[FRIAM] civil war(s)

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

And, before we label those who do resign as having done so in some sort of triggered state, it's useful to fuzzify or smear "commitment" to some role. E.g.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/09/ofcom-investigating-gmb-piers-morgan-comments-harry-meghan-sussexes

Did they storm off in a huff because their commitment to that cause was really pretty thin to begin with? Or was this a significant thing for them to do? Resigning your position on the Titanic wouldn't be that difficult a decision to make.

So, calling such disagreements "civil war" seems hyperbolic, a simple symptom of artificial partisanship. I think of the noise in the Rs and Ds as minor shifts along the steady churn. Anyone who takes themselves, or their own biases, that seriously needs to take a beat and think a little harder.

On 3/9/21 11:36 AM, Tom Johnson wrote:
> One might ask, how many people are the "entire staff"?
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:29 PM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm <mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm>> wrote:
> 
>     This is not a polemic nor a rant, just an observation.
> 
>     Lot's of headlines about rupture and conflict in Republican party: Trumpists versus everone else. But almost a many stories, not headlined, about similar in Democratic party, e.g. 'entire staff of Nevada's Democratic party resigned because Sanders/AOC aligned slate won elective positions like Chairperson."
> 
>     These might be more grounded instances of "civil war" (metaphor) than the one supposedly exemplified by the storming of the Capitol.


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