#they understand the value of this information

[wowbright]

I have seen this post, along with reblogs containing massive amounts of misinformation, cross my dash many times. I have ignored them, thinking "what's the use of getting into this on Tumblr"? But I have finally hit the tipping point. seeing mutual after mutual reblog this along with "only ecofascists believe in the concept of human overpopulation; if you even consider arguments about overpopulation, you are sliding down the slippery slope to eco-fascism" commentary, apparently without questioning the content or the source, is disturbing to me.

The tweet above and the statements about eco-fascism are not factual statements. They are propaganda. Now, I don't think propaganda is in itself a bad thing. But it not being bad depends on people being able to identify it and critique it. You need to be able to evaluate the content and the source in order to weed out the objective information from the subjective. If you can do that and you still agree with it, more power to you.

In this super long post, I am first going to address the tweet. After that, I will talk a little bit about eco-fascism and overpopulation discourse.

Let's address the source first. Here are some other opinions you can find on the Hampton Institute site (quotes are from x):

There was no evidence of Russian interference in any U.S. election and any investigations into it are pro capitalist political theater

Go ahead and let Russia have Ukraine

Cornel West is not socialist enough

"We need to understand that electoral politics are both a time suck and a dead end if the goal is to win elections, assume office, and enact legislation. Therefore, campaigns should only be used to educate, agitate, and form counter-hegemonic and liberatory institutions and organizations."

"liberal identity politics" are a sideshow; capitalism/class is the ultimate root of all oppression

"Democrats are not anti-fascist; they are just as much a part of the transition to overt fascism as Republicans are."

Bernie Sanders sold out the working class by endorsing Biden (among other sins)

Every single report of sexual violence conducted by Hamas during the attack on Israel on October 2023 is false. (Not just that there were misreportings or it's difficult to pin down numbers, but that not a single incident happened.)

It's a waste of time and capitalist shilling to critique communism/historical communist systems

If there's anything in the list above you wouldn't take at face value, then why take the tweet at the top at face value?

As for the content, let's look at the numbers:

7.7 billion --it could be more, it could be less. It's close enough. I'm not going to argue with this.

95% of people live on 10% of the land-- where does the statistic come from? What is it even saying? Is it saying that, of all the land occupied by humans, 5% own or occupy 90% of that land? Is it talking about all arable land on earth? Is it talking about all land on Earth? Because if you look at statistics for arable land use, there is not a single inhabited continent where arable land use is less than 25%. That is, of all the arable land that exists, at least 25% of it is being used for agriculture (cropland or grazing land). Worldwide average is around 35%. That is way more than 10%. If you single out cropland alone and don't count grazing land, because you want to look at how a vegetarian diet might change land use, you will find the cropland takes up less than 10% of arable land in parts of the world. But in europe, the us, argentina, mexico, china, India, Pakistan, Kenya, and a bunch of other countries, more than 10% of arable land is used for crops, with some countries having as much as 50 to 70% of their arable land used for crop land. x

We produce enough food to satisfy 10 billion people -- I'm not going to argue with this. There are plenty of studies that support the argument that this will be possible soon if not already x (but no one should be surprised that it includes the assumption of shifting to a more plant-based diet, which does not line up with actual food consumption trends x)

We can double how many people we feed in a more sustainable way -- another point that sounds nice, but what does it even mean?

Okay, Now we move on from the Hampton Institute to the ecofascists. Wow, what a fun way to spend my Saturday afternoon!

True claim: Eco-fascism argues that overpopulation is the ultimate root of climate change and environmental destruction. x x x x

True claim: Eco-fascism is racist, white supremacist, and genocidal. (See links above.)

Unprovable claim: Overpopulation is inherently and only an eco-fascist myth/arguing point. That is actually something that you will need to decide for yourself after you research the issue. But here are a few starting points: Isaac Asimov and Jacques Cousteau had concerns about human population growth and its effects on the environment. Are they necessarily ecofascists? Are white people living in Western countries who support immigration and reproductive freedom worldwide being eco-fascists when they make a personal choice to have fewer children because they are concerned about the effect of population growth and land use on their local ecosystems? Is it inherently fascistic to draw a mathematical correlation between number of people and amount of land used for agriculture and habitation? Is it fascistic to think about what the worst consequences of human population growth could be, in order to figure out ways to minimize or eliminate negative consequences while allowing human population growth to continue? Is it possible to use the concept of overpopulation in a non-misanthropic way, i.e. as a tool for identifying numbers that would be unsustainable under current conditions, and figuring out how to change things so that those numbers would be perfectly sustainable?

No conclusion here. I'm not going to tell you what the interest to those questions should be.

To show my hand, I don't think they necessarily have a single answer. And that is what led me to spend way too much time on a Saturday writing about this post when my sinuses are stuffed and I can't even think clearly. Because every single reblog I've seen of it gives off the impression that this is a closed discussion, that there is a single right conclusion that everybody should come to, that all the statements made are objective and supported by fact, and that everybody but an eco-fascist would agree with the whole reblog chain.

It's Tumblr and i shouldn't care because no one will take the time to read this anyway. But hey. I have a cold and I'm not thinking straight. Have a great day.

join the praxis discord - sign up - github

[personastrologyhub]

How to Interpret Persona Charts for yourself.

Persona horoscopes help us explore specific life questions by bringing our inner archetypes into focus.

If I want to know how much strength the "warrior" in me has, how I channel my willpower into the outside world, how I release my aggression, how I fight, whether I am cowardly or brave, why I fight, and what tools I use in battle—then I prepare my Mars persona. What tools, both physical and psychological, do I wield to fight for what I want? Mars also illuminates the energy you bring to pursuits of passion, ambition, and physical vitality. Understanding this chart helps you align your actions with your deeper motivations, ensuring that your warrior spirit serves your highest aspirations.

If I want to know what role safety, insecurity, sensuality, and sexuality play in my life, and whether I am capable of enjoying what life has given me—then I prepare my Venus persona. Venus helps me understand my capacity for pleasure, love, and the pursuit of harmony. It also shows how I attract and build relationships with others. The Venus persona chart speaks to your relationship with love, pleasure, and beauty. By understanding your Venus persona, you can cultivate meaningful relationships and a deeper appreciation for life’s pleasures.

If I want to know how flexible I am, how well I can express my thoughts through language and gestures, how practical I am, what communication skills I possess, what my level of intelligence is, and how I present myself to the outside world—then I prepare my Mercury persona. Mercury reflects my adaptability, reasoning, and ability to connect ideas and people.

