About that tweet, I see people listing all the reasons why they can't publish 75+ articles and books in 15 years. I understand why, but I also feel like it reifies a structure of aspiration which leaves intact the premise, i.e. ideally publishing as much is an end in itself?

Even taking account of field differences (and I don't think the actual number is the crux of the issue here), there are serious ethical concerns with such a publishing pace. When we list all the ways in which we can't meet up this standard we still uphold it as ideal-type.

And yes it might be a tenure metric at so-called 'research-intensive' institutions, but that's more of a testament to them being more accurately described as 'bullshit-intensive' institutions

Shoutout to the books and articles who made me feel like they were written by people who actually cared, that there were actual stakes and weight to every word.