Some of my profile pictures from the past while. The picrew is this one by Lully (plus hair colours I've added myself). Had a look through some selfies to see how accurate these were for my hair and most of the ones from 2025 and this year are of me beaming in a forest or among mountains, so that was nice to see :)

If you’ll all pardon my Americentrism for a moment, the amount, visibility, and flamboyance of Pride merch available in clothing, home goods, and comestibles stores is a DIRECT reflection of how safe it is to be queer in public in the United States.

How? Simple. Out groups aren’t profitable. If you’re not “acceptable” in the current social climate, big franchise businesses will not market to you. (Prime example - Look how quickly Target dropped all their Pride merch after having been wall-to-wall rainbows every June for almost a decade prior.)

Sure, capitalism sucks and being viewed as an exploitable marketing demographic isn’t a fun concept.

HOWEVER.

The grim truth is that being normalized enough to be considered profitable by corporations IS A GOOD THING in terms of the barometer of social acceptance.

Same thing goes for smaller businesses that throw kitschy Pride events or even just put a token rainbow flag in the window or somewhere inside the shop. That’s a level of acceptance that DID NOT EXIST thirty years ago, and I can tell you because I was there.

The fact that we can scoff and bitch about being an exploitable marketing demographic nowadays means we have made GIGANTIC strides since the 1990s. It also speaks to the fact that the drive and the conversation surrounding LGBTQ+ rights and acceptance are continuing. And getting louder.

You can be cynical about it if you want. But I will take a store that puts out lip-service rainbow merch over a world that pretends we don’t exist any day of the week. Because that will always mean something.

Yet, when they start being included, they are like “well, that’s just capitalism taking advantage of us, so it doesn’t count.” Like, you can’t use your EXCLUSION from something as evidence of general societal marginalization and then claim that once you’ve started to be included, it is politically meaningless. You don’t really get to have it both ways. That’s moving the political goal posts.

I get that we shouldn’t consider Target pride merchandise as like the pinnacle of queer politics or even the pinnacle of queer inclusion. I get that inclusion in capitalist intuitions is a very ambivalent form of social progress. But the truth is, capitalism is a big part of what creates our social reality right now (unfortunately).

Capitalism makes TV shows, and movies, and books, and ads, and greeting cards, and toys, and clothing, and, and…

When every single aspect of commercial social reality excludes queerness, that DOES create a real sense of social alienation. I don’t love that capitalism is responsible for creating so much of our collective social reality. But granting that it does, I think we’re forced to accept that our inclusion in it IS politically and socially important.

the Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse — undated, sometime after thinking about sister cities for unrelated reasons

The Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse is a hand-carved Persian-style teahouse on 13th Street in Boulder, Colorado, given as a gift in 1987 by the mayor of Dushanbe, Tajik SSR, to the mayor of Boulder, Colorado, USA, and the thing nobody quite explains is what a Soviet-republic capital was doing handing out municipal-scale architecture during the Gorbachev period to a mid-sized American college town, which is a question that gets immediately interesting the moment you start pulling on it, because the answer is sister cities, and sister cities is one of those institutional designs that started life as one thing and quietly became another thing while everyone was looking the other way.

Sister Cities International was founded in 1956 by Eisenhower.

Or rather it was incubated by Eisenhower — the formal incorporation comes later — out of a White House conference on something called "citizen diplomacy," which was Eisenhower's pet idea, the notion being that you could route around the brittleness of state-to-state Cold War relations by getting actual Americans into actual contact with actual foreigners under the auspices of their respective mayors, on the theory that this was a benign substrate for goodwill that could survive the periodic spasms of the official diplomatic relationship.

The CIA loved it. Naturally.

Anything that gets American civilians (professors, businessmen, Rotary Club presidents) into the cities of adversary nations under cover of municipal handshake was a free intelligence-gathering operation that didn't have to be run as an intelligence-gathering operation, which is the best kind, the kind that produces the same product as the expensive kind without burning a single piece of tradecraft. The State Department also loved it for the diplomatic equivalent of the same reason — it was cheap, it was deniable, it produced photo ops, and the photo ops were of midwestern mayors hugging foreign midwestern-equivalent mayors, which polls extremely well.

The Soviets caught on quickly.

