extremely funny scenario in which rose joins shane as his plus one and moral support for going after the guy he wants at all stars because she can be his buddy and also his cover for making up for lost time with ilya
which is complicated by the fact that ilya takes one look at rose and shane at the bar (rose's arm looped through shane's in what ilya doesn't know is just a friends move) and BOOKS IT so he doesn't have to see this
and then proceeds to avoid them at EVERY fucking turn
this all terminates into rose going "fuck it I'm a true bro and I'm making this happen so help me GOD" and managing to arrange locking them in a closet together (which is. so funny. but this is not the time to point out the punchline.) (she'll save it.) so ilya can't run away.
and it's very sweet and they have their moment of honesty and yay back to ilya's room now fo-
the-the door is locked.
because it turns out that rose got a LITTLE too enthusiastic in locking it after her plan worked PERFECTLY and now something in the mechanism is broken.
so in one sense, shane did come out of the closet, but in another sense that's going to be funny only probably a few months from now, he AND ilya are now stuck in the closet in a way that is both metaphorical and also. painfully literal.
This scenario is also raising mental images of Rose from Minnesota "I have brothers" Landry being so determined to pin Ilya down to make him talk with Shane that all glamourous movie star persona drops away and she just fucking tackles him, and Ilya has no idea how to react to this attack so she actually succeeds in wrestling him to the ground
Shane's looking slightly scared by all this in the background, Ilya's saying "Shane! Your girlfriend attacked me!" And she's going "I'm NOT his girlfriend, now you two are going to TALK to each other, or so help me god" and drags them both to the closet
the idea of petite movie star rose landry tapping into her roots and turning into a linebacker to take down giant professional athlete ilya rozanov is SO goddamn funny
because also ilya would NOT know how to fucking react
like he wrestles with svetlana for fun but this is?? NOT FUN?? IS THIS?? AN ATTACK?? WHAT THE F U C K IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW?? HE CAN'T ACTUALLY HIT HER BUT HE IS BEING FUCKING?? PINNED DOWN?? OH MY GOD???? DID HOLLANDER TELL HER ABOUT THEIR PAST TOGETHER????? IS THIS JEALOUSY?? THAT'S EXCITING BUT ALSO GET?? OFF??? WHAT THE FUCK???
"she's not my girlfriend!" "i'm not his girlfriend!"
*brief moment of ooooh??? yay???? before returning to 'pinned to the ground with his face in the dirt' reality* "OKAY WELL GET YOUR WHATEVER OFF OF ME."
GOD a huge contributing factor to rose not keeping track of time and noticing how long shane has been mia is that baby girl gets DRUNK on how many people are buying her shots for being the one to take ilya rozanov DOWN.
the mention of younger brother Ilya vs older sister Rose is killing me, because I think Ilya would just be soooo WILDY unprepared for this dynamic.
like, his older brother is both absentee and abusive, so I imagine his entire view of sibling relationships is incredibly tarred, and this woman is also his Greatest Enemy In Life.
so heâs getting youngerbrotherbodyslammed by this women who (like all older sisters, can just clock a younger sibling idk what to tell you) is supposed to hate him, but is treating him like a twit child???????
heâs squawking at her to get the fuck off of him, and sheâs all âshut up you dramatic loser, youâre literally fine stop whining. Get your shit together and get your man oh my god!!!â And heâs like âDO I KNOW YOU????â
rose being a little worried this isn't going to work out because they can't even get ilya in front of them to even say hi, but then she gets eyes on ilya JUST long enough to go OOOH! you are Little Brother Shaped, and now she knows EXACTLY how to handle this.
the idea of rose also finding this SO fun and it becoming part of their dynamic moving forward is so special to me. she won't do it in public because neither of them wants that press coverage, but the second they're in private??
