Post

Conversation

David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Local CBPPs and the NPWF seem to be the proximate barrier to getting anyone but a handful of lefty state reps to take up the idea that state paid leave programs should provide benefits to all new parents. That's been my experience at least.
I have literally been on calls for project launches where a bulleted agenda item was like “are the groups onboard -> which groups are next on the outreach hit list” etc; document templates exist that are like <fill in the groups here w/logos>. Couldn’t be a more literal thing.
I don't think it's that hard to check the list, but, it is less fun than free-associating. I also think it's good groups advocate for things. It's sort of anti-intelleftual to be like ..117...117...117...holy shit those 117 Defeat Duh Dems
I can verify; during my detail to Senate Help back in 2017, the term "The Groups" was routinely used for these kinds of orgs (unions generally tended not to be termed Groups). I found it somewhat mystifying as I didn't really understand who any of them were.
That staffer is using the word in much the same way you are, but not the press release titles. A rhetorical mode that treats them as a single gestalt consciousness is different from one that treats them as countable associations of people.
unless you deliberately googled the number 117 or something, that numerical coincidence on its own is super fucking weird, what's going on there?
If groups define themselves by division, are critics merely reflecting reality—or amplifying a narrative those groups invite? Who truly shapes the story?
Sure, if your goal is to maximize pollution like a Captain Planet villain then I guess any organization that disagrees would end up your enemy.
DUDE! YOU ARE ONE OF THE GROUPS! You and every person pushing this exact argument are from the Niskanen Center, famed for being Koch associated before you helped white wash them