#aren't astroturfed.......

[ravenkings]

i, personally, have no intention of seeing blonde, but i do agree that watching the tendency in some internet/fan spaces of engaging in art and culture criticism purely as a metric as to whether one work or another should be allowed to exist based on a system of black-and-white moral judgement seeping into the critical mainstream to be.......troubling.......to say the least

[thesocklesswonder]

Arizona is being forced to cut nearly 25% of its water sourced from the Colorado River. We're in an extreme drought. Drinking water is essential for human and animal life.

While the golf course industry uses graphs and charts to show that they don't use that much water and they bring in big bucks to the economy, I propose they try upping their game instead.

Rather than using up our precious drinking water (every drop counts) on grass for playing golf, why don't they go hard core and learn to play on hard pan dirt. I mean, it's a sport and sport is about challenges, right?

Golfers, challenge yourself and leave the water for drinking!

[roseband]

has anyone seen that rent stabilization case they're trying to push to the supreme court cuz i'm ready to punch some idiots

[lizardsfromspace]

The Drew Barrymore thing is a great example of a story where there's an answer as to Why A Thing Is Happening available, but people are ignoring it in favor of diagnosing Why It Happens

"Why is she not able to host her show, but Conan could in 2007-08? Is it because the internet loved Conan, so he got away with it? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because we're so quick to cancel someone these days? What Does It Mean? What Does It Say About Our Society?"

Anyway, if you take five seconds to look it up, it's because improvisational talk shows were allowed in 2007-08, and they aren't allowed under the current contract. That's it, but people (and anti-strike astroturfers, I assume) are frantically conjuring Resons instead of looking up the actual reason

[being-kindrad]

Gender Critical Articles

This post is intended to be a collection of gender critical articles and resources. I intend to continually update it.

An Open Letter To the Guy on Twitter Who Wonders if Biological Sex is Real

Pronouns Are Rohypnol

Sex Is Not Gender: The Validity of Sex-Based Rights

Inauthentic Selves: The modern LGBTQ+ Movement Is Run By Philanthropic Astroturf And Based On Junk Science

Break the binary, break the body

Every Gender Identity Is ‘Authentic’—Until It Isn’t

[Academic paper] The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed

The Endless Contradictions of Gender Ideology

Collette Colfer: A New Religion

Trust your discomfort

Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) is a Medical and Genetic Condition: Stop Exploiting Us

In the dark: A major documentary in the Netherlands shakes the foundations of gender medicine

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’

Trans People Aren't Babies

The secret life of gender clinicians

New York Times publishes bizarre case for youth gender transition

A Raging Transgender Debate in the Netherlands

[kittenintheden]

okay listen I'm so tired lol

I am a fandom old. I've been around the freaking block like eight dozen times. I'm at the point in my life where I enjoy media because it's FUN and ENRICHING for me personally, rather than something I base my identity on. I adore the community that happens in fan spaces (mostly).

here is why I never trust an anon that's clearly just being a dick: I've been in way to many scenarios where people who aren't even invested in the thing just think it's so fucking funny to watch segments of a community fight with each other. it tickles some part of their lizard brain. their mom never taught them not to be an asshole to strangers. idk.

there's a political term that you may or may not be familiar with called astroturfing. it's frequently used in marketing and politics to falsely create the image of vast public support for something that doesn't actually have all that much natural support. for example, people who don't especially have strong feelings about trans issues being encouraged/paid/instructed to respond to any and all trans support a certain way. responding to blogs, sending letters to the editor, posting on message boards, etc. their goal is to create a broad public perception that most people are anti-trans (untrue).

and it works. entire fucking laws and legislation and protests and fearmongering come out of that shit. people make up FAKE PROBLEMS (cis men dressing up like women to go be pervy in public bathrooms???) and spread the word via bad actors and controlling the public discourse. the media conglomerate that gamed Facebook to disproportionately support asshole authoritarian alt-right clowns and got them elected was EXCELLENT at it.