svetlana finds it really funny but doesn't usually actually want to get physical when he's goofing off, so she's happy to offload mma fighting to rose
shane and svetlana at the cottage chilling out on lounge chairs with umbrella drinks and sunglasses while supervising rose and ilya lightly drowning each other in the lake after trying to shove each other off of the dock first
oh MAN rose stopping by camp as a pr move to get more attention for the foundation and joining in with the kids
which means there's footage of ilya and rose dropping gloves and "fighting" with each other on the ice as ilya complains about her being a bad influence
found a fic where shane and scott discover the other is gay and start hooking up, and i think if that ever were to happen, once scott hit his midseason slump every year shane would start coming up with excuses not to fuck because nothing turns him off more than bad hockey
like shane's only got two guys in his roster and he only meets each of them a handful of times a year but he just cannot bring himself to sleep with someone who gives that bad of a performance on the ice, no matter how long it's been for him.
and meanwhile scott is thinking okay so the game went pretty badly but at least i'm getting laid tonight :) and when shane cancels through text with some terrible excuse, his mood tanks even further and he brings that bad vibe with him to the next game and performs even worse and that's how shane accidentally causes the admirals' losing streak to go on for like three more weeks.
now i'm wondering how ilya and scott find out about each other and i'm thinking it happens at the mhl awards in vegas. scott has been seeing kip but they just broke up, so he goes to shane's room hoping he can take his mind off things.
except ilya's already there, and it's immediately obvious what the two of them were just about to do. it's also obvious why scott is there.
scott is a little bit put out - he's not like romantically interested in shane or anything but he did think what they had was kind of special. ilya is incredibly jealous and doing a terrible job of hiding it. shane is too mortified to notice either reaction because the two men he's been fucking now know about each other and the way they found out feels specifically engineered by some higher power to punish him for being a Gay Slut.
scott says something that reveals he's just there because his boyfriend broke up with him (he's trying to convey to shane that he's not expecting anything of him nor does he judge him for sleeping with other men) and ilya forgets his jealousy for a moment to get incredibly offended on shane's behalf that he's being treated like some consolation prize. then it's right back to jealousy because what if the only reason scott and shane aren't properly together is because scott was hung up on another man??
scott watches this emotional rollercoaster play out with painful clarity on ilya's face and decides this situation is too messy for him. he bows out, gently hinting at shane that maybe this thing with ilya could be more than a hookup because it certainly seems like ilya wants it to be.
this hint sails right over shane's head, of course.
then shane and ilya are alone again. they fuck, ilya lowkey begging shane the entire time to tell him he's better than scott hunter. this is so obvious to shane that he doesn't clock it as anything other than ilya asking for his ego to be stroked, so he goes along with it thinking it's just inconsequential dirty talk.
after they're finished ilya asks shane if he wants something more with scott (because he hates himself and feels like he should suffer). shane wrinkles his nose at the thought and then delicately answers that scott probably deserves a partner who would support him through his annual catastrophic late-season crash and burns.
ilya gets what he's not saying immediately because of course shane hollander only fucks winners, and ilya, well. he may not literally win every game but he is always, unquestionably, a winner. he will always match shane on the ice.
and scott hunter doesn't.
ilya leaves that hotel room in high spirits and with a half formed plan to find scott hunter's ex and convince him he and scott belong together, just in case scott ever miraculously starts being a more consistent player.
(he's obviously unaware that scott has already decided he's never sleeping with shane again, because like hell is he getting in between whatever he and rozanov have got going on)
I can't remember who said it but I saw a comment or tweet talking about hypocrisy that essentially said The Hypocrisy Is The Point. hypocrisy is power. it's the ability to set rules for everyone else except you. and if power is a virtue then hypocrisy is a virtue. it's why you never really get anywhere with "by your logic..." or "then wouldn't that mean...". it's not that they don't realize they're being hypocritical. they do it on purpose to prove that you have to listen to them and they don't have to listen to you
ilya finds out cliff fans online are calling themselves cliffnation and he never lets it go. he is telling people he has dual citizenship: russia and cliffnation. he actually canât get a speeding ticket because he has diplomatic immunity as an ambassador of cliffnation. all i do is win is the national anthem. the capital is marleauville.
you know I don't actually think many people know that shane hollander is always in the act of jumping out of his own skin with anxiety. like you look at the "your boy rozanov" and "I'm going to fuck him back" interactions and we as an audience can see that the guy is oozing fear but his actual facial expressions and voice is pretty flat and scott hunters reaction is only because he is scott hunter, gay jesus.
