creative disagreements sometimes become reframed as evidence of moral failure.
Because if season 2 failed Samira, that is a perfectly valid opinion (which I share). If someone believes her screentime was insufficient, or that her relationship with Robby lost complexity, or that the show devoted too much energy elsewhere, I think those are entirely legitimate criticisms.
But I don't know that disappointment itself proves misogyny. And I don't know that every uneven relationship or disparity between characters necessarily has the same explanation.
Take Whitaker, for example.
I've seen him increasingly reduced to the "mediocre white man who gets rewarded". And honestly, I find that reading sad. Not because he's beyond criticism - he's not - but because it seems to flatten him into a symbol. His working-class background; his upbringing in rural Nebraska; his homelessness; his theology background; his anxiety; his mistakes; his growth; his deep empathy; his bonds with Robby and Santos; his willingness to meet people where they are; his evolution from terrified MS4 to confident R1. All of that disappears, and he becomes simply an embodiment of structural privilege.
Which, to me, feels oddly ironic, because a great deal of the discourse surrounding Samira rightly pushes back against flattening complex women of colour into symbols. Yet most of the criticism of Whitaker flattens him precisely the same way.
Likewise, Robby becomes 'latent misogyny'.
Dana becomes 'internalised misogyny'.
Gloria becomes 'the profit-obsessed Black woman'.
Al-Hashimi becomes evidence.
Collins becomes evidence.
Louie becomes evidence.
Joyce becomes evidence.
Everyone becomes evidence.
And eventually the characters stop feeling like people and start feeling like exhibits in a larger argument.
I also think some theories have become almost impossible to falsify.
If Robby criticises Samira, that confirms the reading.
If he praises Whitaker, that confirms the reading.
If he trusts Langdon, that confirms the reading.
If he doubts Al-Hashimi, that confirms the reading.
If Samira struggles, that confirms the reading.
If she excels, that confirms the reading.
If she receives little screentime, that confirms the reading.
If she receives more screentime, but isn't validated in the 'right' way, that confirms the reading.
And at some point, I start wondering what evidence would count against the theory. Because if there isn't any, then we're no longer using a framework to understand the text. We're using the text to reinforce the framework. And I'm not sure that's a partiuclarly healthy approach.
Perhaps most of all, though. I wonder whether some of the intensity surrounding season 2 comes from grief. Not grief over what happened in the show. But grief over the loss of the show people thought they were watching. Because I think many viewers fell in love with a version of the pitt where Samira was Robby's successor. Where their relationship was the emotional centre of the series. Where her philosophy of medicine would eventually be vindicated. Where his inability to express affection would slowly give way to recognition. Where he would finally acknowledge that she was extraordinary.
But I'm not convinced that 's the story the writers themselves thought they were telling. And I think season 2 exposed that gap. Not necessarily because the writers betrayed their own themes, but because audiences and writers were perhaps never imagining quite the same show. Which is disappointing, and disappointment is real. But I don't think disappointment automatically becomes proof of prejudice.
And I think that's where I ultimately land. Not that discussions of racism and misogyny should stop. Not that media criticism should be gentler. Not even that people should simply accept the show's decision.
But that accusations as serious as these deserve a degree of humility. Because the pitt is a show about imperfect people trying their absolute best in a failing system. People shaped by grief, ego, burnout, race, gender, class, trauma, hierarchy, and institutional pressures. None of these things operate in isolation. And I think our criticism should be willing to embrace that same complexity.
Because sometimes I read certain corners of the fandom and come away with the impression that racism and misogyny are not being treated as possibilities to be explored, but as conclusions from which all other explanations must flow.
And, I don't know… maybe that's where I part ways.
Not because I don't think those conversations are important. But because I think stories - and people - are usually more complicated than that. And I think complexity deserves the benefit of remaining complex.
alright I've got to do some quick math to explain attitudes towards AI to my boss.
we're looking to create an AI policy, and when we were talking about this, my boss (older millennial) was genuinely shocked to hear that younger people do not (seem) to view AI positively (a la the recent commencement speakers being booed)
please rb for larger sample size!
Question 1/3
What is your age, and do you feel AI is a net positive or net negative in our lives today?
david byrne voice
same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was
something to note: mess has the scottish fold mutation bc he is my "chronic pain" fursona. his folded ears comes from a genetic disorder that affects his connective tissue - bc that's what scottish folds have. breeding cats to have lifelong pain is cruel & no one should support fold breeders.