a similar thing can happen in fandom, ESPECIALLY when that fandom is a haven for women, POC, queer folk, and other minorities. you guys might remember GamerGate and SadPuppies? yeah all those fuckers are still active and still purposely being shitty at every given opportunity because they think it's funny to make the "libs" fight amongst themselves.

look up #yourslipisshowing if you're not familiar. it was a movement by Black Twitter (specifically Black WOMAN Twitter) to expose bad actors who would create accounts posing as Black woman activists, learn the surface-level terminology, and just purposely cause discord in leftist spaces under the ever-familiar activist method of "being morally pure is a thing that can exist."

anyway: any time I get an ask or comment without a name attached that is very obviously intended to poke me in a sore spot, I delete that shit and assume it's some fucker trying to start fan drama for kicks. even if I'm wrong, I still don't need to feed into that shit. this is my fun, happy space. I'm an activist and do activist shit and get angry at the world in real life, I don't need it in my little fandom corner of the internet too.

which is not to say that shitty fans and shitty fandom takes don't really exist. they very much do. but I don't give them much air unless there's an actual name attached. and even THEN it can be hit or miss because people can and do create fake accounts if they're especially dedicated to being a shithead.

so: if you're minding your business and some goober comes into your ask box with shit that's clearly intended to push a button, give it like 24 hours to cool down and decide if it's actually worth it to respond. for me, most of the time I determine that it's not.

don't get me wrong. calling out bad behavior in fandom IS IMPORTANT and SHOULD BE DONE. I just also think it's important to try and find the joy and camaraderie in these spaces as much as possible and that people who try to disrupt that for jollies suck real bad and give a disproportionate perception of "what X fans are like."

in summary, my philosophy is be the best person you can be, be as kind as is warranted, focus on the parts of your fandom that make you happiest, and carry a big stick for when the jerks won't take a hint.

also like. shitting on other characters to prop up your fave is such a freaking middle school move. are you in middle school? if so, I'm sorry. if not, I'm still sorry, but for a different reason.

[animentality]

Saw a conservative woman on Twitter freaking out over this one boy wearing a skirt to school, and expressing anger and confusion over why "this" is happening in a rural town, far away from the evil left propaganda festering in the Sodom and Gomorrah of New York City and Portland.

But that should be a fucking wakeup call, right, if conservatives had any brains, that even in shitty little backwoods towns, even in places where the heteronormative, cisgender culture is breathing down your neck with a knife, kids still feel the need to express themselves.

The reactions to her tweet were mostly conservatives expressing disgust over liberal brainwash, but it's honestly just eye roll inducing, how completely oblivious they are.

They can't comprehend that kids aren't taught to be LGBT, or taught to be agender or nonbinary, or taught to question their parents' beliefs, and make their own identities.

This happens without anyone's influence.

I knew as young as 3 that I hated dresses. Through out my entire childhood, I was uncomfortable in dresses, and I resented female pronouns, and I loved being mistaken for a boy, or playing as male characters, playing games where I could be a boy.

I grew up Roman Catholic. I went to a fucking Catholic school.

They didn't teach me anything at all about gender or sexuality.

I just knew. As many kids do.

I hope that boy is ok.

I honestly worry about kids living in rural areas, where they want to express themselves, but every little thing they do has become a part of this toxic astroturfed culture war being led by the religious zealots and opportunistic money grubbers that know outrage sells.

If you're a kid living out in a rural town and you're LGBT, I hope you know you're not alone. I hope you know your feelings don't make you a freak. Whether you're gay, lesbian, trans, agender, nb, questioning, or don't care for any label, these people don't know anything about you, and they're not even trying to.

You have the right to be here, same as them.

[steampunkforever]

As a semipro screenwriter myself, I often find my thoughts occupied with a yearning of sorts for the close circle of creatives that spawned the Romantic movement or the Beat Generation. "Networking" and the astroturf sterility of online writers guilds and facebook groups just don't have the same spark as a loose grouping of maladaptive freaks devoted to making intolerably pretentious artworks. Where, I ask, do I organically find a circle of like minded snobs to be a freak about movies and culture with? Do they not make those anymore? Where have all the inner circles gone? Did nepotism and studio commercialization pave over the greatest minds of our generation?