I think everyone on the team assumes shane is this bland unshakeable guy, team anchor. a lot of fan portrayals of shane locker room dynamics is an untethered boat or slightly distanced leader but I think shane's autism has that unflappable old-soul vibe that coaches like and other guys admire. I think he is acting like an untethered boat, but unfotunately the entire fleet is following him around. like really they just want him to sit in the corner and read a hockey book while they get shitfaced over a pool table. like hes #the guy. you just need him in the room.
ilya in the show: uses less contractions than native english speakers, drops his articles, uses filler words sometimes when searching for proper phrasing
Iâm going to level with you. I have listened to The Devil Went Down to Georgia for most of my life. We were a country music household, this was a staple of my childhood along with Johnny Cash, Garth Brooks, and that one Chipmunks country album.
I have no idea what âFire on the mountain run boys run/The Devil's in the house of the rising sun/Chicken in the bread pan picking out dough/Granny does your dog bite no child noâ means and at this point Iâm too scared to ask.
this is the key part of the song, that a lot of people miss. people have this misconception that the contest between Johnny and The Devil is about who is the better fiddle player. but it isn't. its about who is the better fiddler.
in a time before things like radios and record players, every time you heard music was because there was somebody in the room with you playing an instrument. and many, many, many social events involved dancing, which requires music. so, if you're planning any kind of gathering in the american south or appalachia, you need to find a fiddler. and the fiddler's job is to play music that everybody knows and likes and can dance to.
the mistake The Devil makes in his bet with Johnny is that he misinterprets the contest as being about technical ability, so he has this big flashy song. he plays fast and impressively with a band of demons playing unfamiliar instruments in unfamiliar rhythms. he's definitely more skilled at playing than Johnny, and thinks he has it in the bag.
but Johnny wins because the contest is about being the best fiddler. the song uses these lines mentioned above as a shorthand for saying that Johnny is playing these songs. Johnny launches into a set of the most popular songs, played well, and that's what gives him his big win. A good fiddler knows all the hits, and can read the room to know what to play next. The Devil loses because he completely fails to read the room, and doesn't know the right songs.
Transphobia is about to be signed into law in the UK. We can fight this.
I am begging the UK trans community and its allies to attend the Mass Lobby at Parliament on June 25th, 11am-4pm, organised by Trans Solidarity Alliance.
Last year we broke the record for an LGBT+ mass lobby of Parliament. Will you help us break it again? Join us on 25th June 2026 to demand be
The new EHRC Code of Practice pushes trans people out of toilets, hospital wards, and community spaces. It normalises gender policing based on appearance and stereotypes. It becomes statutory guidance in the UK by the end of June.
Trans people are now legally their assigned gender at birth and must join gendered spaces accordingly, but if they are perceived as their lived gender, they can also be ejected from those spaces. The guidance says: either break the law, or donât pass too well.
A mass lobby is where you invite your MP to discuss your concerns with you in-person. Ask your MP to:
Demand full parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and use their free vote on the EHRC Code of Practice.
Support any motions rejecting the EHRC guidance. As of June 4th, Labour MP Nadia Whittome has submitted a prayer motion - Early Day Motion 240.
Write to Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities about our concerns
Your MP does not have to be an ally, they do not have to respond to your email for you to show up and greencard them (details below the cut.) What matters is that as many people as possible show up.
I cannot stress this enough: Showing up in person matters. It is much more effective than petitions, emails, and letters.
It is a horrible, stressful time, and I am so sorry if you're trans and live in the UK. But I was at last year's mass lobby and the line for greencarding alone stretched around the back gates. It was a record breaking mass lobby and made us impossible to ignore. Let's do even better this time. Details under the cut:
Worried about what to say?
