niet lekker en geen slay

Like, Nick and Elizabeth meet on the cruise ship right? They could have wanted to marry at the same place they met but the way they talk about "it started fast" makes it sound like they met and married on the same cruise.

I started thinking about this because I was wondering about the fact that no one interacting with them at the wedding seems like they know them? Everyone is a professional, it honestly made me think they hijacked a preexisting party.

Though I could absolutely be wrong about the timing.

Just imagine your friend/family gets back to you like "I eloped on a cruise" and you're like damn okay I guess that happened. Some unspecified time later - Liz says she hasn't seen Nicky in 11 years, the twins are close to 12, pregnancies are generally 9 months, so lets say about a year later - the two of them divorce and as part of that they decide to RAISE THEIR TWIN DAUGHTERS ON DIFFERENT CONTINTENTS AND NEVER TELL THEM THAT THEY'VE GOT A TWIN SISTER. No visitation, no complicated custody, probably not even a mailing address, just "you take twin A, I'll take twin B, and we're done." Just imagine watching that from the outside!

Chessy's met Elizabeth so I'd guess if anyone else knows what went down it's her, simply because she's the only person we have confirmation of knowing them while they were married.

AND YET! We don't know why they split up beyond that they were arguing a lot because NEITHER OF THEM REMEMBER WHAT THEY FOUGHT ABOUT!! She through a hairdryer at him and neither of them remember why!

Peak young adult pettiness actually. That has angry young petty and hurt written all over it.

And the 11 years later they genuinely 100 percent by accident send their identical twins to the same summer camp. Which is on a seperate continent for one and across the country for another. And because the twins are 11 they decide the best way to shake up the custody arrangement is to swap places.

A few months ago, my best friend introduced me to his current hyperfixation: the Eurovision Song Contest. I remember watching some of the music videos released during previous editions, such as when Måneskin first became huge on TikTok after winning the contest, or the catchy song GO_A performed in 2021, me being an avid tumblr user, I’ve obviously seen the hype around the contest (the Eurovision tag is always trending around May). However, I never really payed much attention to it. After all, not a lot of people watch it here in Chile (which is in itself weird, since it’s the most watched non sports event in the world). As I listened to him enthusiastically talk about this year’s competitors and his favorite songs, I couldn’t help but get more and more interested in it. He showed me some really talented artists and really, really catchy songs. As the days passed and the grand final was coming, I was already listening to some songs non-stop. However, after the event, I was genuinly perplexed when he informed me about the result: Austria had defeated Israel, narrowly.

I knew about the whole ‘Israel participating in Eurovision’ fiasco via social media, however, I was naive enough to think that after their war crimes on the Palestinian people, they would have been removed from the contest by now, especially considering how Russia was banned from participating since 2022 because of the Russo-Ukrainian War. This is how I inevitably fell into another rabbit hole: how politics affect Eurovision.

A small history lesson.

The un-official branding of Eurovision will tell you that it was created in 1956 in direct response to the horrors and division of WW2. However, this is not the case at all. As explained in this video essay, Eurovision was first conceived by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) as cheap, quick to produce content for the new medium of live TV. Their website states: “as television services were introduced in most European countries in the mid 20th century, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) created the Eurovision Network in 1954 for the exchange and production of common television programmes, in order to cost-effectively increase the programming material for national broadcasting organisation”.

I will not get into the detailed history of the contest here, however, when you look at the way in which new countries entered the competition as the years passed, you can start to understand how it became so much deeper than cheap TV. The songs became an effective way for countries to advertise themselves culturally, but also politically. Consider that, for the first contest, only the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and Italy participated, and now there are 37 participating countries.

For example, countries under dictatorships, such as Spain and Portugal, used their songs to soften the international view of their countries in the eyes of the other western European liberal democracies, and to legitimize not only their regimes but their very presence in Europe. If history teaches us something, is that concepts such as ‘european’ or ‘whiteness’ have no material existence, and they get redefined as disputes and alliances shift. Countries such as Greece or Turkey weren’t exactly considered European in the 70’s, despite their objective geographical location, and their first appearance in Eurovision around that decade sparked a lot of controversy. Latvia and Estonia weren’t part of the European Union until 2004, but their debuts at Eurovision in 1994 helped legitimize their cultural belonging to Europe for the public. Similarly, Ukraine asked for the lifting of visa requirements for their citizens across the rest of the EU in 2004 Eurovision. During the early 2000s, Russia, Azerbaijan and other former URSS countries strived to showcase their European-like culture beyond the political headlines of the time. These are just a few examples of how one can analyze the political climate in Europe by just looking at what is currently being showcased during the song contest, and how it can actually influence public opinion (and consequently, voters and policies).

