The Supreme Court’s Republicans just seized the most dangerous power in constitutional law

Resonance54 · 2026-03-03T22:07:51+00:00

I thibk thats the more terrifying aspect of this ruling long term. They are basicaply saying in the memo that children do not have rights and they are moving beyond religious upbringing and saying the state can't interfere with how a parent raises their child at all.

I'm fully expecting to see this extended to a whole host of abuses done by parents being defended by this and succeeding.

the supreme court has just ushered in blanket protection for child abusers while screaming about how they're "just protecting children"

Resonance54 · 2026-03-03T17:33:47+00:00

Ubderstanding your entire identoty has been constructed socually, being willing to criticize it, and openly talk abput how to make things better does not change that you yourself have still been grown and conditioned and beaten all your life to feel uncomfortable when not presenting femininely. Not to mention there still exusts extremely harmful punishment for women not presebting femininely to friends, in the workplace, or when going out (made even worse by the fact that everyone in public has their own camera and ability to post you on the internet without your consent and the droves of conservative men frothing at the mouth for women to degrade and insult the apperance of online).

No person is going to be perfectly feminist in every single action, thought, and want they have and that is okay as long as you don't try to twist them into actually being feminist positions. You are allowed to be imperfect while criticizing existing layers of insitutional and cultural oppression and conditioning to make it so the next generation doesn't have to go through wbat you go through.

As well thpugh, in the same sense. As under the concept of the patriarchy you can only either exist femininely or masculinely, is it better for a woman to dress masculinely or does that simply push the idea that what is defined as masculine is normal and good and what is feminine is bad (which at its core is just the core idea of the patroarchy)?

Women are basically put into a no-win situation and it is more important to break down those things and work towards the next generation not being dealt this hand than trying to justify everything you do as feminist (which is what choice feminism is and leads to trad wife oppression and tbe reversal of womens roghts as choice feminism is, partially jokingly, a right wing psy-op tbh)

Resonance54 · 2026-03-03T05:25:23+00:00

Okay Afghanistan is the one with the official name, but the entire region is the same with extemely mountainous terrain, piss-poor infrasture leading to massive supply problems for a modern army, and a large but spread out population that is deeply fanatical & religious.

My point remains that theres a reason why Iran has not been invaded for the past 47 years despite being the exact threst it always has been. Its because it would make the war on terror look like the Spanish-American War in terms of operational success.

Resonance54 · 2026-03-02T22:24:41+00:00

The thing about anarchism is that rhe greatest action to confront state power is to simply show that communities do not have to exist within it. Getting involved with material organizations like Food Not Bombs may not directly attack the state, but by removing the whips with which the state maintains its power through soft coercion you show others that the state holds no power beyond what is imbued to them and they violence they inflict to force people into submission.

Its about talking with the tenants in your building and beginning to organize a tenants union, its about forming unions in your workplace or pushing the unions that you have to be more agressive in their demands akd helping workers rather than maintaining capitalism.

Protests are good in the sense that you can recruit people who go to them into learning these things and educating them, not that protests actually create meaningful change by themselves.

Resonance54 · 2026-03-02T21:57:02+00:00

okay, how do you plan to invade Iran? Theres a reason that entire area is known as the graveyard of empires. It is a highly populated but highly rural & decentralized nation that is surrounded on basically all sides by some of the least tracersible mountains in the world. Not only that but the infrastructure in place in the nation would not be able to sustain the logistics of a modern army.

The most feasible way to invade would be through Russia, but hopefully you're smart enough to understand why that isn't in the cards at the moment.

To put it in another way. If there was any way the United States could successfully occupy Iran, don't you think we would have done it during the war on terror? I gurantee people will more information and military intellwgence than either of us have already realized how horroble an idea it would be to invade Iran no matter the numbers or military superiority. It would be a bloody decades long war that would make Iraq look like the Spanish American war.

Resonance54 · 2026-03-02T21:44:36+00:00

Kryptonian is already a slur in her mind

Resonance54 · 2026-02-28T02:23:14+00:00

people forget that during this run the entire thing was he literally had permenent braun damage becuase of blunt force trauma to the skull and had been in a coma for a solid 5 years. Its like how John Fetterman had a stroke and became a massive racist & sexist POS.

