I saw someone talk about how they have mixed feelings about the crunch debate and say it’s so much more nuanced than journalists say. They said something to the effect of: “for example, I’ve never been more creatively energized during one cycle, and would never want to repeat it”

And like, to be honest, that’s not particularly interesting nuance. You’re just saying that sometimes you can still do good things under bad conditions, but don’t worry, you still hate the bad conditions.

Like ultimately your boss is still extracting more value out of you than they’re paying you for. Don’t fucking defend them! Or their bosses boss. I had some wonderful friends at DigiPen who I loved dearly and had a great time with. But it’s a school with terrible crunch culture,

and I wouldn’t generally recommend it. I tried to change it while I was there, why would I defend it now? This line of reasoning just doesn’t make sense.