In watching legendary skate film Yeah Right! I was reminded that these sort of movements aren't sorted until hindsight can gain some focus. "Malaise Era" is a term referring to Carter's post-Vietnam America (specifically in the manufacturing industry) decline, but it was minted in a 2008 jalopnik blog post. Cultural storms are only named well after landfall, and Yeah Right! reminded me of this.

Yeah Right! is a darn good skate film, but the talent within it is frankly of more note than the film itself. The movie gives you exactly what you want from a skate film: people doing tricks on boards. It's artfully shot and tracked to a stacked setlist of the best possible songs you could imagine for this sort of skate film (minus break stuff, mind you), with whip smart editing and great composition, but that's not the special part.

What's most impressive about the film is who populates the credits, a star studded list of skateboarding for that era's best and brightest, alongside names like Sofia Coppola, Owen Wilson (who has a great little cameo sequence), Sam Spiegel (whose work you've definitely encountered through Jose Cuervo/Levi's/H&M/T Mobile ads if you didn't encounter it through MIA/Kanye/Doja Cat/Crystal Castles/Maroon 5 first), Andy Jenkins (of the band Milk) and Ty Evans. Even if they didn't contribute to the film any more than needed to warrant a special thanks mention, these names represent a network of creatives who all hang together in a loose association that only now am I connecting into a sort of movement of young creatives of the era that reaches all the way to Nitro Circus, Gymkhana, Hoonigan, and RWB in japan.

What I'm saying is that you won't be able to see the wave til it breaks. And this is coming from someone who watched the film surrounded by a loose collection of like minded movie freaks that'd organically grown from just a few people who wanted to see weird films into an organized crowd of people there to discuss art, film, and whether or not Nic Cage is hot. Some questions answer themselves. Go watch Yeah Right! It's a great piece of sports cinema.

[nokingsonlyfooles]

“It’s my hope, Mr. President, that you listen to us, that you choose democracy over tyranny.” - Abdullah Hammoud, Dearborn Mayor and Voter

YES! I can't fuckin' believe the media accurately reported this as a protest and printed/publicized the words of the voters explaining why they did it. AND NOBODY HAD TO ATTEMPT SUICIDE! This is big and it could get even bigger! But it's a qualified bigness, because...

Walz, a major supporter of Biden’s reelection campaign, said Michigan’s “uncommitted” results were a healthy demonstration of democracy. “I think they feel passionate, as they should, about an issue we all care about,” Walz said, adding that he expected most protest voters would eventually return to Biden’s side in a likely November rematch with former President Donald Trump, who himself has struggled with college-educated voters and suburbanites in his ongoing Republican primary against former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. “I’m much more convinced there’s a chance bringing those folks home is much greater than bringing the ‘Never Trump’ folks back home,” Walz said.

Yeah. I know this song and dance. I've seen it happen in person, at protests, in reatime. They come out to "do voter outreach" and they're all smiles to start. "Yes! Please do continue to act upon your freedom of speech in a way I, an advocate for the status quo, find nonthreatening. Your feelings are valid, ha-ha! I expect nothing to change, and indeed I will act to change nothing, but good for you!" A few folks always believe the message has been received and quiet down, that's why they do it. But wait and see what happens to that smile when a few people start interrupting and yelling, "THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"

At least this guy's willing to suggest Biden would pick up more votes by moving left than moving right, although I doubt he actually expects anything radical. A few more forgiven student loans or somewhat cheaper drugs aren't much of a problem, and that's leftist too! So we don't really have to worry about the ongoing genocide.

The thing is, if/when this picks up momentum and the DNC starts to think they might have to change something or lose, it will become something other than a positive demonstration of free speech. It'll be childish tantrum-throwing, pointless, uncivil, attention-whoring, astroturfed, counterproductive foreign interference, and whatever else sounds bad. If any of you out there in internet-land already feel threatened by it, you're probably saying that right now. (Go ahead and comment, you'll boost this with other people who think like you, and I might change some minds.)