If I want to know what role femininity plays in my life, how I relate to emotions and the inner "child" in me, how much I long for security, and how I connect to the emotional (yin) side—then I prepare my Moon persona. With the help of the Moon persona and my natal chart, I can uncover the most important information about a person's inner world. The Moon persona is key to understanding emotional patterns and the instinctive ways I seek comfort and safety.

If I want to know how I face challenges and constraints in life, which pressures and forces I need to adapt to, what I need to accept without being able to change, and how I overcome fear—then I prepare my Saturn persona. Saturn represents discipline, structure, and the lessons we learn through perseverance and responsibility.

If I want to understand what conflicts I might face with the "demons" of the underworld, the forces of destruction, and the rejection of life—how dependent I am on different ideologies, beliefs, and visions—then I prepare my Pluto persona. Along with the Moon persona, Pluto frequently influences the deepest layers of a person's inner world. It reveals the transformative forces that shape my psyche and my relationship with power, control, and rebirth.

If I want to understand the meaning of life, how the inner "therapist" manifests in me, how I reflect on the past, and the role religion plays in my life—then I prepare my Jupiter persona. Jupiter speaks to my aspirations, spiritual growth, and the wisdom I gather through exploration and understanding.

If I want to know in which areas of life I need to free myself from the obligations that hold me back and explore how I can embrace the themes of freedom and independence—then I prepare my Uranus persona. Uranus reveals how I break free from societal norms, traditional values, and conventional boundaries. It shows where I desire independence, how I innovate, and how I pursue freedom in my life. This persona reflects the areas in which I experience rebellion or sudden changes, both imposed by external forces and initiated by myself.

If I want to explore my dreams, illusions, inspirations, and the spiritual aspects of my life—how I connect to the divine, the infinite, or the intangible—I prepare my Neptune persona. This persona also shows where I might struggle with confusion, disillusionment, or escapism. Neptune invites me to explore the subtle and ethereal dimensions of existence, asking questions such as: "Where do I experience transcendence?" and "What is my relationship with the unseen forces of the universe?" It encourages me to embrace imagination and creativity, while also warning me against losing myself in illusions or unrealistic fantasies.

Finally, if I wish to understand how I connect to the collective, how I navigate social structures, and what role I play in the greater whole, I prepare my Ascendant persona. The Ascendant represents the mask I wear in public, the first impression I make on others, and the way I engage with the world. It is the outward expression of my inner self, showing how I bridge the gap between the personal and the collective. By exploring my Ascendant persona, I can learn how I come across to others, how I handle social interactions, and how I adapt to the demands of society.

[puckpocketed]

Trying to absorb everything there is to know about ice hockey within the shortest amount of time possible really does strange things to a person. You come up against questions such as what do defensemen even do aside from skate backwards and do tummy time to protect their goalie? (Broadcasts aren’t the most informative) What the hell makes defensemen effective? What do the casters mean when they say “gap”? What are defensive details?

I love watching games back, I love trying to understand the game. I love hockey <3 But sometimes it’s nice to have help, and sometimes my favourite writers/podcasters collaborate!!

Here is part 1/3 of a podcast mini-series about defending, putting it here so I can have a copy of it in case it ever gets taken down + wanted to share with everyone some of my findings! (All episodes are available if anyone just wants to listen to them!) Transcript + edits done by me, all mistakes are mine.

Published 6th November 2024, Hockey IQ Podcast: Modern Defensemen (with Will Scouch) Ep #1 - by Hockey's Arsenal, hosted by Greg Revak (apple / spotify / youtube / bonus substack link)

part 2

[START Transcript]

Greg Revak: On the Hockey IQ Podcast today, we open up a new segment: we’re bringing back our favourite Will Scouch. If you’re on the Hockey IQ Newsletter you know his work by now.

Will, good morning. Earlier than most of us probably normally get up, but it’s a good day.

Will Scouch: Yeah, Greg, thanks for having me, it’s a lot of fun. Me and Greg go way back. We’re boys from years ago and I’m excited to hop on the show. I’m a keen listener, keen reader. 

[They exchange pleasantries]

GR: Beautiful. Well, today we’re gonna talk about three concepts. We’re gonna break it into three spots though, so everyone’s gotta come back next week and the week after that.

We’re gonna talk about defensemen, because everyone knows they’re important but how do we actually play the position well?

WS: Yeah, I mean, it’s a position that’s still, to me, being explored; both by, I’d say youth and junior coaches and pro coaches alike. There’s a lot of different ways that you can do it.

I mean, I watch a lot of hockey from around the world, all kinds of different levels. I’ve watched guys develop from 15 to 24 at this point, and just seeing how their games evolve and everything, and how effective various versions of this position is. And I think it’s a very interesting area that’s still being explored in a lot of really interesting ways, for sure.

GR: Yeah, I think back to David Savard; he comes out of the [QMJHL] as this high-flying offensive defenseman, and if we just forgot about the rest of his career and you just saw him today as this great shutdown, defense-first player, you’d be absolutely shocked.

I mean, you think about Rasmus Dahlin — kid didn’t even play full time defenseman until his actual draft year, he was still playing forward a ton. There’s so much to be explored here.

I feel like [to get a lot of] — for you NHL fans — to get a lot of value in the later rounds out of your defensemen, take those offensive players first, and we can find a lot of hidden gems later.

WS: Well, yeah. I mean, actually, I’ve said this a few times but your listeners probably don’t know, but I did a presentation during the pandemic at the Ottawa Hockey Analytics Conference about this topic exactly; how, when you look at the numbers and the defensive value of players in the NHL, I found that there were just as many in the top 50 defensive value of players in the NHL, there were just as many undrafted players as there were second round picks, second and third round picks combined.

So the draft isn’t really a great historical gauge on defensive ability. Offense is a different story from defensive players, which we could probably get into a little bit.

But I find, personally, that evaluating defensemen and projecting defense to the NHL is still really spotty and questionable. And I don’t know, in my line of work, watching a lot of defensemen, a lot of the ones who I think are some of the better defenders kind of go a little unheralded, because a lot of the time you don’t need to be particularly noticeable to be a good defenseman, but scouts are always looking for the noticeable guys.

So it’s a very interesting world and it’s a very interesting thing to pick through, but there’s definitely a lot of case studies you could dig into, and a lot of players you could look at as cases of, “Oh yeah, nobody was really paying a whole lot of attention to them!” or maybe people were thinking about them the wrong way. But if you think about things a little bit outside the box, you might be able to see something really interesting there.

GR: Yeah, so let's dive into why that may be. Classic example would be Lane Hutson, so maybe we'll pick on him a little bit, but I definitely want to talk about Rasmus Ristolainen, because he is an interesting case study that we wrote about on the newsletter.

