Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Please join me in welcoming @JenJamula and @alligold of the podcast "2 Girls 1 Podcast!" A little bit about them & the series: Two actors who perform the weird Internet on stage dive into the deepest web wormholes with members of fringe online communities.

      UPDATE: if you'd like to ask your own questions to Jen and Alli, please feel free to use this thread to weigh in on the conversation!

      Welcome Jen and Alli! Excited to ask you some fun questions.

    • We met in COLLLEGGEEE. (I think that word should always be yelled.) We reconnected years later when we were both disillusioned with traditional theater.

    • Because the stories there are insane! Stories used to be told by authors, playwrights, politicians, and other public figures/professional storytellers, but now they come from anyone and anywhere, aka the internet.

    • I agree with @alligold. Also, it's ridiculously fun to have a "script" that has no indication of stage directions or character descriptions. Internet text felt like an open creative book for us. Our only rule for ourselves was to perform it completely verbatim.

    • I wouldn't say that any one particular site didn't work, but we definitely tried probably hundreds (oy) of posts that for one reason or another weren't performable. There were certain qualities we always looked for when deciding whether to actually bring something to life onstage; we looked for things that weren't necessarily funny already (though sometimes they were), and pieces that we could really re-imagine and take outside the box. Or things that were just so wild that to see them performed live would be hilarious (like slash fanfiction).

    • We once performed an Amazon review of a 55-gallon industrial tub of lubricant that worked QUITE well actually! As Alli said, it wasn't one type of post from a particular source that never worked. It was always more about if we were able to find a fully fleshed out character and/or story. Live tweeted interactions were fun to perform. We also once composed an entire tango with actors dancing and reciting lines from a spreadsheet that had gone viral. We also got good at "making it work" by finding a character or scenario for something that wasn't clearly performable.

    • Yeah, it's definitely super fun source material. You've got the text itself, but otherwise you can fill in all the blanks that are already filled in for you in a traditional script.

    • I still love our first episode about Furries. He was just so open. I also love our interview with a moderator from r/science because of his fascinating stories about framing and trolls. (However, I think he's also the guy that told us that ducks can drink from their butts, and I just don't know about that.) Chuck Tingle is, in my opinion, a brilliant performance artist, so please listen but google him at your own risk. You can also hear me totally fangirl out in the Oobah Butler episode; I wanna be him when I grow up except that I think he's like a decade younger than me, damnit.

    • Definitely Chuck Tingle! That man and his tingleverse are legendary. He is so brilliant and had a unifying message, which I really liked. Also the interview with Match.com founder, Gary Kremen, is hilarious and insightful. (To clarify: Gary was hilarious. He and @alligold teamed up on me for having antiquated notions of love.) The Oobah Butler episode is great -- he is such a mad genius and kind person. I also love any episodes that dig deeper into niche communities: looners, furries, pranic vampires, tickers, adult babies, Esperanto speakers, and trans people hosting their own forums online. I always learn so much from those episodes and am reminded of how we are all actually similar and connected.

    • What does the process look like for you as you look to put together each episode? Do you work with the Daily Dot team to decide? Do people send you ideas, suggestions or even their own stories directly?

    • We have a small team on our end who is researching topics and communities each week to see what we'd like to explore further, and we usually reach out and have introductory calls with our guests. Matt from Daily Dot always gives input, as well. Then we set an interview time and try to save most of our questions for then, as we want the conversation to be fresh for both us and the listeners! Also important: listeners of the show can email or call us with show ideas, or they can hop into our Discord server (discord.gg/2g1p) to suggest show topics and questions.

    • Initially, we had a long list of communities that we wanted to speak with just from doing our live show, Blogologues, which we were discussing above. Then, of course, around episode 30 or so, it got a little more difficult, ha. We do a ton of research on our own, and our team + The Daily Dot also consistently keep an eye on the news for interesting trends and new communities forming. We also do get fan email that occasionally has leads (though more often people write us to comment on already published episodes), and we also get suggestions from our Discord chatroom. (HI FRIENDS!) We'd LOVE to get more suggestions for interviewees-- that definitely makes our lives easier.

    • Tay was brought in by Matt because they had worked together on a project previously, so - although I am loathe to give Matt props - he was responsible for that one! He already had access to Tay. Chuck Tingle was pure cold outreach. I took the intro call with him, which he thought was the "big show," then was so kind to come back for the actual podcast.

    • Ashley's story struck me because it was overwhelmingly an example of how the internet can be positive and supportive, helping people embrace who they are and find others like them. Ashley made herself vulnerable to ridicule and, instead, got back kindness and community (for the most part - there are always a few haters). We strongly want our podcast to highlight the ways the internet brings people together, rather than polarizes them. What also jumped out at me was how Ashley said she'd previously been fixated on presenting herself in one way on social media (as we all are), but had a complete mindset shift about her online identity and what it meant to express her full self online. I think that's so important. For most of us, the online version of ourselves if idealized in some way, or very carefully curated. I'm so interested in how we can "be ourselves" online, and I think she's a great example of that.

      Some time last year, we were interested in interviewing someone involved with Men's Rights, but decided we felt like we were not able to have a positive and productive conversation about that. We're still interested in this, but the hateful rhetoric we were reading made us scared to reach out to potential interviewees.