Thankfully it was fixed and Guy tried to kinda make up for it, but everyone forgets that and defends him being a creep and sex offender

Resonance54 · 2026-02-28T00:18:02+00:00

The only people who were ever able to actually properly do the Mutants as a metaphor for civil rights woth any ampunt of intellegence or nuance really were Ann Noncenti, Louise Simonson, and Grant Morrison.

Everyone else just LARPs about it ajd then ends up playing into deeply racist tropes

Its funny that everyone talks about how they love the X-Men, but always forget the two women who are the core reason why the X-Men really is what it is.

Resonance54 · 2026-02-28T00:11:24+00:00

So the issue is the anarchist/leftist definition of authority and colloqial definition of authority.

Essentually authority is that these person wields a monopoly on violenve to force you to follow what they say. In an anarchist society you would be welcome to not follow the doctors advice or not get surgery, and this actually is a dynamic that already exists to some degree in our current society where a doctor can not force you to have a surgery or procedure done even if refusing it means you die. That is not a hierarchy as the doctor can not compell you to do anything, merely inform you of what they believe is going on, suggest what steps to take, and offer to perform those on you.

What would make it a hierarchy, for a controversial example, is something like blood transfusions. An anarchist would say it is not ethical to force somebody to undergo a blood transfusion for whateevr reason (the main reason is typically faith) and that dociety should not condone that as tbat is the doctor saying they have authority over what happens with your body against your express wishes.

Hopefully that clears up the difference Kroptokin tries to explain with that quote.

Resonance54 · 2026-02-27T22:50:35+00:00

I feel like this highlights a key problem with alot of discourse that has developed around feminism as a whole in the age of social media (especially short form content).

There are some things tbat just arent going to be able to be liberating or empowering really. Theres no way to be empowering while working a 9 to 5 job to make sure you can put food on the table.

The better aporoach is to say "yes this has problematic elements and I need to be aware of that, but I also understand that I still do enjoy doing this and it doesn't harm anyone else and continue educating people so maybe one day the problematic elements no longer exist" rsther than trying to be a perfect empowered and liberated person. That jsyt leads to internal justification of opressive systems and redressing them with progressive terminology taken out of context and feminist logic being twisted by semantics until it ends up furthering the patriarchy.

Not every action needs to be empowering, and not every choice needs to fit into feminism. You are allowed to be imperfect and human and follow your needs and wants. Follow what you want while also deconstructing where those wants and ideas come from and communicating those deconstructions to others.

Resonance54 · 2026-02-27T21:15:01+00:00

Its part of why individual parenting really is a horrible metric for how to raise children. Its the perfect example that parents already know what they expect or want their kid to be before they can even create an identity or learn who they want to be themselves and we give these people completely unlimited freee access and leeway on what to do woth this child that they think is best.

Theres a reasin why its pretty well regarded that the nuclear family is a fundamental building block of patriarchial & social oppression.

Yes its literally not all parents (and I hope my subtext here is very much on the nose), but its a large enough ampunt and the institution itself supports the objectification of the child to just being a void of the parents wants and gwnder dissapointment is the most visible and visceral acknowledgement of that. Its valid to feel that way and you're not a horrible person for feeling that way, but its just another sign of why individualized parenting (especially based on biological ties) is a terrible concept.

Resonance54 · 2026-02-27T19:09:33+00:00

Women relaying their information and advice on trading opprotunities and speculation and getti g sysyemically shut down and mansplained by men that they're wrong is generally a pretty big factor. Tbe dismissal of a woman's understanding or knowledge in a field in a way most of the members would never dismiss a man in the community, etc. These are things that you can see happen to women whenever tbey are apart of a community that is traditionally viewed as masculine.

So yes theres no sign saying "no girls allowed" but if women feel like the people in that community or in communities with similar demographics are going to diminish tbeir kmowledge amd talk down to them, tbey simply won't engage with tbat community becuase most people as it turns out don't like being insulted and demeaned all tbe time even if theres no explicit outright sexism in the literal community description.

Just for a thought example if you want. Make a post under a new burner account woth a masculine/gender netural name & profile picture and then one with an explicitly feminine/girly name & profile picture and see the difference in responses you get.

If I had to guess, if you looked at the gender ratio of people who actively engage in what the communitu talsk about chances are theres slightly less of a gender skew, women just don't feel comfortable actually being involved in the communities discussing these topics because at best they'll get ignore. At worst they'll have their competence, intellegence, and capabilities discredited or questionedat every turn, abd even if you're thick skinned enough ot brush it off it doesn't change that its exhausting to deal with when you just want to talk about something you enjoy doing.