So where I want to start with this is just modern day defending. How are defensemen defending today versus old times? A lot of times it was the big hit, separate the head from body. The puck’s somewhere, but let's separate the head from the body, and we’ll worry about the puck later — that is going bye-bye.

Every coach I talk to now, they prefer having the puck rather than having a head on a stake. So for me, it comes back to this old saying of, “position before possession.” We're gaining body positioning, we're not so much separating head from body, but puck from player.

All right, so we've got position before possession. It's super valuable in gaining the space that you need to have first whack in a puck or put the puck where you want it, or just push it to a teammate. Just having the idea of owning space and there's no better league at this and no league that values it more than the NHL. If you don't do this well in the NHL, sooner or later, you're going to find yourself out of a job making a heck of a lot less money in a league that probably no one really cares that much about. You want to be in the show, the big lights: you have to value this more than anything.

And this is actually the one thing that I noticed about Hunter McDonald. He's in the Flyers’ system now — he was an overager, but I was like, “This guy is unbelievable!” He’s a huge frame, you can’t miss him out there. He would just get the positioning before possession, and I was like, “Okay, that’s interesting, let me watch him further.”

And I feel like he’s going to be one of those bottom of the lineup guys who, unlikely, made it out of being an overager in the [United States Hockey League], going to college for a few years, but has those little details of a defenseman that you see in modern day play, which is positioning overall, which is an NHL trait to the nth degree.

WS: No, I know. I think I would definitely agree. Those are the players that are always really, really fascinating to me because you look at a guy like Hunter McDonald and the production just isn't amazing. But it doesn't — to me, when you look at defensemen, it almost doesn't really matter. That's kind of a very secondary-slash-bonus style of thing that comes with a player.

I see a lot of defenders every year and it seems like a thing where a lot of them, maybe at the lower levels, there is a little bit more of that “separate the head from the body”-type of player. And I think there are NHL scouts who still gravitate towards those guys but, at the end of the day when it all comes out in the wash, it's a lot of the time the guys that are kind of, I hate to say ”boring”, but just very effective, and just they're always in a good position.

The guy I always reference as a young defenseman who, I think, is just a really, really high-end defensive guy is Kaiden Guhle in Montreal. We're going to talk a little bit about Lane Hutson in a second, but Kaiden Guhle is a guy who, when he was in the junior level, just played such a great, balanced style of defense.

He was a good skater, but he had really good length. He was a guy who didn't just lay the body every single time, but he certainly could if he needed to. It was about his lateral mobility, it was about tracking rushes, keeping inside the dot lines, and preventing chances from inside and leading with his stick, but then finishing with the body if he had the opportunity or the need to do so. And he seemed to have a really good read of just how to do his job really, really well.

And so that's been a lesson for me for sure. He was a really interesting case study a few years ago, and he's become a pretty solid NHL defenseman. I mean, on a team this year that’s kind of struggling defensively I think he’s been one of the brighter spots on that defense group there, [he’s] doing a pretty good job at least suppressing chances against.

GR: I don’t watch as much as you do, prospects, but Guhle I did catch. For me, the play style wasn’t very good. He had elements of it, you could see the flashes, but he was just really brash. His decision making and his reads were quite poor. But the tools were there, and it was like, “Can he adjust?” Which I think he’s done a phenomenal job [of], and I think Montreal is probably the perfect place for him to develop a lot of that.

So I think you're spot on like, “Okay, how does he actually apply?“ Having assets is one thing, having the tools is one thing, but how do we properly apply those assets, those tools that you have in a good way? So I think another piece, for me, is if you do have the speed, is just making sure that you're controlling speed and then you're also keeping small gaps.

And just knowing with my high school team that no one knows what a gap is, let's define that real quick, which is: the difference in space between the forwards and the defensemen. So the space in between, “How much space are you [allowing]?” in hockey term slang. It's underneath you versus on the other side, which is above you or behind you. So, “How much space, what's that gap between D and O?”

(Editor’s note: He says O instead of F here, I assume because the person attacking isn’t always a forward. As in, “How much space between the defenseman and offenceman?”)

So you got the speed, shrink that gap as much as possible. Don't give them the space to operate or work in, or, I even call it the space to think, which [it often becomes] for forwards, especially unsophisticated ones.

WS: Yeah, I mean, that's really the bread and butter of a lot of the position. It's so much of this, like you said, gap control. I actually just did a bit of video work for a really high end player, [an] NHL draft pick playing in Sweden this year, who is producing really well.

But in terms of the defending side of the game, he's not the most incredible skater you've ever seen, he's not the biggest guy in the world. And a big thing that I noticed, that even at the professional level that was kind of a bit of a work in progress, was that gap management. Especially because the footwork wasn't amazing, [he was] keeping his feet a little too stationary, gliding backwards and sort of allowing that gap.

And when you watch the NHL that's the point of the whole exercise, watching the NHL and how they play. Forwards are fast and they're smart, largely. The guys who can score are the guys who know how to get through soft defensive pressure, the guys who know how to find lanes and cross up defensemen, and if you don't have the footwork or the mobility or the reach or all of it — all of the above — to track all that and manage it, then it's going to be a lot tougher to do your job.

But the interesting thing, though, is that there's a lot of different ways that you can get defensive jobs done. That's always been very interesting to me; seeing how different players approach the position in different ways and seeing the efficacy of that come out in the wash, and how their offense balances with their defensive ability. It's a very interesting world to dig into, for sure.

GR: Yeah, I think you've got a rabbit hole there. You just kind of opened up around defensive skating. What do clean feet look like? What does defensive posture look like, that actually allows you to have that kind of mobility?

So we'll leave that for another day. If anyone wants to go check it out on the Hockey IQ Newsletter, they can do so. Just look up defenseman skating development. We've got two good pieces there talking about building and maintaining defensive posture and keeping clean feet, which — actually massive base for anyone.

It allows you to have the proper gap that allows you to kill plays early, and ultimately, it's a lot about just controlling speed. You don't want McDavid building up to full speed. You don't want MacKinnon building up to full speed. You don't want anyone coming up to you at full speed. It's very hard to maintain that kind of speed going backwards [that we] even generate in the first place. 

How do you kill it early? How do you get a hand on someone? Or, my favorite example is just proper pivoting. A guy dumps a puck on you, how are you going back? What does that pivot look like?

I'll let you open that up because at the NHL it's almost too good, where you can't see what a bad example looks like, but you can see it's everywhere.