And, if you are comfortable with it and want voters to do it instead of threatening to withhold votes from Biden in the general, check your privilege. Not every state offers this. Unless something changes real fast (at least, I THINK it hasn't changed, it's hard to do a search when "uncommitted" brings up SO MANY news articles about Michigan 😁), mine won't. I can't do this. I can't vote in a third party primary either. It'd be all blue or nothing. And neither of those things will get me any press, so I gotta keep talking. Maybe I'll motivate someone who can vote uncommitted! Or scare a politician! I still think I'm doing more good by staying alive, and I'm a bit distant from any property I might meaningfully damage (although I am open to suggestions that won't get me arrested and silenced), so this is the only thing I got that won't injure a human being.

Tumblr, no matter how you actually intend to vote, if you're not up for living in a two-party system where both parties think they can do a little genocide and stay in power, you have ways of making yourself heard. There are options beyond falling in line behind the lesser evil. Don't let anyone tell you there aren't. And when you start hearing "stop!" or "you can't!" that means you have something they want. A cessation of hostilities! Well, now you might be in a position to negotiate terms! Don't give up!

Please, please, please don't give up. There is so much to be done.

[possumcollege]

No artist needs to "go to bat" for AI.

It's got all the support it needs from corporations and governments who've invested millions in a technology they believe will all but eliminate their need to waste money on human workers.

For some, that sounds like there could be a stable future in it, or new opportunities could be right around the corner. If Capitalism has taught us anything it should be that the person operating the machine that put 30 people out of work isn't paid well for long.

In my heart of hearts, all I see is another angle in this new golden age of scams.

The notion of AI was made for the benefit of artists and workers is an egg that developers lay in the brains of people who struggle to engage with creative work or people looking to capitalize as early adopters. They may dangle attractive rates or hype up the experience and cred you'll get from being a part of AI-centric projects but they will do to AI artists what they've done to everyone else and I assure you the laws we have now will allow them to fuck you over harder and faster than those who came before. Studio executives are fighting tooth and nail for the right to abuse writers, artists, crew, technicians, and actors that have made them billions of dollars in extremely profitable properties. Do we sincerely believe they'll dole out fat checks to someone they see sitting at a keyboard, asking the machine to make pictures? Do we really believe we'll own anything we prompted the machine to make for them? That would be uncharacteristically generous of them to put it kindly.

The AI systems they've built or claim to be building have tricked people into thinking it's an exciting new creative medium. The profit for AI is in that excitement, not the products AI generates. People are excited to play with it and businesses are excited to exploit it. Its successes so far have been driven by novelty, naivety, and greed. The very concept is a model of predation, exploiting the good faith of artists, writers, and creators online to feed their mimic of human labor.

It's in a business' interest to legitimize their use of AI so they invest in stoking the hype and bolstering its defense to cover up for the fact that it's meant to cut costs on human staff. Investors and developers take to forums and social media to prime their user base with talking points and paint the people threatened by the proliferation of AI as jealous, elitist, snobs. Everyone inside the wire is looking for a slice of the profits and everyone outside gets a steady diet of astroturf. Early adopters and aspiring influencers get to feel like they're catching a big wave with minimal personal investment. Those users get a few easy treats right away because the output really can be impressive and the controversy bakes-in opportunities for engagement, heightened visibility, and monetization. You can potentially make money by arguing with strangers online over the pictures you asked a program to make, but that potential has a pretty short lifespan as the field becomes saturated with people who are acceptably good at using the software.

The people who will reap the lion's share of AI's profits need users to believe they're on the side of the geniuses who are looking to the future and breaking down walls that the Art World built to keep regular people from eating its lunch. They do this because gaining users isn't enough, they need allies who become personally, emotionally, financially invested enough to carry their shields when the people whose livelihoods are threatened by AI demand protection.