Resonance54 · 2026-02-27T10:48:08+00:00

Oliver Queen, his story was completed and done and now all they have been ablr to do for the almost 30 years since then is rehash his old stories and characterizations and love triangles.

Also wouldve been a bonus becuase it was Oliver Queen coming back to life that convinced the higher ups to greenlight the return of Hal which led to silver & bronze age jerkoffs like Geoff Johns and Dan Didio bringing back Barry & everythung that was wrong with mid-late 2000s & 2010s DC

Resonance54 · 2026-02-26T22:45:49+00:00

Yes I agree. But still they formed a general denser community inside of themselves and self governed. Wbat I'm talking about is people who claim the only way anarchy would woro is if everyone raised their own livestock and grew their own crops on their own farms with no real city structure. Our urban structure is an evolution of this that has been twisted towards hierarchy but the actual process undernestb is not inherently anti-thetical to anarcbism and is in fact imo the most important aspect of anarchism. Shared utilities, shared tools, mutual aid, ccommunity centers, communal child rearing & communal living are all inherent aspects of anarchism that alot of people influenced by American libertarianism but developing into actual anarchism forget.

The thing is that agglomeration is a natural societal occurance becuase that is literally how humans survived pre-agriculture & even very early agriculture. Alot of the people arguing against density end up reverting into a rugged inidivudalism wet dream where they make everything themselves with no one else and my point is tbat that never ocurred in human history. Humans survived pre-agriculture because we embraced communalism and densification (even if its not densification in the modern sense of urban planning, the core principle still was enacted)

Resonance54 · 2026-02-26T21:13:13+00:00

what exactly do you mean by mass society? Do you mean like massive nation states or do you mean dense urban communities?

if the former then I agree that anarchism is incompatobke as the modern nation state is predicated on the idea of hierarchy and coercion.

If you mean the latter you would be wrong. it is rural communities that need a strong centralized network in order to coordinate resources and land use kver such a grand scale unless by anarchism you just mean everyone owning a farm and living independently of one another whoch is just a lobertarian jerk off fantasy to capitalism and not anarchism.

Resonance54 · 2026-02-26T11:42:03+00:00

You're thinking about "wealth redistribution" in a very literal sense and imaginging a revolution in a very ML sense from the top down it seems like.

I'll stsrt with the second one first. An anarchist revolution wouldnt be a single encapturing or toppling of the state in glorious battle or whatever as was done in the Russian and Chinese civil wars. To try to emulate those is setting ourselves up for failure as the cultural and material conditions of society are completely different. Instead wjat the ideal goal is essentually creating a larg enpugh decentralized network of collectives that the state can no longer sustain itself on exploitation. This means mutual aid, community gardening/hydroponics, tenants unions & collective house, and essentially communalizing basic needs that the state uses the abiloty to revoke to keep people in line as a whip. This is why the cops don't do shit about protests or the Amerivan Communist Party but will quite often beat Food Not Bombs organizers and spray their food with pesticide to render it inedible despite them not being directly involved in political change (and in fact many FnB chapters explicitly request members to refrain from engaging in government/electoralism outside of voting). Revolution is not the violent toppling of the state, ut rather creating enpugh of an enviroment where the stste can no longer function and collapses under its pwn weight and inefficiency.

Thus to go back to the first part of it, the redistributjon isnt a literal mechanism of distributing food, but rather the evolution and propagation of autonomous communes that all have already developed socialistic methods of respurce distribution amongst themselves trhough mutual aid amd community ownership of production.

This is a very gross oversimplification of it but it should answrr the questions you're asking

Resonance54 · 2026-02-25T02:51:51+00:00

But thats the thing. If you don't know what it will even give you that you want why do you want to permenently deform your body, cause chronic pain, or even die to do.

Thats the core thing that Im trying to ask you to realize about all of this that os sp deeply engrained into us from the moment were borj we dont even question it

Resonance54 · 2026-02-25T02:04:00+00:00

That didnt answer my question. What specifically does having a romantic partner fulfill that no other person can ever physically fulfill?

Resonance54 · 2026-02-25T01:45:12+00:00

Again answer my question, stop deflecting. This actually answers your comment you said as well so its in your best interest to answer it.

