Using religion?
Aren’t cons also trying to use the power of the government to control women to have babies? Sounds kind of like what the author described
I didn’t say the book is about white male libs and stop conflating libs and liberals, they are not the same thing.
You focus on the excuse in a small-minded way to confirm your bias. The actual motive is the will to power. The excuse is irrelevant.
There were people who used religion to justify slavery, was “closer to God” the motive? Or maybe free labor?
Go ahead and post what she said about eastern Europe.
The book is about authoritarianism, incrementalism, the fragility of rights, the rationalization of the taking (or giving away) of rights, groupthink, etc.
All things we have seen in the microcosm of the epidemic.
What was Serena during the beginning of the transition? What was she when the transition was complete?
It makes me want to cry that you guys can read such a work and all you can get out of it is “God Bad! Men Bad!”
Stinging indictment of the US public education system.
1 Like
Using “science”?
Yes. One example. Is it the only example?
use the power of the government to control
If only…
A liberal wouldn’t use government to support it. Libs will bail it out to the tune of $80M.
Liberals believe in personal responsibility.
1 Like
They are, I don’t take made up definitions
The author is small minded? 
. With a fiction book?
Yes using religion. That is exactly what the author said. Is she lying?
That’s not what I got. Broadbrushing isn’t going to work with me.
And you are above it all…
For causes they support
Liberals and Conservatives both use government to make and enforce laws that they agree with.
1 Like
The definitions disagree. You are making up your own.
Good Lord.
There’s your confirmation bias again.
All I have are your posts. Including this one. “Yes using religion”
It works.
No, just woke.
Yes, they do. As do libs. It is a question of degree. Liberals are at the “least” end of the spectrum.
Which of the 3 advocates biggest government?
No. Libs don’t support it for any cause.
Currently libs, historically, conservatives (religious ones)
What introduction and who is it by? My copy of the book does not have an introduction. There have been several reprints and a number of different introductions written.
No. Libs. Then republicans. Then conservatives/liberals.
It is by the author. It’s not a forward.
There is no way you can deny that for the majority of this country’s history that the laws were written to codify the way of life for church going Christians.
Personally, I see what Sneaky is saying and he is right. Books many times are about more than the primary thesis and Sneaky has rightfully brought up other themes that can be discerned from the book.
Sorry but I cannot comment on something I have not read. Her introduction is not in my copy of the book.
You are correct. A novel as layered and nuanced as this will allow discussion of a number of themes but Attwoods intent with this novel is clear.
You made up a definition of what a lib is. A con and a conservative are also the same. But sure I can make up something different for a con like you did for lib.
I’m just stating what the author said. I see what you are trying to do and you are wrong to apply “authoritarian” to only white male libs.
Again just stating what the authors Perspective.
Still are. There is a material difference between a republican and a conservative.
