Hey, all. Thanks for visiting. Just a collection of posts with comments and occasional diatribes, perhaps. Keep it real and stay awesome, everyone. Message me with any questions. (Male virgo born in 1990, for all those asking.) The truth will set you free. Change is inevitable. Embrace it. View this post to learn all you need about this blog: https://zigdirty.tumblr.com/post/672654478711947265/a-man-with-a-trim-jaw-beard-and-moustache-is
The 2026 Trans Legislative Risk maps have just been published.
Sadly, this is by far the worst update yet, as all of the US (every single state) has now crossed into the Moderate Risk category or worse for trans youth.
But first, below is the adult risk map:
Another state has been added to the Do Not Travel category, Kansas. A majority of states, especially the interior and southern regions, are increasingly hostile and unwelcome.
As mentioned prior, see the changes for the trans youth risk map:
Discouragingly, no blue in sight.
You can see the full article, including sources, changes, and reasoning, all here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/anti-trans-national-legal-risk-assessment-a5d?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The situation continues to deteriorate when it comes to transgender youth care. For adults, we see Kansas as the newest state added to a "Do
Finally, here is the link to the prior post from 2025 (and before): https://www.tumblr.com/zigdirty/803786738963218432/no-map-update-yet-but-an-important-link-for-trans
💬 9 🔁 17 ❤️ 22 · No map update yet BUT an important link for trans youth resources (from an article also from EitM): · The organization te
Updated Trans Legislative Risk maps in July of 2026.
Sadly, not a great update. Less terrible changes from earlier in the year, but very few positive changes, and one significant deterioration.
Adult risk map (with a fourth Do Not Travel state, Idaho):
So now Florida, Texas, and Kansas have another "ally" in their persecution.
Trans youth legislative risk map:
Especially with the recent Title IX decision by this corrupt SCOTUS, trans youth are at their greatest risk yet, and this map above may not be ranked bad enough. (As always, Erin in the Morning will keep a close eye on everything and report on any ruling or law that impacts the trans community.)
Link to the full article: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/anti-trans-national-legal-risk-assessment-bb2
Idaho becomes the latest "Do Not Travel" state for transgender people, raising the number of states transgender people should not travel thr
"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.
The smartphones themselves aren't the exact cause of these issues, they're merely the method used to deliver the actual culprits most efficiently and consistently.
I had a smartphone throughout middle and high school, and college, and any teacher that tried to block or impound it immediately went on my black list. I also wasn't on social media or using the device to do my work for me, but instead using the search engines (at the time quite good and responsive) as a tool to facilitate my completing tasks more efficiently as they were assigned in class.
The underlying problem is far more sinister and portentous: a cultural shift.
Where it was once considered disrespectful and obnoxious to have a loud conversation on a cell phone in public, now we have people on perpetual video calls screaming into devices everywhere, without issue from others around them.
Where search engines once were expected to provide rapid, accurate, and useful results, we now have those same tools that intentionally obscure results and delay success in finding answers, without mass social migration to better tools.
Where actual learning was once valued and encouraged, standardized testing and "learning test-taking skills" are now all that matter.
Where critical thinking was previously a rare and coveted skill to be uncovered and cultivated in youth, society now openly condemns and disparages those with the talent.
I could go on, but the issue is far more pervasive and insidious than just "smartphones and social media and AI" would imply. Yes, these all contribute, in different ways and to different degrees, but underneath all three is a collective agreement amongst most members of the US as a whole: simply accepting all these things (the bulleted list above and other downward trends), and actually willingly embracing them, all for the pursuit of convenience and in service of sloth.
The fools, no contest, because Obnoxious Orange will die, but fools will outlive him, and they have bred and have progeny, and will no doubt create equally foolish (or possibly even BIGGER) morons than they themselves are today, and that new generation of colossal human failures will continue the legacy of putting people like Vermillion Villain in positions of power.
Donnie Dipshit isn't the cause, he's the symptom. The masses of ignorant people are the cause.
It seems plausible that said person found the book but had NOT watched/read the Death Note anime, and tried to use the book to get Graham to do something outrageous and uncharacteristic like die in an impossible way, and so he just suddenly and inexplicably🫀❌
It was a huge milestone of scientific and technological advancement. (Plus, at the time, politically significant). Humanity went to space! We set foot on a celestial body that was not earth for the first time in human history! That’s a big deal! I’ve never thought about it before but now that I have, it’s ridiculous to me that that’s not part of our everyday lives and the public consciousness anymore. Why don’t we have a public holiday and a family barbecue about it. Why have I never seen the original broadcast of the moon landing? It should be all over the news every year!
It’s July 20th. That’s the day of the moon landing. Next year is going to be the 54th anniversary. I’m ordering astronaut shaped cookie cutters on Etsy and I’m going to have a goddamn potluck. You’re all invited.
PITCH: We call it Moon Day, and then every 7 years when it falls on a Monday, that's an even BIGGER deal and we call that Moon Day Monday and go absolutely apeshit about it (the next Moon Day Monday is in 2026 so we have a couple trial runs first)
Static was WILDLY popular in Brazil (a country where the population is over 50% black) and we had re-runs for YEARS on open television. Everyone who was a kid in the 2000s knew and loved him. As a result, every single Brazilian Con has a LOT of static cosplayers!
So, a couple of years ago, Comic Con Experience (the biggest con in Brazil, which is actually also the biggest con in the world!) invited one of Static’s creator Denys Cowan as one of the guests of honor.
