well this is another fine how-do-you-do!

we don't credit rebecca sugar enough for making the episode with the first gay wedding in a kids show extremely plot relevant so it could not be skipped or cut.

#rebecca sugar has gone on record saying that they knew from the beginning they wanted ruby and sapphire and they put every inch of planning#in to make sure that the studio could not take them out. sugar has said they’d compromised on hundreds of things they’d wanted for steven#so that they had the bargaining power specifically to keep ruby and sapphire’s relationship#and a number of ‘filler’ episodes were created just to establish counter-arguments that might come up when they pitched the wedding episode#the one that comes to mind is the episode about steven and connie getting lost in rose’s room steven’s central conflict about liking their#fave book series’ romantic ending was later weaponised when producer’s were like ‘oh but steven’s a boy he won’t be too interested in them#getting married’ sugar was able to be like ‘no. in this episode it’s established he loves romance and specifically weddings. and in these#episodes it’s shown how much steven cares about ruby and sapphire and their relationship and happiness. you cannot convince me this is not#good and necessary plot development#and they wrapped it up in the season finale and the big climactic point of the diamonds finally coming to attack earth to make the#episode integral to the series no skipping it without confusion. and had ruby wear a wedding dress because international censors took#advantage of her design to give her a masculine va#and sugar made certain that everybody knew This was a queer love story that an entire town supported and admired and that any child watchin#it at home would know they are not alone and that that support is waiting for them out there somewhere#sugar sacrificed the wider story they wanted to tell for that and it was a horrible decision to be given but they made the right choice

we need to periodically remind everyone that a headline not including a person's name isn't an attempt to erase their identity from the narrative, it's just not good practice to put someone's name in a headline unless the reader can be expected to already know who they are

"if you can say the name in the article why can't you say the name in the headline?" what do you think a headline is for

we seriously need to stop conceding to the personhood trap when it comes to abortion rights. is a fetus a person? thats a spiritual question. i dont care about the answer. should another person dictate what someone can do with their body? simple answer: no.

I’ve reprinted this drawing for the first time in years for Pride month, if you’d like one they’re here!

The most basic, intractable fact about mental illnesses is that you simply cannot willpower your way out of them. The only exceptions to this rule are the ones I have, which continue to disable me due to lack of determination and other grave personal flaws

None of those things have anything to do with each other

vice news writers have not been to college

Me either, but I still know how to write an article