WS: Yeah, I mean, it's a make or break skill in the NHL. It's where a lot of defensemen die. I mean, it's a cliche at this point to talk about pucks in deep, to talk about [getting] pucks deep in the offensive zone, get below the goal line, dump and chase. People make fun of dump-and-chase kind of stuff. But if your team is built to do it, you can do it.

You can take advantage of defensemen in the NHL who just don't have the speed or the agility or the skating ability that some of your forwards might have. It is a lot easier to skate forwards than it is to skate backwards. That's just, you know, anecdotal, but also pretty factual — you're naturally going forwards.

I think an interesting trend that you're seeing a little bit more of [is] what they would call ‘scooting’. You're the coach; I don't know if that's exactly what the terminology would be, but [it’s getting] your defensemen in the neutral zone, kind of pinching a little bit more and having them skate forwards, tracking play towards the boards.

So it's not necessarily that they're doing their backwards crossovers, it's not necessarily that they're entirely skating backwards, but you see guys who are really talented skaters or do have a lot of quickness driving play to the boards in a more aggressive way than having the play in front of them. It's about them sort of tracking that play laterally, which is an interesting thing I think you're seeing more of now.

I think there are definitely coaches and systems that love to play their defensemen more that way, and the weak side defense can sort of fill between the dot lines for them and sort of leave the weaker side of the ice a little bit more open. That's kind of what I mean. There's a lot of different ways to achieve these kinds of goals, and I think you're seeing a lot of different things popping up to adapt to this. 

In situations where you have a dump and chase or something like that, or just getting pucks in deep or whatever you say, when you have a defenseman who has trouble with their footwork and turning around… Trust me, I'm a defenseman, when I play hockey, I strap on the skates — I play defense myself and that's where I fall apart, when I do fall apart. Which is often. But definitely, when play turns around and I’ve got to change directions or change my area of flow, it can be tricky. And in the NHL, I can only imagine how tricky it can be there. 

GR: Yeah. I mean, a good pivot you're looking at three steps total, like boom-boom-bam and you're there. You watch an amateur game and it could be like five, six, seven, eight chops before [they] finally get going and [it’s] looking like a proper forward stride again. [Or just] getting into a good defensive posture and positioning. It's total scramble mode.

A big one for me, too, is just the direction that you pivot. Do you wait for that offensive player to commit to their lane? It's just a great defensive habit in general, letting the offenceman make the first move. If you're making the first move, you're the one showing your cards. It's kind of like showing your cards first in Poker.

Let them make the decision and then you can pivot into them. Now you can get that position before possession, or at least get a chip on them, slow them down. You can either make it easier for yourself or your partner. So one, there's the clean footwork on the pivot, and two is making sure that we're controlling the speed and we're pivoting properly in the direction that we want to pivot.

There's a ton of times where I see, especially the lower levels, players coming up, they're in a bad spot, they're skating forward, defenseman skating backwards and they just chip it off the boards. And the defenseman is like a dog just following the puck and it ends up in the middle of the ice where the forward actually went. Again, the NHL is the best at this so it's really hard to see bad examples of pivoting into and controlling the space of the opponent.

WS: Yeah. I do a lot of work outside the NHL, and the biggest thing I notice is not necessarily the number of chops it takes, but the amount of time. You can see guys taking two seconds, maybe more, to get themselves turned around, tracking pucks below the goal line.

To me hockey is a game of milliseconds a lot of the time, right? I was working with someone years ago who really shared the idea with me that, in the NHL, generally goals are not scored if you have the puck on your stick for more than either half a second or a second.

I can't remember off the top of my head, but it's so fast in terms of; when you score goals in the NHL, it's when you touch the puck for a very short amount of time in the offensive zone and get a puck on net. And so, if you have guys who take too long — and “too long” might not be very long… If the difference is relatively short at the time you're making those pivots or those changes, but the [opponent has] got a lot more speed than you and you're [taking more] time to then start generating that speed to match the opponent, you're in trouble.

And in my opinion, I think that you want your defensemen to be more assertive. I always fall back on the strategy of; make them make a decision, make them commit. That might imply that you do the committing first, but that's where the importance of footwork and tactics come into question. 

You have to have strong support, whether it's from backchecking forwards or your partner. You want to be able to adapt to quick players who might fake one way, go another, and be able to use your stick or use your feet or both to be a factor regardless of what happens. 

It's very interesting to watch defensemen play. I find it really, really interesting to see the different approaches of different players and especially how they evolve and get into the NHL.

But yeah, I mean, [it’s so pivotal], the skating ability; defensemen who can skate, it unlocks so many doors for their career. If you're an elite level skating defenseman, it just unlocks so many doors that interest me. If you're not, and if that's not a strength of your game, then it can be a big struggle, especially against faster opponents. Even if you're big and physical and pretty good throwing the body or whatever, there's a lot more of the game in the NHL these days. Very, very interesting stuff. 

GR: I think that's actually the perfect segue into someone who, early in his career, threw the body too much and sold out too much on plays that he probably shouldn't: Rasmus Ristolainen.

Great case study, great case study from when [John Tortorella] started working with him to where he is now. Will, I'll send in the link here from the Hockey IQ newsletter so we can track a little bit better with each other. 

I found him to be a fascinating player. High draft pick, 8th overall in 2013. Really pretty, smooth skating, big body — has all of the tools that you would traditionally say, “Yep, that checks [out].” And then you looked at his stat profile and it was just abysmal. His micro stats were terrible. I think the only thing he was good at was D-Zone Retrievals, which, being able to take contact, it was kind of an easy thing for him.

WS: Yeah. I remember watching Ristolainen when he was in junior hockey, because that was the earliest years of me being kind of curious about that side of the game, and I did not really recall that being a premier area of his game.

I remember him being big, but pretty mobile, and has some skill to play around with. He did have a bit of a physical edge to him, but it feels like it was that tail end of an era in the NHL where those big, mean, physical guys were kind of in vogue, and people were kind of curious and needing guys like that. And I guess that's what Buffalo drafted him to be.

I remember being very surprised that he was in the NHL the year he was drafted. It just did not look like it was really working out there. And Buffalo just seems to have been not a great fit for him, they kind of turned him into something that he wasn't, but I do think that he's turned into some sort of serviceable defenseman.

But he, to me, is a great example of one that I always look back on and go, “Man, what if?” Like, what if things went a little bit differently for him? Because there was good stuff there, it's just I feel like the development was focused in the wrong areas.

To me, 65% of the work [is] scouting, and developing — the easy part is drafting good players, the hard part is developing them and bringing them along into being good NHL players.