Now. Thousands of people attend his panel. And cosplayers went NUTS because they could show their Static cosplay to the creator himself! What none of us expected was Debts Cowan’s reaction:
He cried on stage.
He had never seen Static cosplayers - especially not so many of them! And he had no idea the show was popular here! No one ever told him his character was so beloved! Years and years of reruns and he had no idea! He obviously created the character with his experiences and his community (Black North Americans) in mind. Still, he accidentally touched a whole other community of black people who could see themselves on the screen as a superhero!
Anyway he is a lovely person and one of the best, most memorable guests we had. And I think this is a nice reminder that your art might touch people you can’t even imagine would when creating it.
Edit: I said “the creator” when i should’ve said “one of the creators”, its edited now, but while he isnt the one who came to brazil it’s important to say Dwayne McDuffie was another important figure to static shock!! Both are black men who paved the way in comic book history! Thank you @sokumotanaka for pointing it out.
This is misleading, SCOTUS did not have to rule on this, with a full ruling. They could have summarily dismissed the entire case using the shadow docket, still provided a very clear "answer" to the case, and not wasted almost any time on this.
The ruling being 6 of 9 and not unanimous isn't the biggest concern, the most worrisome detail is that the 6 conservative majority chose to hear the case at all. Why?
It means 3 R justices couldn't find a legally justifiable reason to undermine THE CONSTITUTION yet!
(They wouldn't have even taken in the case at all if they did not WANT to at least ATTEMPT to do it, so they are simply biding their time for an even better "case" that they can rule the other way and functionally eradicate part of the constitution from the bench.)
Researchers focused on whether kids that are spanked are more likely to share or, conversely, more likely to have anxiety, years down the li
2021:
Spanking found to impact children's brain response, leading to lasting consequences.
2018:
The American Academy of Pediatrics says new evidence and research not only show that spanking affects a child’s brain development and increa
2016:
Kids who are spanked tend to act out more and have more problems later on.
2012:
A study reviewed more than two decades of research on the effects of spanking and found nothing positive to report, only that physical punis
2010:
A multiyear study shows spanking kids makes them more aggressive later on
I haven’t pissed people off lately by reminding them that ALL types of physical punishment of kids has been proven beyond ANY reasonable doubt to have only negative long term outcomes.
So let me scream it from the hilltops:
Stop hitting kids. End of sentence.
If you think, “but I was hit and I turned out just fine” let me pre-reply: NO YOU DID NOT. You think hitting a child is ok, how the fuck does that qualify as “fine”?????? From one abuse survivor to another: please start healing yourself.
The World Health Organization report I highly recommend because there are so many conclusions that are shocking and yet completely obvious.
For example, being exposed to corporal punishment as a kid makes it more likely for a person to commit domestic violence against a partner. In places where corporal punishment is normal, people are more likely to think that rape and intimate partner violence are normal. Kids who are spanked are more likely to be violent with and to bully other kids.
Spanking is literally teaching a kid that violence is okay and normal and it affects the whole society.
It also talks about how corporal punishment affects the brain in its development. It changes the structure of the brain and slows the development of mental abilities. Kids who get spanked have much stronger hormonal responses to stress.
Zero surprising data here for anyone with morality. But still incredibly important because apparently a majority of US citizens don't have morality, so yeah.
"1954 - On April 25, 1954, Bell Labs announces the invention of the first practical silicon solar cell.[8][9] Shortly afterwards, they are shown at the National Academy of Sciences Meeting."
Posting this for my soul cat Kenzie (she passed a few years ago but I still think of her every single day) and for everyone else who has lost someone they love. ❤️
Christians have committed multiple genocides throughout history.
The bible condones slavery, genocide and owning uterus havers as property.
Entire cultures have been destroyed and colonised due to Christianity.
Christianity has left people with trauma.
Christianity teaches people to be ashamed of normal things such as their own bodies, sexual feelings, being queer and being disabled.
Christianity has been and is being used to spread fascism.
Christianity actively doesn't promote critical thinking and sets you up to be subservient to a master without even questioning their decisions or doctrine.
Christian organisations constantly demand and steal money from people.
Christianity gives people free passes to be bigots.
Christianity stops people from believing in and understanding basic science.
Christianity makes people so incredibly focused on the afterlife, which can stop them from caring as much about problems and other people in the world.
Christianity was and still is being used to oppress people.
Rapists can get away with their crimes because of Christianity.
Christianity teaches people that they are inherently evil.
(Other than the desperately lacking use of any Oxford commas...)
This is a very accurate, but not nearly complete, list of issues with Christianity (but can, at least on smaller scales, be applied to almost every other religion as well).
This Doonesbury abortion cartoon was originally written by Gary Trudeau in 2012, in response to a Texas law requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion. It was banned from many major newspapers, and they ran syndicated cartoons in its place.
Now seems like an appropriate time to bring these cartoons back, with the passing of Texas’ new law requiring the burial or cremation of miscarried or aborted fetal remains. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if Trudeau decides to write the sequel.
Here's an article on Substack with links to allow people to demand that Virginia convene a grand jury to determine if a case should be opened (allowing for discovery and the means to actually determine if Thomas' tax documents in the state were indeed missing all the additional income from "donors").
Sufficient evidence exists in the public record.
Reblog this to spread it far and wide, the more people it reaches the more people can demand actual action be taken by the state.
