I was going to disagree but... > It also doesn't help that CSS's basic premise is flawed, and the fake narrative behind CSS's origin and role is insulting to a

I was going to disagree but... > It also doesn't help that CSS's basic premise is flawed, and the fake narrative behind CSS's origin and role is insulting to any thinking person: that instead of typed markup attributes for some reason it's better to use an ever-growing bunch of ad-hoc micro syntax with poor checking and typing, and then postulating an arbitrary "semantic HTML" ideal after-the-fact. HTML is as syntactic as it gets; as it should, it being a standard in information presentation. On reflection I agree. I understand this approach when it's only document styling (here's a ruleset for h1, h2 etc kept separate from the HTML) but as soon as you start adding (multiple) classes... well yeah. I fell into the yawning crevice that's semantic CSS, where "These class names give the HTML meaning". That and semantic HTML zealotry took up too much of my teenage years when I could've been making stuff, and have left me suspicious of any tech idea proclaimed with religious overtones.