So to me, if you can find the most amount of things that get in the way of that process being easy, then you're doing a really good job. And with Ristolainen, I feel like in his case they inserted more things to make that journey more difficult and sort of turned him into something that he wasn't, which is always a scary thing for me to think about doing to a player.

But it's not over for him, obviously. He figured it out. Obviously, Tortorella found something for him to do, and he has shown a little bit better. But yeah, he's always been a what-if guy for me.

GR: I always liked how Tortorella, after the 2022-2023 season, was doing his media stuff and he was like “Yeah, he's our most improved player.” You're a guy who's getting paid big bucks — I think he was making five million plus that year, still is, probably — and even him, he was like, “I was just bad the first half. And then around Christmas break, I started getting going. The second half was much better.”

Basically, the first half, they were just trying to rebuild his defensive game, and this is true for anything. Zach Benson's another good example of this. If you can't play defense in the NHL, you're going to be out quick. Benson can play defense despite being — I think they list them at five foot 10, but there's no way.

WS: Yeah, no, no. I know. He's a little guy, but he's another great example of a player where I, in my work, I do not care how big you are. I just care about how you play. Even in the NHL. And I feel like Benson's a really, really good example of that; a guy who, just forechecking alone is a really… The easiest way to defend is if he can cause turnovers in the opposing team's offensive zone, a guy like Zach Benson does that extremely well.

And if he needs to track guys through the neutral zone and backcheck, he'll do it, and he does it really well, and he does it at a speed that I found to be projectable to the NHL. And again, that's another one where I was a little surprised to see him in the NHL so fast, but he didn't really look out of place there.

He's had a bit of a slow start this season, but just a really, really talented player, and one where you kind of do look at and go, “Yeah, these smaller guys can definitely defend.” They just — the expectations are a little bit higher, and maybe for good reason, but he checks all the boxes for sure.

GR: Yeah. So for Rasmus (Ristolainen), there's two big things that, when I dug into this, that Torts was working at. At this point, I was so intrigued [that] I was tracking every single time Torts spoke and Rasmus spoke to the media. So I was like, “I wonder what they're actually doing?” Which, Torts can be tight-lipped, but he gives it away if you follow long enough.

The big one was just inside, like too much, he was finding himself, Rasmus was finding himself on the outside. So whether that be outside the dots, outside on bad ice, for whatever reason, or just finding yourself outside, like losing defensive side positioning to the offensive player.

If you finish contact, but now you're on the wall and your player's got to step to the net, that's trouble. There's a great, great clip the other night featuring, I think it was (Aliaksei) Protas [who] ended up scoring the goal and K’Andre Miller of the New York Islanders. So Caps — Rangers, not Islanders — Rangers… Where [Miller] went in soft, didn't really take positioning, got beat back to net, and Protas just put out a stick and just tapped it in, Igor Shesterkin never had a chance.

A similar idea of; okay, good, maybe you got some contact, you tried to make the stop, but you still need to maintain defensive side positioning. You still need to finish on the inside. So if you're doing contact, you can't overreach.

You just can't do that. You have to stay in good positioning.

And the second piece was just, finishing with contact to get stops, like stopping movement. Offensive play is a lot about movement, and defensive play is about stopping movement, AKA getting stops. So he would maybe make a play, or get a poke check, but the puck was still moving and could be easily on the other team's stick. 

So how do you make sure you're always staying in good positioning? Staying on the inside, as Torts put it. Or the other piece, which is getting stops, or finishing with contact — but smartly, not chasing the contact for contact’s sake? Being tactful in your play.

I feel like Risto really just learned how to play defense smartly. He was actually thinking and being intentional about what he was doing, rather than like, “I see a puck and a player, I'm going to go end that!” And then, boom, in the big scheme of things, it’s a net negative. Even though at the moment, it may have, especially to him — otherwise he wouldn't make the play — seemed like a positive, really it was a negative for the team.

WS: Well, that's the interesting thing too, going back to talking about junior players and the context in the draft and how defensive players might go a little bit underreported or undervalued in a sense.

I see this all the time, especially with North American defensemen, especially with Canadian ones, but there are definitely players who everybody talks about how good they are defensively, everybody talks about how solid they are. They're big, they're physical, they're mean, blah, blah, blah. But then when you watch things in detail, it's this sort of Ristolainen-style thing. You're talking about K’Andre Miller where it's like, they're along the boards, they're doing the thing along the boards, but they're losing.

They're allowing guys to get low on them, get through them, and even in the junior level, right? What good is it if you're trying to pin a guy against the boards and they give you a little shove, crouch down a little bit, chip the puck three feet out from you, you don't adapt to that, they get three feet of space on you, throw it out in front of the net, and boom, you got yourself a scoring chance, right? I see that all the time.

It's the focus on the body and not focus on the turnover, turning that possession back over, that really seems to be a tough lesson for a lot of defensemen to get over. I find that a lot of defensemen from the age of 18 to 23, in the grand scheme of things, their style of play doesn't drastically shift all that often.

And so, when I see things like that happening, I'm going, okay, I gotta either hope that this guy puts in the time in the gym and becomes, just, a strength nut, and pins that guy to the boards so they can't do anything, or they figure out a way to get into those situations, take a step back, chip at the puck. Really battle for the puck rather than focus on the guy.

Because I've seen it so many times with guys who are bigger and more physical, they apply it in a way where I feel like coaches will go, “Wow, look at you go, you're playing hard, you're playing the thing!” But then they escape, this opponent might escape, and create a little bit of space for themselves. And again, this is a game of inches, it's a game of a couple of feet, and every inch matters.

So in some cases, yeah, you get those situations where guys like Ristolainen, yeah, you're doing the thing, people clip the hits, people clip the physical play, but then five seconds later, someone's got some space on you and they generate a scoring chance. And so what do you really value, right? Personally, fewer scoring chances would be ideal.

GR: I love it. Last piece to wrap this up, because I think it'll go well into our next piece, which is point play. Shorting the zone.

I was able to find some phenomenal clips and do some photos of this for the newsletter. But the concept of; if you're watching a game in the NHL, if you can see all five of the people trying to break the puck out, low in the zone… A lot of it, you think about the NHL today, is like a swarm. We're going to do close support. I'm going to try to crowd the puck out.

A good way to respond to that is to short the zone, which basically means your defensemen, instead of hanging out at the blue line, are going to go into the offensive zone. And they're going to start with small gaps, they're going to be [at the] top of the circles, if not a little bit lower.

