If you're struggling to write sex, write food. if you're struggling to write food, write gore. if you're struggling to write gore, write sex. They're all variations on the same themes.
it's all sensation and consumption and intimacy. it's all violence and beauty and taste. it's all wild and animalistic and elevated by our humanity. it's all deeply cultural and symbolic. it's all enjoyed by every sense the body has to offer.
People get made fun of for being scared of aging but it comes from the very real fear of being discarded by society that’s why i always say the goal is not to never become old or disabled the future comes for us all the goal is better social policy
i like the idea of there being multiple me’s DON’T TAG THIS AS FUNNIER AS A SYSTEM I KNOW YOU’RE ALL ABOUT TO I CAN SENSE IT ok anyways. having one solid identity is WEIRD i need it BROKEN UP INTO DIFFERENT PEOPLE even though i know it’s literally just me pretending . i open tumblr and i become tumblr me. i get off my phone and become real me. You understand. #myphases
you're not supposed to wander around appalachia at night bc you'll fall off a sheer drop that you couldn't see coming. this is also a major risk during the day. you really have to watch out for the sheer drops that you don't see coming due to the undergrowth. I suspect 100% of spooky missing persons cases in appalachia have the spooky explanation of "sheer drop disguised by undergrowth"
really cannot overstate how many utterly invisible ravines we got here and also how big the woods are. they can't find people because the woods? are big
in seriousness you can learn about the isolated Appalachian communities that were up here until quite recently by checking out the foxfire books. it is true that there were many isolated communities that remained pretty separate from mainstream American life for a longish time but most of the last ones were my grandpa's generation. and they were regular? can't overstate how regular they were. just rural and isolated with their own culture. do check out the foxfire museum if you want to learn more about them and their lives! those books are based on real interviews conducted by local high schoolers and college students of the old folks in their communities and they are very interesting windows into day to day rural life up in the mountains in the early to mid 20th century.
I absolutely 100% do not mean this in a like derogatory city slickers way; I myself grew up mostly in a city and I think that it is morally neutral to not have experience with The Outdoors. having said that, I have noticed that a lot of people who do not have regular interactions with "landscape that can kill you" do seem to have an internalized idea that "landscape that can kill you" is something that only happens to other people, or not very often, or only under extreme circumstances. which I think often leads them to assume that there must be something else out here that can kill you. but I fear I must inform the people who wanna believe scary Appalachian woods monsters are real that it's Landscape. inclusive of the beasts that dwell there such as the cougars and bears. its Landscape! (GRASPING EVERYONE ON THE SPOOKY APPALACHIAN TRAIL SUBREDDITS) IT'S LANDSCAPE THAT KILLS YOU! ITS ALWAYS LANDSCAPE! Old Man Hidden Ravine and his best friend Exposure!
not to talk about the hp show but it's wild to me that jkr was like publicly and explicitly like "the last set of child actors have denounced my bigotry, I want a new set of child actors to groom. create a television program so I can have new children" and everyone was just like ok joanne! :) here's your new children! :)
Leaving aside the weird framing of using the term grooming, now that we're past the point of no return enough that we've got trailers out, the new set have the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever and denounce her bigotry where she can't back out or just scrap everything thus forcing her to be around their views enough that they might deradicalize her
I mean, she is explicitly upset that the last cast of kids broke away from her shit because she 'made them what they are' and wants to like. start fresh with a new batch of children. so she is hoping the outcome here will be that these kids follow her ideology into adulthood, bc of the outsized role she knows she is going to have in their lives. that's grooming. like that's a textbook case of grooming. grooming doesn't have to be sexual, sexual grooming is just one type of grooming. using your power and influence to try to mold kids' minds so that they agree with your ideology is also grooming.
i once referred to the purpose of veggietales as 'indoctrination of children,' and despite the fact that the most literal and original definition of that word is 'train into christians with correct beliefs' people got really offended.
this is a relatively recent phenomenon (indoctrinate was broadly considered a morally neutral word up to like the 60s) so I'd argue we are seeing some kind of ongoing culture shift around conceptualizing the rights of children.
"Six weeks into the term, I assigned my rhetoric and writing students a 20-page article. It was the same length I had assigned for five years and the same length I had read without complaint as an undergraduate a decade ago. Not one student finished it.
When I asked why, a student answered honestly: It was too long, and she kept losing track of what the paper was about. This was not a remedial class: These were students who had cleared the admissions process and written essays good enough to get them here. Yet a routine academic reading assignment had defeated them.
Every generation of professors has complained that their students cannot read. The lament is usually overblown, but data have caught up to anecdote, and what I am seeing in my classroom is no longer a hunch. There is a measurable, generational collapse in sustained reading and writing, and the academy is responding to it with improvisation and exhaustion rather than the structural overhaul it requires.