They had their own version, called something bureaucratic in Russian that translates roughly as "Union of Soviet Societies for Friendship and Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries," SSOD, which on paper was a public diplomacy outfit and in practice was a sub-organ of the international department of the Central Committee, and the SSOD ran the Soviet end of the sister-city pairings — meaning every Soviet sister city was vetted, every delegation was minded, every gift was approved by people whose actual job title had nothing to do with friendship.

So that's the institutional substrate.

By the late 1970s and early 1980s, an additional thing is happening, which is that a particular subset of American cities — college towns, Pacific Northwest cities, liberal pockets generally — start using the sister-city framework as an end run around the federal posture on the Cold War. They pair with Soviet cities specifically, not as a State Department initiative but as a local political statement: we as a community do not endorse the nuclear standoff, we as a community will conduct our own foreign policy, and if Washington wants to mine Nicaraguan harbors we as the city council of Berkeley will be sending a fruit basket to Volgograd.

Close to two dozen American-Soviet pairings by the mid-eighties. Most came out of nuclear-freeze activism. Boulder pairs with Dushanbe in 1987.

The pairing is typical of the moment — a Reagan-era college town in the Mountain West using the municipal sisterhood as a peace-movement gesture against the policy of its own federal government, with the Soviet end of the relationship being handled by an apparatus that found the gesture genuinely useful for its own reasons (cracks in NATO solidarity, civilians visiting Soviet Central Asia, Western academics being introduced to interlocutors of the host's choosing).

Why Dushanbe specifically.

Dushanbe in 1987 is the capital of the Tajik SSR, the poorest republic in the Union by most measures, the one furthest from Moscow geographically and culturally, Persian-speaking rather than Turkic, ruled by a comparatively soft local Communist Party that had been allowed unusual latitude to maintain Tajik cultural institutions because the alternative was the cultural vacuum that produced Afghanistan, which was right across the border, and which the Soviets at that exact moment were in the eighth year of trying to occupy and losing badly.

The Tajik SSR was, in the Soviet imagination, the friendly Persian — the version of Iran that worked, the showcase Muslim republic, the demonstration project for the proposition that you could be Muslim and modern and socialist and the Russians wouldn't shoot you. Dushanbe was the showroom. The teahouse was the brochure.

So the gift to Boulder was a specific message in a specific register: look at our heritage, look at our craftsmanship, look at what civilization survives here — delivered roughly the way a Habsburg ambassador in 1700 used a porcelain service to Versailles, a portable claim to cultural depth, manufactured to specification, on the assumption that the recipient was sophisticated enough to read the encoding. The encoding being: we are an ancient Persianate culture, we have outlasted everyone, and the people who currently administer us from Moscow are also passing through.

(The actual craftsmen — about forty of them, in a workshop in Dushanbe — were paid in rubles, carving and painting in an idiom their grandfathers had practiced, in a style descended from the Persianate court arts of Bukhara and Samarkand, on a building that was going to be assembled in a parking lot 7,000 miles away by an American volunteer crew who had never carved a piece of cedar in their lives. The interior columns are hand-painted in a style called naqqoshi that takes years to learn. The ceiling panels are based on the geometric patterns of the Sufi tradition. The fountain in the middle is copper, hammered in Dushanbe. None of the people who made any of it ever saw the assembled building. The shipping containers arrived in Boulder in 1990 and then sat in a city warehouse for eight years, because Boulder had not actually arranged for a site, a builder, a permit, an operator, or any of the other things you would need to put a teahouse somewhere.)

That eight-year gap is its own essay.

What killed the building's quick assembly was the same thing that killed half the sister-city projects of the late eighties — the country that had sent the gift stopped existing in 1991, the funding pipeline on both ends dried up, the original officials on both sides rotated out or got purged or in the Tajik case got caught in an absolutely brutal civil war (1992-1997, somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 dead, which is genuinely staggering for a republic of 6 million people, and which essentially nobody in the United States noticed because it happened during the same window as Yugoslavia and Rwanda), and Boulder ended up holding eleven shipping containers of disassembled hand-carved cedar in a public works yard wondering what exactly to do with the gift from a city that was now the capital of a different country which was currently shelling itself.

The Dushanbe end was unreachable for most of the nineties. The craftsmen scattered. Some emigrated. Some died. The workshop closed. By the time Boulder got around to actually building the thing (1998 ground-breaking, 2002 opening), there was nobody left in Dushanbe to consult on the assembly.