Tortorella is another big fan of this, so you can see it with the Flyers a lot, too. I would say [Sheldon] Keefe is another example of a coach who does this a ton. So you saw a lot in Toronto, now you'll see a lot more in New Jersey, which is  the perfect d-core to make all of this work. So I think Devils are going to be good for — that's going to be a great fit.

But just the idea of crowding in the space, setting small gaps, so when you do start defending, you can either cut a play off early — it's an easy pinch there if you don't have to go very far — you can cut it off. Or, 2; create a turnover in a much better spot than what is in your own zone. Why not make it in the o-zone? So from a positioning standpoint, phenomenal place to start, good way to kill plays early.

Before they can get going, before the team can build speed, and just being able to put yourself in a good spot to take advantage both from a defensive standpoint, but offensive standpoint.

WS: Yeah, I love when I see this being deployed. I think, again, I'm a geek, like I'm a math guy, and even just thinking about the numbers here, it makes such a difference if you think about it.

The offensive zone from blue line to goal line is 64 feet. So you're looking at the difference between a guy standing at the blue line being maybe 75 feet from the net or at the top of the face-off circle where you might be 20 feet closer, maybe 20, 25 feet closer. So you're cutting down the time at which you give the defense to adapt, the goaltender to adapt. You're cutting that time down by a third-ish, a quarter to a third. I'm ballparking here, but that automatically is just based on where you are on the ice.

If you can compress the offensive zone on your opponent, you're laughing. The second thing I wanted to mention here is this is, again, why skating ability and quickness and speed are so important to me. Because it is objectively a better position to be in when you're in that position — closer to the top of the face-off circles for your defensemen.

But if you do have a situation where the opponent has possession of the puck you have to get set up, you have to cover that gap, you have to cover for yourself, or you have to have some sort of system in place where a winger can cover for you if you're caught in the offensive zone. Ideally, you have your defensemen who can wheel up, get some speed going, get positioned well to counter that attack, and have a system that can swarm whoever has that puck in the offensive zone.

I think it's a really interesting trend for sure. It's a simple little thing, it's a concept that you see definitely a lot more now than you used to, but I'm all about it. It just makes sense mathematically, and it plays into exactly the styles of player that I always look for: guys who do pinch a little bit more aggressively, but have the mobility and the skating ability to cover for themselves.

I would rather have a player who tries something creative, or tries some sort of play that could lead to a high scoring chance, but may relinquish some space on the ice, but has the ability to cover for themselves.

And I can at least as a coach, rely on them — not that I'm a coach — but rely on them to cover for themselves. To go, okay, I can rely on them to try these things, because I know that if it doesn't maybe go their way, which happens in hockey all the time, I'm not going to be upset at this player, but I know that I want them to backcheck, cover for it, because I know they're capable of it.

I think that that's sort of the trade off that you have to live with, but I'm totally cool with it.

GR: All right, so we're going to call this end of the day on some modern day defending, and we'll pick up on point play in episode two.

[END Transcript.]

part 2 <- convenient link at the bottom <3

[matrioshka]

There’s a moment I really like early on in the series that I think ends up being a wonderful microcosm of the coming tension between these two characters: Vi is talking alone with Mylo about Powder, and Powder, hearing half the conversation, gets upset when she thinks Vi is speaking badly about her and runs away. 

I think when most people watch this episode they’re going to think ‘oh, it’s one of those scenes, I know what this is.’ But only a few minutes later Powder and Vi are talking and Powder hints at the fact that she overheard them talking, and Vi is like, okay I see what’s going on, and so she reassures her and reminds her she’s valued. And the scene ends with them both happy and content.

So, you’re like, oh I guess the problem is resolved. They talked it out! But because Arcane has stupid good writing you don’t realize what’s really going on - the problem wasn’t that Powder misheard Vi, it’s that Powder is insecure *and so* she misheard Vi and got upset. It’s this insecurity that ends up leading her to taking it really personally when Vi tells her she has to stay home and is the reason why she makes the monkey bomb. 

This encapsulates so much of the conflict they’ll have for the rest of the show - talking isn’t enough. It’s not a matter of mishearing things or mismatched information that needs to be cleared up, but rather Vi and Jinx’s fundamental understanding of each other and themselves. 

At the end of Season 1, Vi calls out to Jinx saying 'I know you're in there'! As though Jinx is, like, a mind virus puppetting Powder like a zombie and Vi just needs to reach her to knock her out of it. These two sisters desperately want to be in each other's lives, but that's not really something that can be cleared up with a conversation!

Ultimately, they have to become enemies in order to fully reset their expectations for what the other person is supposed to be before they can finally understand eachother. That's cool! I love that.

[argonautsoul]

“Oh, to be able to be admired, cared for, loved, without needing to do any other thing than existing. No need to fight. Just to care, and nourish one and each other...”

Love isn’t something you feel, though. It’s something you do. And so,

loving someone is loving who they are.

When people feel that they are not understood, it frequently is due to not enough empathy going both ways...

[Text ID: “I would have preferred if you had loved me less and understood me more.”]

Here, one is actually saying: “I was in love with the fantasy relationship I wanted him/her to give me, but s/he wasn't offering me that; (I didn't like the way s/he was treating me)”.

Whatever you understand about your partner is your perspective. It is not what s/he really is. Whatever you attribute to your partner is in relation to you.

True love is based on accepting each other as they are... and you can't love something that you actually don't like... you can't love the other one if you don't actually enjoy the way s/he makes you feel.

Preferences are more about us than the other person, so first, try to give yourself what you are seeking from your date or partner.

Love isn't about trying to change someone to fit our idea of perfect.

What's more,

Forever, one can not fully understand the other one at all. This is the beauty of how they were created. Therefore, there is conflict between them.

Even within ourselves, there are/can be some deep-seated subconscious behaviours and beliefs that we don’t understand.

It is about accepting the whole person, even the parts you don't fully understand or agree with.

People's personalities change and grow over time. As you go through life together, you'll see new sides of each other. True love allows for that growth and accepts the ever-changing nature of your partner, even as their outer personality shifts. 

Any relationship is in a state of change, part of which is continuous knowledge of the other.

“Love isn’t a state of perfect caring. It is an active noun like struggle. To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.”

 — Fred Rogers

And hence, constant effort is needed to accept and adjust themselves to keep up with the changing lifestyles along the way with the changing society.

It takes time to grow together. And we want the maturity in a relationship that comes with time, the emotional connect that develops over years, that sense of belonging when we barely even know the other person... Apparently, nothing is worth our time, effort, and patience. Not even love. Relationships, however, require energy and participation.

Cognitive biases can be particularly damaging because they distort our perceptions and interpretations of our partners' actions and motives.