THIS is the scam of AI. The people who are actually getting extremely rich off AI aren't prompt writers, users, artists, writers, creative professionals. They're idea men and parasitic startup ghouls who just need numbers and hype to show investors that their property, built entirely from the stolen reprocessed labor of hundreds of millions of uncredited, uncompensated people is hot enough to throw money at. They need people willing to work AI jobs so businesses feel confident enough adopt the technology. They need their competition to be seen as greedy, privileged, and outdated. The scam-crux of it all is that the people profiting the most from AI don't actually need it to be good or successful to get theirs. They relied on student researchers for labor, developed the technology on government grants and investor funding, trained the programs on resources they fucking stole, and when they were done, they were free to sell their product to all comers, collect licensing fees, and pretend that they aren't responsible for any of the highly predictable ways their product can be abused. How much of the operating cost is paying lobbyists to make sure the magic money lever isn't slapped out of their hands by regulation for a long as possible?

Even if their vibe-based cash train careens off the novelty cliff or slams into a wall of regulation (and fuck do I ever hope it does) these people have already feathered their nests. It doesn't matter if AI-generated copy makes people feel like they're going insane. It doesn't matter if AI art is off-putting and wonky, if the programs make products and services demonstrably less useful or effective, and make customer service a living nightmare. It doesn't matter if the programs starve when they can't consume protected data and poison themselves by consuming their own output. Some developers will be able to coast financially for the rest of their lives because they invented a way for the rich and powerful to spend their money on the smallest possible number of people.

It's an experiment that became a toy that can make a handful of people obscenely wealthy through exploitation, theft, and disenfranchisement. It's a system that says "Pay me now for this thing that might make you money later and if it doesn't you can address all complaints to the empty bag I left you holding."

Our security as creators, artists, writers, and workers is won by taking a bat to this kind of shit, not going to bat for it.

[samueldays]

The Curious Incuriosity of Journalists

This NBC story (archive) strikes me as so nonsensical even by journalist standards, it's interesting for the anthropological study of who might write this and for what reason.

"more than 40 interns", lol, making demands of the President of the United States, lol, with regards to foreign policy to be imposed on other states, lmao.

This cannot have happened. This cannot be the structure of power relations at the White House. The interns are too few in number, too powerless, and too easily replaceable to have leverage to make demands. The assertion of what happened is too absurd.

Even if we were to stipulate that it did somehow hypothetically happen, the tone of the coverage is still too absurd. There should be surprised curiosity at how the hell the White House got to this point that interns are supposedly making demands, why they aren't immediately fired for insubordination, and which powerful group is using the interns as a sympathetic front. The words "deep state" or some synonym might be used in describing whoever is puppeting the interns to jostle for control of foreign policy. The interns should be the story, not the demand.

Instead, it's a friendly puff piece saying things like how the interns don't consider the President to be living up to their standards. Almost no investigation has been done. The journalist is a borderline transcriber: here's what the interns say, here's some other people who said something similar, here's a quick summary of what they're talking about in the Middle East.

When I see something like this, I grow more sympathetic to conspiracy theorists. I don't know which conspiracy theory is correct, but the public surface-level story is obviously wrong. My working hypothesis is that

which powerful group is using the interns as a sympathetic front

it's NBC itself using the interns this way.

Basic bitch propagandists engage in "astroturf", paying people to repeat what you believe a lot and pretending it's grassroots opinion.

Journalists get to engage in a slightly more sophisticated propaganda tactic with no name: find people who already agree with you, repeat them a lot, and pretend this is grassroots opinion.

Thousands of people work in the White House "and other executive branch offices" like the EOP. It's not hard for a journo station to find the 40 from those thousands with the viewpoint closest to the journo station, selectively give them worldwide friendly press coverage, and pretend this is Reporting The Facts rather than NBC talking through a muppet -- especially if it's known that the NBC will give you friendly coverage for this.

(Also, of course, the journalists lie. The story did in fact not happen as described. I have read what appears to be the letter from the interns elsewhere, and the interns use phrases like "we urge" and "we call for", but not "we demand".)

