Arguably, a proper solution is to provide transactional semantics for modification. Saying, "okay, I'm beginning to write a new version ... write ... seek ... write ... seek ... write ... okay, I'm done". And let the OS and the FS take care of applying or reverting it, enforcing consistency, and so on.

That depends on the filesystem. NTFS, for example, has ACID snapshot-isolation transactions on filesystem level since Vista.

What happens if someone opens a file and changes a single 80-byte line inside, one byte at a time?

Do they have a natural tendency towards preferring the same sex in captivity? ~

They didn't do so based solely on the "intent" argument, though (though it was definitely there). They also found that even from a purely textual perspective, the close reading of 2A makes it clear that the text distinguishes between the prohibition and the rationale for it, and the prohibition as worded ("shall not be infringed" with no qualifications) is broader than if you were to infer it from the rationale alone.

Though then they circled around and said that "shall not be infringed" still means that it can be infringed for "good enough" reasons (e.g. restricting criminals or mentally ill etc), so effectively it's moot anyway. Pure textualism has never been seriously considered by SCOTUS, ever.

Thompson did not design the Confederate battle flag - he designed the (second) Confederate state flag based on the already-existing battle flag design, by basically putting it on a white field (which for him had the symbolism expressed in the quotes that you cited, of white supremacy).

The battle flag was originally the flag of the "Army of Northern Virginia", and designed by William Porcher Miles. Not that he's any better, since he referred to slavery as the divine institution, and explicitly refuted the notions states in the Declaration of Independence, such as natural rights (which makes the use of that flag by Tea Partiers and their ilk even more hilarious). He also wanted to repeal the federal ban on importation of slaves, which was an extreme position even among the slavers.

How could you possibly read what I wrote and came to that conclusion?

Like I said, I don't give a fuck about what's written in the Constitution when it comes to determining which rights are fundamental. The Constitution merely documents such rights, it does not create them. Just because something is not listed there doesn't mean it's not a right.

This goes for SCOTUS, too. Just because they come up with some retarded notion that a fundamental right is something "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" doesn't make it so. There are plenty of rights which weren't that are still important.

I am concerned with popular support because consent of the governed is a prerequisite for a non-tyrannical government. If you have a legal system which can override even a strong supermajority, said supermajority will simply demolish that system and institute a new one.

Ironically, you were talking about state veto over SCOTUS decisions, which are not law themselves, but are rather about whether some other law (federal or state) is unconstitutional. If this can be overridden, then you are providing the states with the means of passing more oppressive legislation so long as they have the will of enough of the majority to back it. So you're arguing in favor of popular support as well, just indirectly.

Not in case of South Carolina. There are still some states in the South that use some form of Confederate flag as part of their state flag (most notably, Mississippi, which specifically uses the battle flag as the saltire). But SC flag has no resemblance. However, they have placed a Confederate flag above their capitol back in 1960s as a symbol of their dislike for Civil Rights Act and other laws requiring desegregation and equal treatment of blacks. When it became controversial in late 90s, they have moved it off the capitol building and to a Confederate soldiers' monument that is next to it (and is on public land). They have also enacted a law prohibiting taking it down except with a 2/3 supermajority.

So in case of SC, this is indeed specifically about Confederate flag, and special treatment thereof to honor it.

And why is that a good thing? It's one of the more stupid German laws restricting freedom of speech, IMO.

The use of swastika (and Confederate flag etc) in games depicting the events of an era, even fictionalized, is in proper historical context, and there's nothing wrong with it.

How can there be a right to secede to a government that refuses any political representation, and in fact all natural and civil rights, to almost half of its population?

It's not a legitimate government in the first place.

Your teacher was wrong. The North didn't wage war to free the slaves.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean that the South didn't wage war to keep the slaves. It did, and it was very upfront about it.

And that is why all symbols of CSA are intrinsically linked to racism, slavery and white supremacist ideology, and cannot be decoupled from it.

Of course they were. The very few southerners who actually owned slaves were also the very few southerners who ran the government there!

They fought to just leave - and take their slaves with them.

Which, to remind, was 40% of the population of CSA. And over 50% in South Carolina specifically.

How can a government that is not representative of over half of its population, and explicitly denying any and all rights to that population, claim to be a popular government?

And if you believe that the only legitimate government is the one that represents the people, how can a slaver government even be legitimate in the first place?

You make the mistake of assuming that why the North fought the war is relevant to why the South fought the war. It's not.

The North fought to preserve the Union. The South fought to maintain slavery. It's as simple as that.