The voting system of the contest has shifted many times since its creation, and honestly, I haven’t managed to wrap my head around it, but I can tell you this: it usually combines the oppinion of a commission of music experts and the public’s via televoting. In addition to that, you cannot vote for your own country. Of course, politics also influence how countries vote. Here is a great article that tacles the hot mess that Eurovision bloc voting is. According to sociopolitical climate, wars, economic disputes and so on, the countries that win don’t always reflect artistry or even popularity, but politics. Also, you should note that televoting has a cost, and it differs from country to country, somewhat based on how much the participant national broadcasters invest in the program, and the fees payed to the EBU overall. Another factor to consider, is that broadcasters from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK (called the ‘Big Five’ in this context) will jump straight to the final, and their votes are worth more, since they make the biggest financial contribution towards the organisation of the contest.

You may be asking yourself - well, why the hell is Israel there in the first place, if it isn’t even on Europe? And yes, that’s a valid question. The Eurovision website states that they “debuted in 1973 and were the first of several Eurovision Song Contest countries that are not located in Europe geographically”. So, why did they debut? Well, a common misconception about the song contest is that you have to be an European country in order to participate, and that is not technically true. What you have to be, is part of the EBU. And for that, you can either be in European Broadcasting Area, or be a member or observant state of the Council of Europe. Also, as discussed above, sponsorships and investments are also factors when the EBU needs to decide if an associate country can participate in next year’s contest. So, countries such as Australia have a long participation history in the contest.

Everything is political, especially branding yourself as ‘non-political’

When you explore the Eurovision Song Contest website, you can quickly find their rules. Some of it is pretty straight forward: song lenghts, languages, the voting system, and other technicalities that could get you disqualified from participating. However, if you scroll down enough, you will find this silly little section.

What does this even mean? Considering the themes I’ve explored earlier, it’s more than obvious that this contest is deeply political. The mere fact that countries, not people are participating against each other should tell you everything you need to know. The inclusion (and exclusion) of countries will always mean something, even if you try to state it doesn’t. Furthermore, the ‘non-political’ argument crumbles even faster when you have the TV Director at the European Broadcasting Union publicly stating something like this.

This gets even more outrageous if you read the official statement that the EBU released regarding the apparent injustice shown in the treatment of Russia and Israel.

Stating that ‘wars are complex and difficult’ when confronted with genocide seems ridiculous at best, and dystopian at worst. By now it’s public knowledge that Eurovision participants are meticulously searched before entering the venues as if they were at an airport, to ensure that any Palestinian flags or symbols arent’s showcased during their performances. This, alongside the ‘anti-booing’ technology implemented at the show, cannot be interpreted in any way other than deeply political (and overtly pro-Israel). You can simply compare this video with the official Israeli performance video at Eurovision and make up your own mind about it.

Why does this even matter?

When a country wins Eurovision, it becomes next year’s contest host. In 2019, Israel broadcasted the promotion clips, showcasing illegally ocuppied Sirian and Palestinian territory as being part of their ‘country’. This was a scandal of its own, but in 2025, we were again confronted with the possibility of them actually winning again, and a very dark image came to mind: Eurovision - Jerusalem 2026. There has been a lot of discussion about pinkwashing and artwashing, however, this level of exposure and potential legitimization is something deeply concerning considering the atrocities commited in Gaza for the last two years.

On the other hand, one could argue that this is just as bad as the Met Gala and other Huger-Games-like mediatic stunts that allow propaganda and misinformation to flourish, and distract people from the horrors of modern day society. This is exactly what the BDS movement urges us to do since 2024: to boycott Eurovision, and simply stop consuming it. Something I wholeheartedly agree with. But I also believe that analyzing these cultural phenomena can be a great way to make sense of how the world works right now, even if all that most people remember at the end are the europop beats and the flamboyant performances of the artists.

TL;DR: One should always remember that nothing, not even pop music, can be removed from politics - and to never trust someone who markets themselves as non political. Also, if you want to watch Eurovision anyway, just pirate it.

“You came. I couldn’t miss your big moment, could I? You are— fucking incredible.”