In February 2024, Adam Kotsko, who teaches in the Shimer Great Books School at North Central College, wrote in Slate that students who once handled 30 pages of reading per class meeting now seem “intimidated by anything over 10 pages and seem to walk away from readings of as little as 20 pages with no real understanding.” Crucially, he added that this is “not a matter of laziness on the part of the students” but of underlying skills they were never given a chance to build.
The Chronicle of Higher Education’s 2024 investigation found the same pattern across institutions as different as the Stevens Institute of Technology and Wellesley College, where the average SAT exceeds 1400. Nicholaus Gutierrez, an assistant professor at Wellesley, told The Chronicle that the baseline for what students consider a reasonable amount of work has dropped so noticeably that he has cut his readings accordingly; a 750-word essay now strikes many students as long. At Stevens, the science and technology studies associate professor Theresa MacPhail described following the mantra of “meet your students where they are” for so long that she has begun to feel “like a cruise director organizing games of shuffleboard.”
Worse, the national data tell the same story in colder language. On the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing assessment, which is the most recent comprehensive writing benchmark, only 24 percent of 12th graders reached the Proficient level, and just 3 percent reached Advanced; another 21 percent scored below Basic. The reading side of the ledger is worse, and getting worse fast: The 2024 NAEP results released in September 2025 show 12th-grade reading scores at the lowest level recorded since the assessment began in 1992. Thirty-two percent of 12th graders now score below NAEP Basic in reading, meaning that, in the assessment’s own language, they likely “cannot draw general conclusions based on concepts presented explicitly in a text.” And yet more than half of these same seniors reported being accepted to a four-year college. That last sentence is the whole problem in one line: We are admitting a cohort that cannot read at a college level and are pretending otherwise.
Why is this happening? One reason, of course, is smartphones.
I came into teaching as a skeptic of the anti-smartphone argument: I had a phone in my pocket throughout high school and college in the 2010s, and I read long books anyway. I now think I was wrong, because the neuroscience has caught up. In a 2017 paper, Adrian F. Ward and colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business showed that the mere presence of a participant’s smartphone — whether that be face down, powered off, untouched, or across the desk out of vision — measurably reduces available working memory and fluid intelligence on cognitive tests, with the largest effects on the most phone-dependent users. A 2022 study by Motoyasu Honma and colleagues at Japan’s Showa University used near-infrared spectroscopy to compare reading on a smartphone with reading the same passage on paper, and found that smartphone reading produced overactivity in the prefrontal cortex, suppressed sigh generation, and led to general lower comprehension scores; the authors argued that the sigh inhibition and prefrontal overload were causally linked to the comprehension decline.
So when a student tells me they “kept losing track” of a 20-page article, I have to acknowledge that they may be describing a measurable neurological condition. The neural pathways that support sustained attention are built by use, and they atrophy without it. Your body is a use-it-or-lose-it system, and the brain is no exception.
Another reason for the decline in student reading capability is increasing reliance on generative AI. In June 2025, Nataliya Kosmyna and colleagues at the MIT Media Lab released a preprint titled “Your Brain on ChatGPT.” They divided 54 participants into three groups writing SAT-style essays — one using ChatGPT, the second group using a search engine, the last group using nothing — and monitored brain activity with a 32-channel EEG. The ChatGPT group showed the lowest neural connectivity of the three, with up to 55 percent reduced connectivity compared with the brain-only group, and “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.” Eighty-three percent of LLM users could not quote a single line from essays they had written minutes earlier. When the LLM group was forced to write without AI in a follow-up session, their brain activity did not bounce back to baseline; the researchers coined the term “cognitive debt” for the lingering deficit.
This is the first neurophysiological evidence that early reliance on LLMs measurably alters the brain’s engagement with writing tasks, and it is consistent with what those of us in front of classrooms are watching happen in real time. When I assign analysis, I am not trying to extract a polished product; I am trying to put the student’s mind through resistance in order to make it stronger. Offloading the struggle to a chatbot does not “free students up for higher-order work.” It deprives them of building the strength to do any substantial cognitive work at all.
There is a final factor that is contributing to this decline in reading skills, and that is that the students arriving in my classroom today are the first cohort to have experienced Common Core-influenced reading instruction across the entirety of their K–12 schooling. Whatever the standards’ original intent, the on-the-ground implementation in many districts replaced sustained reading with the practice of pulling “evidence” from disconnected short passages, the same format used on the standardized tests that increasingly determine school funding. The education scholar Natalie Wexler, among others, has documented this pivot in detail: Students drilled on “finding the main idea” in two-paragraph excerpts never build the stamina or background knowledge that longform reading requires. The pandemic then added fuel to a fire that was already burning. NAEP scores for 13-year-olds dropped sharply in 2022 and have not recovered. A 2023 EdWeek survey found that 24 percent of secondary-school administrators described pandemic learning loss in English and language arts as “severe or very severe.”