Cognitive bias is so difficult to acknowledge, understand, or be aware of within ourselves because we actively protect our beliefs. Sometimes, this means denying truth or new information that comes to us (a la cognitive dissonance).

In addition,

Depressed people don’t have the energy, and if they are caught up in the very common mode of isolation because of their depression they are definitely not participating... sometimes, there is an element of mental illness involved in this arena in general.

Lastly,

We don't really need an intellectual twin who can finish our sentences.

And that level of interconnection isn’t necessary. As long as they treat you appropriately, even if they don’t understand you completely, you can still have a very fulfilling relationship.

Love is a commitment, not about the mushy gushy feelings.

Let the commitment be the beginning of understanding. 

══════☸☸☸══════

Too often, in this culture, we cloud the picture, overanalyze, fear those conscious efforts, and insist that love means something very definable and ultimately acceptable — don’t get sucked into the madness, stay in your true path and please, please find a partner who is similar to you (i.e., hold similar values), who cares about your thoughts and feelings, and genuinely enjoys your company.

And read “The 5 Love Languages” by Gary Chapman. It’s eye-opening to realize that someone may be figuratively shouting their love from the rooftops — but you aren’t “hearing” it. Communication is key, as long as you understand your partner’s language.

.

Margarita Karapanou, tr. by Karen Emmerich, from Rien ne va plus

[Text ID: “I would have preferred if you had loved me less and understood me more.”]

[fairestwriting]

YOU'RE BACK??? REQ OPEN???

I'm so happy that one of the first writers that I followed since the first day I enter the Twst fandom has made a come back 😭😭😭

And um for the req then can I have like a headcanon for Vil with a reader is just like appear so mature and introvert on the outside but with close one or sometimes the slipped or sth they're more silly and oblivious to their surroundings and like dumb and silly things (ex: Pepe Frog, Kriby the baby Elephant or some really hairy yet not hairy cats, etc). Maybe both of them are still and the crushing and pinning state.

Thank you 😭😭 And I'm so glad that you're back. Pls take care 🫶✨️✨️✨️

IM BACK AND DOING REQUESTS INDEED!!! tysmm anon you take care too <33

Vil Schoenheit

He would never admit it, but it constantly takes him off guard. Even as time passes and you two grow closer, it's like he can never fully get used to it — That's not really a bad thing, though.

Vil knows, maybe better than anyone, that a person's more "eccentric" traits aren't something that take away from their value. I mean, he has Rook as his vice leader, he's not going to really judge you for being a little silly. If anything he finds it endearing.

At the same time, though... he still can't fully get used to it. You two will be having a conversation, getting deep into the topic, your words all well-articulated and informed... and then you take a moment check the time on your phone, and your friend sent you some silly meme, and you can't stop giggling. He doesn't really know how to react.

Every time, he can't help but ask what it is that got your attention, and every time you show him, he feels all those... mixed emotions. That stern part in him wants to scold you, just a little bit, but he doesn't really have it in himself to actually do it. Plus... what is there to complain about? You're just having fun. His lecturing instincts are just a little too strong.

It's just both fascinating to him that you find all those things amusing, and he can't even begin to understand why you'd feel that way, despite your similarities. Maybe it'd genuinely bother him if it was harmful in some way, or if you were being inappropriate, but if it's all silly fun...

Maybe a part of him kind of hopes that the silliness will rub off on him. Only in private, of course, and it'll likely take forever, but as you get closer it all just starts to feel increasingly endearing to him. So you might actually get him to crack a little smile at a picture of a funny looking cat with you someday.

if you wanna support my work, you can buy me a ko-fi or commission me!

[prolibytherium]

One of my all time biggest pet peeves with historical(ish) fantasy is when the writer constructs a religion with a clear bias that it's stupid and false and therefore only the Stupid People and/or commoners believe in it and all the smart/elite main characters are like, quasi-atheists or otherwise just routinely flout established religious conventions of orthodoxy and/or orthopraxy because they're Too Smart for it or etc.

It's usually an extension of assumptions that people in the past were just less intelligent than in the contemporary, just being like "I know that the sun is a star millions of miles away that the earth orbits, but this ancient religion describes it as a chariot flying through the sky" and not really bothering to learn the context and just (consciously or subconsciously) settling on 'that's a crazy thing to think and was probably believed in because they were Stupid'.

And that whole attitude pisses me off so much. People were as 'smart' 10,000 years ago as they are today. These beliefs aren't just desperate, random flailing to explain phenomena that could not directly be accounted for either, it's not like people just looked at the sun and went "Uhhh I don't know what the fuck that thing is, actually. I guess it might be a chariot or a boat or something?? Yeah let's go with that." and based entire religious practices on this. Every well-established belief system exists within broader contexts of cultural values/subjective perceptions of reality/knowledge systems/etc, and exist as part of a historical continuum of religious practices that came before. Even when not Materially Correct, they have context and internal logic, they're not always dead literal with zero levels of allegory, and they're never a result of stupidity.

[everyonesadoptivedad]

One thing that nobody prepared me for as an adult.

Some would say that it's because I'm a scorpio, others would blame it on me being sensitive to shame. I've always been somebody who would go to great lengths not to be seen as vulnerable. Of course, being seen as weak, being hurt, displaying limitations, trying and failing and all that jazz are like...the obvious part of it. But one thing that I was not prepared for

Was the realization that being happy and genuinely liking things also counts as being vulnerable. People I've known for 10+ years regularly tell me "I never knew you were this passionate that???". Guess why? Because displaying genuine joy is very vulnerable!!! What you like and why you like it tells a lot about who you are! It allows people to put puzzle pieces together about you! About your needs!

Of course that I would keep those in a secret little box. Of course that those things, however silly, are the fucking pinnacle of the sacred to me! Nobody should even be remotely able to take those from me and taint them with shame. It would destroy what's left of my inner child. Of course my psyche fiercely tries to protect those.

The other day my friend invited me to a kpop store and I spent the entire time biting back tears. My eyes fill with water at the very thought of it. I don't even like kpop that much anymore, but I'd never told anybody at all that I'd ever liked it? But it felt like my secret garden was being clawed open with unrestricted allowance. How could it be so easy? How dare it be so easy? To have somebody as me about a group that I liked with genuine interest?

So Please, please never make fun of anybody for anything at all. Joy is vulnerability. And somebody sharing joy with you is a great gift of trust. It is a big deal. Every fucking thing is a big deal. Every single thing about everyone is a huge deal!!!!!!!!!

