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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