[bringmemyrocks]

To Zionists, Zionism comes before Solidarity

I've been remembering the time my "progressive" or at least liberal Jewish community had a rabbi come in to tell us that BLM was dangerous because it didn't support Israel, and on no condition should we support it. He said, (paraphrased) "It's important to oppose police brutality and racism in America, but as Jews, we have to stand by Israel, and we can't let any progressives challenge its legitimacy." And everyone just nodded along. I didn't know much about BLM and wasn't much of an activist then. And so I, like the others there, treated this rabbi like a fountain of knowledge and swallowed the propaganda I was fed. I didn't join any demonstration led by BLM, because BLM was against the Jews. I didn't go to pride because pride was also against the Jews (someone had made a social media post about no Israeli flags being allowed).

This rabbi could have told us to march in solidarity with Black Americans and still be quietly zionist, and people would have done it. They would have been shitty allies, but they would have shown up at a time when that particular city was really struggling to mobilize. Jews are taught to be skeptical of progressive causes, and thus, of the people that these causes are fighting for. Astroturfing orgs like Zioness convince members that pride orgs, BLM, etc. are all out to get the Jews. And they convince these ignorant Jews to stick with these pseudo-progressive Jewish orgs that are actually anything but.

This was in 2017. I've learned to use my brain since then. I've wanted to write about this particular incident for over a year, but I don't know if I have more to say other than "this was fucked up, huh" because it's not unusual for synagogues and community centers to host speakers like this, speakers who use the language of Jewish community and Jewish trauma to make sure Jews never listen to any voices that aren't Zionist. I remember exactly where I was sitting in that room, but I doubt anyone else there has any memory of it at all. The others who attended may have been disappointed that this great rabbi did nothing more than repeat (racist) talking points they had already heard and believed.

It's a hard story to expand on because stuff like this is so commonplace in the American Jewish world. I once studied with a different "social justice rabbi" who described illegal Zionist settlements in the West Bank as "peaceful villages where we coexisted with the Arab residents." He proudly names the settlement where he was ordained on his website, describing it as being "in Israel." This was another rabbi who taught me to keep progressive causes at arm's length--best to stick with the (right kind of) other Jews. Proudly talking about his time in a settlement, all while arguing for raising the minimum wage and stopping police brutality. And now he's partnering with progressives all over the state as an educator. These people clearly don't know the racism he pushes. Or they turn a blind eye because Zionism is the one racism that (some) progressives will accept.

Don't let that be the case in your communities. Don't let Zionism go unchecked and unchallenged, even if it's from a respected religious leader.

(The American "progressive orthodox" world has really been showing its ass of late. The progressive-ish group Torat Chayim Rabbis, known for its statement against conversion therapy, has been doing PR for the occupational forces on its Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ToratChayimRabbis)

[enki2]

we used to have a billion little productive subcultures that were intentionally supported -- by art grants, cheap housing, & programmes for borrowing space and resources -- for the purpose of injecting novelty into the 'mainstream'. now we don't have a 'mainstream', and we kind of stopped trying to farm the avant-garde for stuff, but we still have the religiously-segregated media ecosystems developed in the 80s and 90s to cater to people who wanted a mainstream with less gay in it, and now if something inexplicably gets really popular it turns out it's astroturfed by a corporation that shills ripoff versions of hallmark movies or something. meanwhile all the little subcultures have gotten real incestuous because it's been 20 years since the last time a niche was mined by a mainstream artist (because it's been 20 years since there was a mainstream artist).

it used to be that movie stars would get real weird, and they'd basically get street cred for being esoteric.

now there aren't movie stars anymore, and the closest thing is when a niche is appropriated by a slightly larger niche, which only really provides cred with the smaller niche (and even then, this is not guaranteed). there is no cred in being esoteric because everyone is esoteric.

anyway this is all to say that, when i found out that the whole stanley cup thing was manufactured by some BYU gift guide, i was not surprised

(i was a little surprised to discover that this ostensibly secular gift guide still included a book titled "Why the Book of Mormon is True", because at that point why not just admit that it's not a secular gift guide)

[crossroadsofchaos]

Ok, so, previously I was thinking the country on the hidden island was like a social democracy kind of thing, but now I'm thinking it's actually just full on (democratic) socialist instead, which is part of why the people living there preferred that the island remained more secretive, to protect it from anti-communists (like the US, which was gradually becoming more powerful globally) trying to undermine and destroy said socialism.