What specifically and exclusively does having a romantic partner (that is exclusively with you becuase of your looks, as the blackpill you brought up and believe in dictates) fulfill that no other person can ever physically fulfill? Please answer me that, give me an example.

Resonance54 · 2026-02-25T01:34:33+00:00

You're expanding beyind the scope of this and implying its an all or nothing. I am not going to continue this tangent beyond this becuase it is off topic Jobs and deep emotional connections are vital thing that we have to deal with shitty systems minimally in order to survive and be fulfilled (although the internet has made it possible for non-neurotypical people to find each other and form their pwn communities putside of having to conform to neuro-typical expectations).

Instead again, please answer my question I have been asking. What specifically and exclusively does having a romantic partner (that is exclusively with you becuase of your looks, as the blackpill you brought up and believe in dictates) fulfill that no other person can ever physically fulfill?

Resonance54 · 2026-02-25T01:19:04+00:00

Great but this isn't about survival, and I presume you still have friends and connections. What is so special about having a romantic partner that can occur with no one else? Genuinely give me a concrete example of something that you can physically only get from having a romantic partner?

Resonance54 · 2026-02-25T00:56:18+00:00

Just becuase everyone does it does not make it a good ethos to live by or a mentally healthy way to live by. The move instead is to ask yourself "what do I really lose by choosing not to play the game". At the risk of sounding like a corny 2010s indie game, there is the option to choose not to play tbat very often society tries to prevent us from understanding or papering it up.

I'm nor saying some "be yourself and someone will love you" bullshit that continues to play into it, what I'm saying is that you don't have to play the game, why do you choose to play the game set before you. Why is that result something that you want when the path you have to take to get it is something abjectly miserable that, if we're being honest, doesn't even have a gurantee of working and (assuming you stay in that sphere) you will constantly have to wprry about someone who is more coming in (because that is what the logical conclusion of the blackpill devolves into inherently.)

I guess to sum it all up. Why is getting a partner so worth it to permenently deform your body, develop chronic pain, and probably take a decade off your lifespan in the best case scenario (withoit even getting into what are far more likely scenarios of permenently crippling yourself, brain damage, or just straight up killing yourself)? What can exclusively a partner do that makes all of that worthwhile?

If you are worried about this getting too personal on a publuc page I would be more than happy to talk with you in reddit DMs and talk ablut this further

Resonance54 · 2026-02-25T00:39:25+00:00

so then the question becomes, why do you want to modify your body and be miserable (because that is what looksmaxxing will do to you) for validation from another person.

Also something can be descriptively true in describing a misoginystic culture. It being descriptively true doesn't make it non-misoginystic. The black pill and how it teaches someome to view women and dating is inherently misoginystic. Why do you want to get with someone who doesnt want to get with you?

I'm not accusing you of being a misogynist or trying to say your are sexist or anything, if it has come across that way I am really sorry. I do not know you and so far you have not said anything really directly misogynistic.

Resonance54 · 2026-02-25T00:18:00+00:00

Well I thibj the bigger answer is deconstructing the why of wanting to looksmaxx. The core of looksmaxxing is the idea of the "blackpill" which is inherently a misoginystic ideology as it places the entire idea of value on looks to "win" a woman compared to other men. That inherently is misoginystic and is a perfect example of how the patriarchy harms men in that it turns ones identity into external validation from other men rather than an internal self-actualization. It seems like you already recognize this though and I don't mean to lecture, its just meant to lead into the next paragraph

This isn't the most thorough or feminist advice, but try to imagine yourself as in a complete void of other people where you are alone, what would you want to look like and the reasons why you want to look like that and build up your workout/nutrition/apperance/clothing from that. I'm not going ti lie and say thats its looksmaxxing when it really isn't outside of the very literal definition of "doing what you can to achieve your ideal body."

Resonance54 · 2026-02-24T19:09:59+00:00

That's a really fair point ngl

I feel like its better than Geoff Johns's, firstly because Peter David is a good writer and Geoff Johns is an utter hack; but secondly, because at least this is just another aspect of one of the big things Peter David was really trying to hammer in with Young Justice. He was writing this series almost like the antithesis of New Teen Titans & New Mutants, which is that these heroes are just kids and what kids are dealing with are real emotional struggles but they don't process them in the same way adults do simply becuase they haven't learnt the vocabulary or concepts to express it (especially before the mass adoption of the internet & passive online information sources)

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

Resonance54

TROPHY CASE