Can you explain "White Southerners wouldn’t be Democrats for generations"? Because that's where you went completely off the rails...

OK, but the way you word it, you make it sound like the Democrats didn't have the South on virtual lockdown after the Civil War until Nixon.

It is also a complete slander to say that the Republicans "gradually" became more opposed to Civil Rights...they were never opposed. It was Democrats vs. Other Democrats, until LBJ/Nixon. Republicans voted in favor of Civil Rights, and only two elected Democrats "switched" in the 60s.

Also, LBJ said plenty of other things about Civil Rights...the question isn't if he lied, the question is, which version was the lie? Was he lying to his closest friends and colleagues, or to everyone else? The "inconsistencies" (i.e. racists) in the Democratic Party were never "pushed out", they died and were honored as Democrats. The Democrats never attempted a purge of anyone (with any power they could use) just because they were a leader of the local KKK, for example. Even when I was a kid in the 70s/80s, the overt racists weren't relatively wealthy Republicans, they were working class Union Democrats, living through White Flight. Trump changed a lot of that, and post-Trump, everything looks different, but Republicans used to be less opposed to "Civil Rights" and other "Social Justice" issues and more utterly indifferent...they drifted from being the "Anti-slavery"/"pro-Union" party, to being the pro-business party, not because they "gradually opposed" Civil Rights, but because they were mostly powerless to do Civil Rights because racist Democrats were in control. Once enough racist Democrats became convinced by their friend LBJ that if they didn't pass Civil Rights, some Yankee Federal Judge would impose something worse and passed it, the Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor.

You also allude to Wilson as a step towards Civil Rights...that is gross. Like disgusting. Wilson is like the poster child for Intellectual Racism at the turn of the century. Buy into Good Guy Lyndon OK, maybe it was all "locker room talk" (nah, fam, but you do you)...but Woody...come on, man!

>As a result, white Southerners wouldn’t be Democrats for generations. Started to change around Wilson, especially FDR, though the final big push wasn’t really until LBJ passed civil rights and voting rights legislation during his huge Democratic-majority Great Society agenda.

Uh...what? The Republicans didn't get traction in the South until Nixon, in the wake of LBJ. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Wilson was the intellectual godfather of the Lost Cause and all those Confederate statues put up around the turn of the century. He was quoted in the opening to Birth of a Nation and even screened it in the White House.

Republicans were Yankee Carpetbagger scum, before Johnson, and many a racist Democrat died and was honored by their Party upon their death.

The SNL skit with Phil Hartman was a classic...

>"Yul Brenner, Yul Brenner, Yul Brenner!"

Salmon Chanted Evening.

Do you mean like actual spoilers, or shit where society expects you to know how A Tale of Two Cities ends? Or what the plot of 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 is about?

No, but, the thing is, when you say that you think someone has the right to "read a text for themselves and decide for themselves what they think it means" someone might read that and interpret it AS "all interpretations are equally correct", and then they might go back and cite your statement as a support of their argument. There could be a huge difference between your ability to comprehend and interpret text and when which is appropriate to the needs of the moment at hand...someone else, later, might not. And you didn't even say that much, it was much shorter, just "The right to their own interpretation of the text".

They might just say "I have the right to my own truth, and see, this out-of-context statement completely supports my position". You can't control who is going to read a bare statement of apparent fact, about a "right" and interpret what you said in a different way than you actually meant it if you don't qualify your own statement. The added qualification and your clarification add to the quality of the discussion and 3rd party reader's understanding. It was a bit too simplistic, a bit too concise.

Its not so much a petit mal seizure, I'm just exercising my rights!

I would push back just a bit at the notion that his good guys are simply Good and his bad guys are simply Bad.

Not All Havenites.

There are also conflicted characters, some whose motivations are colored by their own ignorance or they are victims of propaganda or circumstances beyond their control.

Also have you read any of L.E. Modesitt Jr.'s Ecolitan stuff? ...always wished he'd gone back there like he did with Recluse or Lydiar (Imager).

Not really.

There's a difference between a "cargo cult" and actually developing your technology.

Absent access to things like coal, iron ore, copper, tin, and the like...they're not developing metallurgy or anything. They're just using scrap iron like a harder version of stone tools.

I mean, you can look at a few acre or half acre lots, which I'd assume a prospective homebuyer would, and have a pretty good idea of how big of a house you'd want to plop down on it.

If you are a housebuyer and you cannot visualize what an acre looks like without doing math in your head...

Employers want to know if you're motivated enough to get this job that you'd make up a plausible lie.

Otherwise, what separates you from Rico Pendejo? He likes money too, you should hang out.