Like, technically the island was already protected by the spell/enchantment/whatever that makes it hard to access, and the residents also had the advantage of having more magic than the rest of the world (which hardly had any that could be a real challenge), but still, the island is not that large, and not everyone on it has magic powers - not even the majority.

Plus brute force wasn't the only thing that could possibly threaten their efforts, it could also be a prolonged campaign of sabotage to manufacture widespread discontent and then using that for propaganda/astroturfing of conservative ideas that aren't naturally popular, or something like that.

The island's and the country's existence is common knowledge in present day though, and -as expected- capitalists do not like it, as it's an example of largely effective implementation of socialist ideas (which are liked by the residents), so there's a great deal of effort put into insisting that the residents are just brainwashed with magic and all the good things people hear about the country are lies.

[eurovision-revisited]

Stockholm 2000 - The stage and set design

Wow. It's like we're in a new millennium or something. Eurovision just got big. Huge. There are 13,000 fans in the Globe Area and they're all cheering, they've all got flags and almost none of them are wearing jackets and bow-ties. There is no polite applause and looking at the programme any more. This is modern stadium gig, not a polite music concert. There are screens everywhere. There are screens on stage. Moving screens on stage. Those screens aren't just there to show the scoreboard either. There are flags and the logo. It's the first Eurovision where screens are becoming part of the performances.

It is dark - certainly compared to the previous two years. The stage itself is circular, central and feels relatively small in comparison to the arena it is in. The moving sculptural backdrop revived in 1999 is absent, replaced by those five movable vertical screens. Given that the stage is circular and in an arena, the audience surround the stage on the sides rather than sat facing only. The entire studio-centric mentality has been swept aside.

1999s performances felt static, without much in the way of camera options, no Steadicam nor much in the way of an ability to put on a show. 2000 on the other hand has lots of options. I don't know if the delegations were given information beforehand and the choice of what to put on the screens, but it feels as if they might have been. Several of them opt to have the screens off or have generic images, suggesting that they were unprepared for the staging question! Others came with designed screens (for example Austria), which add to the performance

There some onstage effects - dry ice is used, but there's no (noticeable) wind machine or pyro. There are also remarkably few props. The drums are all set up on moveable platforms that can be wheeled on and off stage quickly. Larger props may have been an option, but no one utilised them.

The scoreboard has increased in size and is a permanent stage feature, used as part of the introduction to each act. A rather square sans-serif font has been chose for the most part, but it's alongside a more conventional sans-serif which feels confused, especially when it comes to the postcards. Two different design aesthetics if not clashing, then living as uneasy neighbours.

The green room feels more of an after thought. It's located a long way from the stage, in the backstage area. There's some astroturf , a few sofas and a lot of black curtains indicating they're probably in a prop warehouse or a loading bay. When the winners are called to stage at the end there's a minute long Spinal Tap-esque journey thorough backstage corridors to reach the stage again.

Another new(ish) thing is the black-and-white backstage camera, showing acts as they're about to take to the stage greeting the acts who are just coming off it. This was tried once before - in 1978 when acts greeted each other in the same way. It's good to see that comradeship and mutual support.

Overall a major step into the 21st century. The crowd increasing in size from 2,000 in 1999 to 13,000 in 2000 is the biggest difference - the whole atmosphere has changed purely by the act of selecting this venue. The stage and production design was by Mikael Varhelyi with the graphics and logo designed by Stockholm Design Lab.

[elfgarlic]

its funny how one person's ocd compulsion is another person's intrusive thought trigger. like for example people who have intrusive thoughts about germs and then will do things like use a bottle of bleach in a day or have an astroturf lawn so that they feel clean. and then meanwhile i get intrusive thoughts about materials that aren't 'natural' and seeing that, my brain is like 'non-biodegradable cleaning chemicals? 🤢 plastic bottles and plastic grass??? 🤢 eww no, you have to go check the mail three times now to calm down'