One of the most dynamic performers in rock history, Freddie Mercury was the beating heart of legendary band Queen. Mercury was a trained pianist and singer with impressive vocal range. In the early 1970s, he met the musicians with whom he would form Queen. Mercury’s iconic, vibrant showmanship blended with the band’s genre-bending sound–“classical to music hall, from glitter to prog rock, eventually even making influential forays into funk and disco,” as AllMusic’s Greg Prato shared–made them both unique and undeniable.

When Queen formed, they were well aware of the multitude of meanings in their name. “It’s very regal obviously, and it sounds splendid. It’s a strong name, very universal and immediate. I was certainly aware of the gay connotations, but that was just one facet of it,” Mercury shared in an interview, according to American Songwriter.

Mercury, who was queer, was known for an energetic and theatrical stage presence, but was a private person offstage. He often waved away questions about his sexuality with a quip, if he engaged them at all. Sadly, Mercury found he had contracted AIDS in 1987. After battling the illness for some four years, he passed away in 1991. Mercury had left his mark on music and culture, however, and Queen influenced countless performers and bands that followed.

gif of Freddie Mercury performing
Freddie Mercury GIF by Queen Giphy

Queen also recently influenced a young man named Owen, who at four and a half years old has joined the legion of Freddie Mercury and Queen fans the world over. Owen is the son of my dear friend Alissa. Tiring of music geared toward children, she and her husband Ian decided to begin Owen’s rock education, and the one band stuck in particular. For Alissa, a part-time therapist, sharing Queen with Owen also has layers–in a time in American culture where LGBTQ+ citizens face high levels of discrimination, she sees showing him Queen concerts as a form of resistance to anti-queer messaging. Alissa is part of a generation of parents making similar decisions–enough that great figures of queer history are now embodied in books like the Little People, Big Dreams series, among others (Owen’s Freddie Mercury version is on the way to his house).

Alissa and I spoke about Freddie Mercury, freedom, and whether or not the iconic singer knew The Hulk.

How did Owen hear Queen for the first time?
We’re working on his rock music education in general. You can only listen to so much Kidz Bop before you lose your mind. One day, he got into the car while I was playing some heavy metal I enjoy, and he wanted to listen. We progressed through rock genres, and my husband and I made a playlist of family-friendly rock songs for Owen. That’s how he heard Queen. It really grabbed him more than the other bands did. He asked to listen to more Queen and then he would ask, “Who sings this song?” And I would say, “Freddie Mercury sings this song.” And then we’d listen to another Queen song. He’d say, “Who sings this song?” And I’d be like, “Freddie Mercury again, bud! Turns out it’s the same guy! Can you believe it?” [laughs] Ian and I both grew up listening to this kind of music, to Queen in particular, so we feel like it’s part of the core rock curriculum for our children [laughs].

When did you realize Owen was a fan?
Once he connected the dots that the same guy was singing all the songs he liked, he said, “I would like to meet Freddie Mercury someday.” I said to him, “You know, bud, this is sad, but Freddie Mercury passed away many years ago from a disease that we have good treatments for now, but we didn’t have treatments for back then. He was really meaningful to a lot of people all around the world, so it was very sad when he passed away. Unfortunately you can’t meet him, but we can watch a concert of him singing.” Owen was totally down for that. Owen would tell me what song he wanted to see live and I looked up concerts for him on YouTube, like the Live Aid concert [below] and different live shows. He will still periodically ask me, “Can I watch Freddie sing Killer Queen? Can I watch Freddie sing Another One Bites the Dust?” He pays very close attention and he’s very quiet when Queen is on. I can hear the wheels turning. After he had been into Queen for a while, he would tell me a fact about Freddie Mercury that’s made up, like, “Freddie Mercury knows the Hulk!” And I’m like, I don’t think so…[laughs] He’ll sometimes give us a song parody, like the other night, when we were all in [my daughter] Emma’s room together, it was ‘Another Baby Bites the Dust,’ which I think just goes to say that Owen doesn’t understand what it means to bite the dust [laughs]. I mean, his sister is teething, so maybe it’s a very literal interpretation.

You mentioned seeing Owen’s interest in Freddie Mercury and Queen as a way to open up conversations in the future about homophobia and the AIDS crisis. Can you talk about that?
It’s very important to think about living in a patriarchal society and what to do if you are raising one of the potential oppressors [laughs]. How do you counter toxic masculinity and patriarchal thinking? I think one of the key pieces is making sure Owen really empathizes with and sees the humanity of people whose identities are different from his. I saw an opportunity here with him naturally gravitating towards Freddie. Freddie was so incredibly charismatic, mesmerizing, and such a showman. He really drew people in. I could see when Owen’s old enough, when he’s in late elementary school or middle school, for it to be appropriate for us to talk about, what was the AIDS crisis?

There’s a very powerful AIDS Memorial here in Portland. Visiting something like that, and drawing the connection between, hey, this hero you have, this musician you admire so much, and have been listening to since you were four, he died from AIDS. And he was a queer man living at a time where there was a lot of discrimination against people with his identity. We even see that discrimination happening now. It’s a way to make visible the history of homophobia and discrimination against the LGBT community and things like the AIDS crisis, a natural entry point to build that empathy and talk about these things really openly within our family. Kids start to notice at some point that the world isn’t fair and all people aren’t treated equally. You have those teachable moments, those opportunities as a parent to talk about these things as they arise. I don’t know which way public education is going to start trending in our country. If he’s not learning about the AIDS crisis or Stonewall in a contemporary US history class, that’s something he should know about. If he’s not getting any queer history at school because maybe they’re not allowed to teach it, then we need to make sure it’s getting taught in our household.

statue of Freddie Mercury in a bust street laden with flowers
File:Statue of Freddie Mercury in Montreux 2005-07-15.jpg – Wikipedia en.m.wikipedia.org

When we were texting earlier, you said something that really struck me: “My venues to fight fascism are limited as a mostly stay at home mom, but I consider watching Queen concerts with my son a form of resistance.” Why do you feel that way?
We have already seen this administration trying to erase trans people through executive orders, through cutting funding for gender-affirming care or medical care for trans youth, and that could unfortunately continue to expand and impact other communities underneath the LGBTQ+ umbrella. People in power now have a very particular point of view about what America should look like, and it doesn’t include queer people. It doesn’t include people who looked and dressed and performed the way Freddie did. Even ensuring your children see people like Freddie is a way of fighting against that. I also think this kind of authoritarianism goes very much hand-in-hand with a very narrow view of what masculinity looks like. As my son grows and develops his own identity as a man, being able to see a very wide variety of examples of what it means to be masculine and how masculinity can be expressed is important. People in power now want to fit everybody back into very small prescriptive boxes of, ‘this is what it means to be a man, full-stop, and this is what it means to be a woman, full-stop, and there’s nothing in between.’ When I watch these videos with my son, when I watch Freddie perform, the word that comes to mind is freedom. I think in many ways a gift of the queer community to us poor straights is this reminder of what freedom looks like and that we all deserve it. That definitely moves in me when I watch these concerts with my kiddo.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Culture Stories

Internet

Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.