[mathsbian]

Also a lot of schools have other kinds of free tutoring available as well, you don’t need to ask ChatGPT how to do your calculus homework because 1. It doesn’t know, it was trained to pair words together not do math (use Wolfram Alpha instead to check your answers) and 2. You can get help from someone who is getting paid to help you but that you don’t have to pay for and you will come away actually having a better understanding of the topic you are learning about.

Writing papers is teaching you to formulate arguments and how to support them properly.

Math homework is drilling skills and techniques into you.

Programming assignments are teaching you to think like a computer and preparing you for when you get a job and get assigned a very specific corner of a big project.

Labs and science homework are preparing you for lab work (duh…) and reviewing other people’s research.

And I genuinely think, as a person who got degrees in math and computer science, that it’s really important to learn how to write an argumentative paper. It teaches you so much about how other people are writing their blog posts and papers and articles and whatnot. It teaches you that you can certainly find individual quotes from things supporting your thesis, even if the whole thing maybe doesn’t (check sources for information you are being given, maybe the source doesn’t actually say what they’re arguing it does?). It teaches you that, when you have to find sources to argue against, that you can find sources that are very easy to argue with (is this video essayist actually arguing with the best version of the other side of this debate? Or is it just the stuff easiest to argue with?). It teaches you how to think critically about the things you are reading and what they are saying (because for a while a lot of what you were reading was being analyzed as a potential supporting source). Value the time you have being guided through this process.

chatgpt is the coward's way out. if you have a paper due in 40 minutes you should be chugging six energy drinks, blasting frantic circus music so loud you shatter an eardrum, and typing the most dogshit essay mankind has ever seen with your own carpel tunnel laden hands

[a-sketchy]

ohhhhhhhhh “sea of thy soul” = personal unconscious, “sea of souls” = collective unconscious. hey guys did you know that persona is kinda jungian

[miabrown007]

at least we now know that neither Marinette or Adrien are aware of him being a senti. after the S3 final we all assumed Adrien knew Rena Rouge and Carapace's identity, because it was so evident: cue Rocketear. after Félix and Kagami's theater kid nonsense we all thought Marinette finally knew Hawkmoth's identity, because how could she not? : cue Confrontation.

almost makes it look like our main characters are not allowed to learn or deduct anything that isn't explicitly spelled out for them

[seewetter]

Sure, that makes sense, but the people seeing a self-conflicting value system aren't wrong:

A huge point of transphobic rhetoric is using the naturalistic fallacy and arguing that cis people are natural and that transition is unnatural. The recent statement from the Catholic church that trans people are risking declaring themselves gods is a way to justify the cis norm against transition by arguing that transition is unique and thus abnormal because modifies people from their natural state.

I agree that this conversation likely leads nowhere, I agree that it may not matter what people think about this topic, but we can at least acknowledge that the instinct to point to cis people who do gender-affirming modifications to their bodies is not a bad instinct. Those cis people are "playing god" with their bodies just as much. And it's completely normalized and doesn't cause some church reminder not to risk playing god please.

I find that posts like these end up doing two things.

1. they make trans people (like the OP) not understand other trans people (the "naive trans people").

2. they make decent observations out to be trivial and so people start feeling ashamed to voice those observations. Which causes them to fall out of use. And then, 10 years from now, we get a new discourse cycle because someone re-discovered and found use for those supposedly useless observations.

Sorry, but just because observations of hypocrisy usually don't do much to persuade bigots and closed-minded people, doesn't mean that noticing these hypocrisies isn't helpful. I genuinely think that a lot of trans people have a lot better mental health the more wrong and less well-thought-out they realize transphobes are. So pointing out the hypocrisies can have value and it is not something you should just dismiss. I want informed trans people, not trans people who keep "discovering" small insights over long stretches of time that they could have learned really quick if we didn't mock every observation about transphobic hypocrisies.

"most gender affirming care is actually for cis ppl, isn't that hypocritical?" well they're affirming and reinforcing the societal structure of assigned gender so no actually. if they could they'd want you to get surgery to make you line up with your coercive gender assignment too, and very often they do, especially to kids.

[wreneging]

every time i see someone misinterpret jason’s death i lose my mind a little more

[rememberdamonn]

thinking about damon in s7 being told by anyone and everyone, from the beginning, that he was going to screw things up, that everyone he loved was better off without him, being asked what mess he was going to make next, etc… in a lot of cases before anything had actually really happened yet! is it any wonder that he preemptively goes into damage control mode (and consequently actually does cause damage as a result)? is it any wonder that he thought the only way to save his loved ones from himself, that the only way to not disappoint them was to take himself out of the picture?

and then they were angry with him for that too (and justifiably so, but) it’s not hard to imagine that he would feel like he’s damned either way. that he can’t do anything right. not hard to imagine why he would want to sacrifice himself (take himself out of the picture) again even though it’s objectively Not a Good Idea.

[databent]

strated writing and gave up on 2 separate posts basically just yelling about how mad it makes me that n24 is so misunderstood and accomodations are so unavailable. MAN

[thebellekeys]

Wow, way to show you have no understanding of the problem I'm getting at with my post.

Imagine seeing an individual getting a PhD in art history and instead of blaming the workings of late-stage capitalism for the difficulty it brings them to get a job, you blame... the person that literally contributed to new, valuable knowledge in a field that's been studied for hundreds of years at the tertiary level? You blame the university for offering *checks notes* a literal university degree solely because of its lack of market value? Assigning value to a degree solely based on capitalist return is exactly the problem.

I'm not in support of dumping 100k on any degree, frankly, especially when there is more than enough money to support R&D in developed countries. I would never take out a loan like that myself. But if a person is capable of academically succeeding at such a high level, it is rather crude of society to punish them for not automatically subscribing to largely volatile markets when it comes to their studies.

We should be campaigning for educational reform, demanding more information about funding agencies' checks and balances, and responding to the needs of society by envisioning job opportunities for persons in the arts and humanities. We as a society need to acknowledge scholarly pursuits are inherently valuable. We should not be penalizing students who have made the choice to study history and literature. Because there will come a time in a few decades when AI starts putting STEM people out of a job too, and then we'll all be in the same boat suffering when ten Elon Musks rule the word and decide everyone else isn't worth the time, that everyone else just isn't getting degrees with "market value".

But, lol, the only other post on your blog is one blaming the people who give a shit about Palestine and genocide for Trump winning the election instead of all the conservatives that supported him en masse regardless of "whatever's going on in the West Bank", so nothing I say is gonna make a difference to you.

And a reminder that higher education cannot be considered truly democratised if students can still be doomed to poverty with multiple or advanced arts and Humanities degrees...