In July 2025, the journalist Mary Harrington argued in The New York Times that “thinking is becoming a luxury good.” The ability to read deeply and reason at length is fragmenting along class lines as ultra-processed digital media replaces text in everyday life, much as ultra-processed food has replaced cooking. Her longer treatment of the subject in First Things makes the more provocative case that we are witnessing the end of print culture itself, and with it the end of the cognitive substrate on which modern liberal democracy was built.
I see this stratification in the classroom and on the page every week. My students from districts that protected sustained reading through small class sizes, strict phone policies, and faculty who refused to teach to the test all arrive with their attention relatively intact. My students from districts that surrendered to devices and standardized testing arrive cognitively winded. A democracy that requires a literate electorate is now training one fraction of that electorate out of literacy while marketing to the other a “deep work” lifestyle as a luxury good. The students who cannot read a 20-page article today are the voters who will not be able to read a bill, or the jurors who cannot follow a closing argument, tomorrow.
I do what I can in my own classroom to address the problems. I break 20-page articles into two halves and assign the first half with explicit analytical tasks. I require exploratory writing before formal drafts. I model (visibly, on the board) how to track an argument across pages or distinguish a source’s claim from my own analysis. I make structured peer review explicit, because the workshop format I used to take for granted now collapses into “this is good” and “maybe add more details” the moment I step back.
But I want to be plain about the limits of what an individual instructor can do, and all of these solutions have costs. Scaffolding a 20-page article into halves compromises the integrity of the argument I am asking students to engage, just as modeling note-taking in a credit-bearing rhetoric course is using a college slot to teach a middle-school skill. None of the syllabi I teach are designed to deliver this type of cognitive rehabilitation, and pretending otherwise has produced credential inflation. We cannot keep conferring degrees on students who cannot do what the degree is supposed to certify.
I’m afraid I don’t have answers. I do, however, have some questions that may point us in the right direction. If higher education is going to respond to the reading crisis as a structural problem rather than a private burden carried by composition instructors and adjuncts, it has to stop avoiding the following questions: If a majority of incoming students cannot read at a level the curriculum requires, are we admitting students we cannot serve, or offering a curriculum we cannot provide?
Why are first-year writing and reading-intensive general-education courses still the most adjunctified, lowest-paid, highest-load corner of the university, at the precise moment when their work has become the most important work the institution does? What is the responsible institutional response for AI usage: Is it a syllabus statement, or a sequencing principle that requires students to demonstrate the cognitive work themselves before AI assistance is permitted?
Why are most college classrooms still phone-permissive by default? K–12 districts from Florida to California are now banning phones bell to bell; higher education has somehow lagged behind the public schools. Universities benefit from a pipeline they did not build and refuse to repair. What would it mean for a university system to invest seriously in the reading instruction happening in the high schools that feed it, rather than treating remediation as something to be quietly outsourced to first-year composition instructors?
The thing I am no longer willing to do is pretend this is a temporary adjustment period, or that “students will adapt.” They will not adapt on their own. The conditions that produced this collapse are still in place: the phones, the algorithmic feeds, the test-prep excerpts, staffing models that load the reading-intensive work onto the most precarious faculty, and now the chatbots that finish students’ sentences before they’ve even begun to think of them. If we want literate citizens, we will have to rebuild the conditions for literacy deliberately, against the grain of every incentive currently pointed the other way. I know the academy has the will to do that. It also has the obligation."
— Tyler Jagt, 1 June 2026, "My Students Can’t Read"
The generational collapse in literacy is measurable, persistent, and likely to get worse.
I want to be very clear on this: it is not just dependence on smartphones and phones causing mental atrophy. It's that for decades we have taught Three Cueing System as a way to read, and while we are now beginning to correct, it is catching up with us. The reliance on smartphones and short form video are in part a result of illiteracy, not necessarily a cause of it, because we have failed to give students the tools to actually read but also paired it with the belief that they can read. They do not seek remedial reading help but blame the materials for being unclear or too difficult, when the fundamental problem is that the more complex the text, the less functional the three cueing system is. They are often quite literally guessing what the text says by searching for words they recognize (or think they recognize but cannot verify) and texts rapidly become impenetrable nonsense. Of course people will reach for their phones when 90% of the text they encounter in their daily lives and schooling is not accessible to them!
One of the things I like about gothic horror novels is that the main character doesn’t typically know they’re in a gothic horror novel, so when the Scary Guy is revealed, they’re like “okay well literally who could have foreseen that.” And then like clockwork some weirdo will appear out of the woodwork whose life’s goal is to Have Foreseen That
Et Angelum in Inferno @nfirr - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
izzy806
gummygunk
baratheonpilled
dailybridgerton
titsay
vaporwave
theartofmadeline
areudirty