Bring your personal worries about transphobia being signed into law, and trans friends being excluded from public spaces. You are a living person who deserves dignity. Remind your MP of that. You will also get guidance and brochures from Trans Solidarity Alliance that outlines our demands. This is mine from last year.
Money issues?
Trans Solidarity Alliance provides a travel bursary that you can sign up for via the link.
Got a refusal or no response from your MP?Â
Come anyway! You can request a same-day appointment with your MP through a process called greencarding. They will come and see you if theyâre already in Parliament. Even if they donât, theyâre made acutely aware of your cause because you showed up in person. This is my greencard from last year.
Here is the EHRC Code of Practice in full. It's a tough read, but some highlights are:
Organisations canât provide trans-inclusive, single-sex services, or they risk being sued for discrimination.
e.g. domestic violence support for women including trans women, menâs rugby group including trans men (12.68).
Trans people will have nowhere safe to pee.
If youâre a trans man, businesses can't allow you to pee in the men's, and you can also be ejected from womenâs bathrooms if youâre perceived as a man. Vice versa for trans women. EHRC suggests a âthird spaceâ bathroom, which is discriminatory and unworkable for most businesses. (13.130-133)
Sports organisations must exclude trans people from single-sex competitions (13.73).Â
A womenâs only sports competition must exclude trans women because of their biological advantage or face potential lawsuits (13.74), but a trans man who has undergone testosterone treatment can also be excluded based on fairness rules (13.81).
Trans women are stripped of the legal definition of âlesbianâ, and therefore no longer have legal protections if theyâre discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. (2.50, 2.92).
Here is the Good Law Project's better explanation of the EHRC Code.
I have also made a PDF printout of QR codes for the government petition, email your MP tool, and mass lobby link to pass around your communities. DM me and I'll send it to you.
The heavily worn tunic of the Bernuthsfeld Man, patched out of 45 single pieces of cloth, 20 different fabrics in 9 different weaving patterns. 680â775 CE, Lower Saxony, Germany.
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
"Gish Gallop" is the debating term for an opponent who makes so many claims that "it's impossible to address them in the time available" (it's named for Creationist Duane Gish, who was notorious for this tactic):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
I think about the Gish Gallop whenever I'm asked to comment on AI.
Here's a recent example: last week, I had a pre-interview call with a radio producer who wanted me to come on a 13-minute segment to discusses "whether there's a problem with AI governance?"
I asked what the show meant by that: was it whether regulation of AI in commercial or public sector decision-making needed more oversight? Was it that the siting and provisioning of data-centers needed more democratic accountability? Was it that workers deserved more of a say in AI's impact on labor markets? Was it that customers and/or audiences should be able to opt out of AI customer service and AI slop? Was it about whether we needed some kind of system to prevent "runaway AI," in the event that we teach so many words to the word-guessing program that it wakes up, becomes God, and turns us all into paperclips?
"Oh," the producer said, "all of that."
In 13 minutes.
You see the problem, right? The AI industry has made so many claims about its past, present and future that it's almost impossible to have a reasonable critical conversation about it:
Shortly after I did the radio show, a newspaper editor who'd heard my segment got in touch to ask me if I'd write an 800-word op-ed about the subject, and also, could I address claims that "AI is the next Industrial Revolution?"
I keep finding myself on stages or panels where an AI-struck person says something like, "AI is the next industrial revolution. It will change everything we do. It will let anyone create important works of art. It will cure cancer. It will take us to space. It will solve the climate crisis."
Or sometimes it's an AI critic, but that person's criticism is really more "criti-hype," which is when you accept tech industry hype claims at face value, and then criticize them rather than questioning them:
AI criti-hype might ask what we'll do once AI takes all our jobs, or what we'll do when AI replaces the government or teachers or doctors, or what we'll do when AI can bypass our critical faculties and brainwash us or drive us all mad.
