I think we have to consider what "unity" means.

In the most foundational sense, unity exists whether we want it to or not. Our fortunes are tied together. We all impact each other. That form of unity carries risks, benefits, and, mostly, responsibilities. /1

The trouble with calling for "unity" after you, say, abused a procedure to jeopardize and break trust and invite violence in the foundation of representative government, is that it sounds like a shield, not a shared responsibility. /2
It sounds like "we are all one, so there can be no critique of each other." But then saying, "and actually THOSE PEOPLE are the REAL problem" which turns it into "we are all one, but I am the best, so there can be no critique of me." /3
Living into our unity means that we absolutely have to look at each other sometimes and say "you are sorely wrong about this, and you must accept responsibility for your wrongness for the sake of all of us." /4
That does not equal "you should no longer exist and we hate you forever." If you are a United States Senator (for example) and you translate "there must be accountability" to "I've been banished along with 70+ million others," you're being immature and purposely disingenuous. /5
Unity means "I love you as fellow human being, but you cannot be a United States Senator anymore, and you cannot have a show on cable news. We need you to learn a new, quiet skill, and we need you to quietly reflect on how you have impacted the whole." /6
And that call for accountability and reflection does not have to come from a place of perfection in order to be legitimate. Unity means that we sit here together as equals, and we look to our behaviors as guides for when someone needs to lead and sometimes else needs to follow./7
Unity often means "get your own people" for the sake of the whole. I read a beautiful piece about how birds in a murmuration pay attention just 7 other birds. This is how the whole works--by care in parts. https://t.co/z78xZGuIcN /8
So if Republicans in leadership want unity in a meaningful way right now, I suggest looking inward--finding their seven relationships and figuring out what responsibility to the whole means right now. /End -b

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
Imagine if Christians actually had to live according to their Bibles.


Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.

Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.

Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.

Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.

Or cancelled all debt owed them?

Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.

Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.

Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.

Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.

Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.

Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.

You May Also Like