This kept happening to American sister-city projects in former Soviet republics through the nineties — the gift arrives, the country evaporates, the gift sits in a warehouse, the city eventually figures out it owns a piece of cultural infrastructure to which it has both no use and no obvious means of disposal. Boulder happened to have a city council and a downtown booster organization motivated enough to actually build the thing. Most American sister cities in the same position did not. There are probably eight or nine other half-built or never-built teahouses, friendship halls, and folk-art pavilions sitting in municipal storage facilities around the country, paid for and never erected, donated by entities that no longer exist.

The Boulder version got built because a local restaurateur — Lenny Martinelli, who ran a Mediterranean place — agreed to operate the building as a teahouse-restaurant, which gave the city the operating revenue model it needed to justify the build-out. Without the restaurant, the building is a non-functional civic ornament with maintenance costs and no revenue. With the restaurant, it pencils out.

The teahouse opens in 2002.

What it is, functionally, is a working restaurant that happens to be a hand-carved monument to a vanished Soviet republic's claim to cultural depth, and it has been operating continuously since, which means that for the last twenty-three years tourists in Boulder have been ordering plov and drinking Persian tea inside a piece of late-Cold-War municipal diplomacy whose original political content has been almost completely sanded off, leaving behind the carved cedar and the naqqoshi and the copper fountain, which is what the political content was always pointing at anyway.

Dushanbe got a building too — eventually. Boulder commissioned a "Cyber Café" in a Western architectural idiom and shipped the materials over in 2000.

It was installed in a park in central Dushanbe. The civil war was over by then but the country was poor enough that the building got vandalized, looted, and partially burned within a few years, and the last time anyone wrote about it it was a derelict shell. The reciprocity broke down asymmetrically. Boulder got a Persian teahouse that became a popular tourist attraction. Dushanbe got an internet café that got robbed.

Intention was fine on both ends — what diverged was the substrate. Boulder had a property-rights regime, a tax base, a tourism economy, and a downtown association capable of maintaining the building; Dushanbe in 2002 had a per-capita GDP of about $250 a year and a government that was still mostly held together with foreign aid and remittances from Russia.

The sister-city framework keeps producing this kind of asymmetric outcome and it's worth being precise about why. The American end of any sister-city pairing is a stable democratic municipality with a property-tax base, a city council that turns over but doesn't dissolve, and a civic culture that includes line items for "international relations" because somebody put it in the budget thirty years ago and nobody has gotten around to taking it out. The foreign end is whatever it is — sometimes another stable municipality (the German pairings, the Japanese pairings, the French pairings: those work both directions), sometimes a city whose national government has collapsed twice in the relationship's lifetime.

The pairing is durable on the American side because American municipal politics is boring in a useful way.

It is fragile on the other side because everywhere else in the world is more interesting than American municipal politics. What you end up with, by 2025, is a sister-city map that is essentially a fossil record of American foreign policy enthusiasms across the postwar period — the German pairings from the Marshall Plan era, the Japanese pairings from the occupation, the Chinese pairings from the Nixon opening, the Soviet pairings from the freeze movement, the Vietnamese pairings from the normalization, the Cuban pairings (such few as exist) from the Obama thaw, the Iraqi and Afghan pairings from the wars.

Most of them are dormant. They get reactivated occasionally when a new mayor decides foreign relations are fun, and then they go dormant again. The occasional pairing (Boulder-Dushanbe, San Francisco-Shanghai, Pittsburgh-Saarbrücken) actually produces something that operates as a civic asset rather than a Wikipedia entry that gets updated once a decade.

(Sister Cities International's database lists something north of 2,000 American partnerships. The number involving any actual ongoing exchange is, by the organization's own internal estimates, somewhere under 30 percent.)

The teahouse is the surviving artifact. The political project it was meant to enact — citizen-level Cold War de-escalation, municipal foreign policy as a check on federal posture — outlived its moment and got mostly forgotten, in the way that successful political projects often do, because success looks like the disappearance of the problem they were addressing.

Nobody in Boulder in 2025 thinks of the teahouse as a peace-movement gesture. They think of it as where you go for tea.

And the carving is beautiful, and the food is decent, and the building remains the only piece of hand-carved Persian architecture of its scale anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, sitting in a parking lot in a college town in the Front Range, and the sister city across the world is the capital of a country whose current president has been in office since 1994, which is its own kind of survival.

Text of tweet under the cut because it is loooong.

But... Stochastic Parrots.