What do you say to that? I usually start by talking about whether there's any economic basis for keeping the AI servers running. AI is â by far â the money-losingest venture in human history, and it's practically impossible to overstate just how bad the AI business is. Not only does AI have terrible unit economics, those unit economics are getting worse over time:
AI's happiest customers cite cost-benefit calculations that depend on truly unimaginable subsidies from the AI companies, who are basically selling $100 bills for $5 apiece. It would be pretty amazing if you couldn't find people who'd extol the virtues of this arrangement. But when AI companies try to raise the price of those $100 bills to, say, $20 apiece, those ecstatic customers fly into a rage and start loudly proclaiming that AI is so inefficient that they will lose money on this arrangement:
Now, it shouldn't fall to me, a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America, to point out that capitalist enterprises require profits to be sustainable. You can't keep a business afloat by selling $100 bills for $5, nor for $20. You can't even make a profit selling $100 bills for $100 apiece! For a company to succeed, it needs to take in more than it expends.
AI is a money-furnace, and AI hustlers are clearly on the hunt for a way to force all of us to feed every dime we've got to it. Elon Musk's (now scuttled) gambit to make every pension saver in America bail out Grok (and Twitter, but at a mere $44b, the losses from Twitter are dwarfed by the titanic losses from Grok) was the most ambitious and shameless population-scale bag-holder scheme, but it's not the only one:
So before we ask about the capabilities AI will acquire in the future, we should at least give some consideration to the question of whether anyone will be willing to fund the development of those capabilities, and if so, where the money would come from? Likewise, before we ask whether AI can perform adequately in a job, we should at least consider the possibility that the company that sells that AI tool will be bankrupt in a year or two. When we fight about data-center buildout, we mostly talk about the (considerable) environmental downsides to them â but what about the question of what we will do with these data-centers after their owners go bankrupt, possibly even before they can be provisioned with electricity? How many laser-tag arenas do we actually need?
This is just one example of the questions that you could spend days unpacking, which make many of the other questions about AI a little silly. Like, even if you think there are limitless returns to scale for creating new AI capabilities, which means that if we keep the money-furnace burning it's only a matter of time until it powers a cure for cancer and the end of the climate emergency, how much money do we need to shovel into the furnace before that happens, and where will it come from? There are plenty of cancer researchers who have promising approaches they haven't been able to pursue due to funding shortfalls.
Unless there's some way to estimate how much money we have to give to AI companies before they cure cancer, we should at least consider the possibility that the true sum is "more money than exists now and that will ever exist." We should also consider that whatever benefits to cancer research that AI might deliver could come with a higher price-tag than the promising cancer research we're dropping because we can't find far more modest sums.
Likewise, it may be that the amount of CO2 that AI will generate atmosphere before it "solves climate change" will render Earth permanently unfit for humans, consuming the only habitable planet capable of sustaining human life in the known universe. I mean, I suppose that's one way to "solve" climate change, but it's a pretty drastic solution.
My next book (out later this month) is The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI. I wrote it because I was frustrated by other people demanding that I talk to them about AI, and then handing me 800 words or 13 minutes to address fifty nebulous, poorly supported claims about AI:
Now that I'm about to go out on the road with the book, I find myself frustrated anew by the need to try and pull together a compact way to address the broad, incoherent claims the industry uses to keep its bubble inflated and the money furnaces roaring. The series of essays I've developed here on Pluralistic are part of that effort:
But it occurred to me that this whole enterprise of making sense of AI needs to be framed in the context of the messiness of AI itself, and AI boosters' overwhelming, promiscuous and disjointed Gish Gallop.
And let's not forget that It took 200 years for that labor movement to win significant advancements! The first Industrial Revolution started in 1760, and the 8-hour work day was only widely accepted after the First International Labor Organization Convention of 1919.
And furthermore, the economic boom and social progress that we could enjoy during the second half of the 20th century on the west, very much depended on outsourcing all the bad consequences of the industrial revolution (the dangerous labour practices, the pollution, the devaluation of labor, etc.) to third world countries.
Anybody who tries to sell the Industrial Revolution as an aspirational model for AI is not only bullshitting you but asking you (and your kids, and your grandkids) to suffer unimaginably for the nebulous posibility of a better future 200 years from now.
jbbartram-illu
snowghoul
pixelskylines
kaledo-art
