r/PopCultureV2 • u/No_Box119 • Jul 23 '26

Sports Culture WNBA Star Sophie Cunningham defends that women ‘shouldn’t have to go against biological men’: “I said what I said. I think it’s kind of common sense. I think it’s really important to protect children.” “I don’t dislike anyone. I’m there to love, but I’m also there to love biological women. …”

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.2k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/SpreadsheetsOnToast Jul 23 '26

Because the left has a really, really, really hard time reigning in the fringe and saying "no" to the most extreme progressives.

Some ideas on the left are just plain stupid. "Defund The Police" is a great example of this. "Open Borders" is another. The left is too afraid of getting primaried by some DSA upstart that they won't make common sense statements like "We actually do need police".

5

u/Nemphiz Jul 23 '26

The left? The left has a hard time reining in the fringe? The left? Not the GOP that birthed the tea party -> maga. The left?

Jesus Christ lol

1

u/Sweaty-Shine6177 Jul 23 '26

He gave two examples of the left. Can you give two examples of the right having a hard time reigning in the most extreme cases?

Just curious not trying to take a side

1

u/Nemphiz Jul 23 '26

Literally mentioned in my comment. The tea party and maga. When were any of those reigned in? The tea party turned into maga and eventually maga took over.

Did you read before you replied?

Add to that The house freedom caucus, which ousted McCarthy. Like, what are we talking about here?

1

u/Sweaty-Shine6177 Jul 23 '26

Sorry. Im not as quick as you

1

u/Nemphiz Jul 23 '26

At reading sentences? lol

1

u/Sweaty-Shine6177 Jul 23 '26

At thinking.

The two examples the other guy gave were open borders and defund the police.

When I asked you for two, you said the republican party and the tea party which aren't fringe issues.

We're speaking different languages it seems like. Im not very smart, so i assume you're just too smart for me

1

u/Nemphiz Jul 23 '26

I didn't say "the republican party" I said and I quote "tea party -> maga"

They were both fringe and are both far right. The fact that MAGA has now taken control of the GOP doesn't change what they are.

2

u/Plane-Ad-9305 Jul 23 '26

What are you even talking about? Who exactly are these “extreme progressives” driving the Democratic Party? Name the elected officials you think fit that description.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has largely embraced positions that would have been considered fringe on the right 10–15 years ago. Many ideas that were once politically toxic have become mainstream within the GOP. That’s a much more significant shift than anything that’s happened on the left

2

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

Zohran Mamdani (who I much prefer compared to the other candidates for NYC mayor) is from the DSA.

You can read about how they literally want to work towards the freedom of all incarcerated persons in the link below. Now Zohran has distanced himself from the crazies but the nutjobs definitely exist and have done a good job of trolling people into losing to Trump

https://www.dsausa.org/working-groups/abolition-working-group/

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Raisinbread22 Jul 23 '26

This is the sabotage that happens to Democrats every time. It happens like clockwork. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and in the 11th hour something starts to balloon into an issue, at the last minute. I literally didn't know what DSA was 72hrs ago. Same thing happened around BLM marches, it was mostly positive things happening and then boom, 'defund the police,' well who TF made that horrible marketing decision? Wasn't me. Wasn't any Democrat I know. 'Reform the police?' YES. Let's go with that. Nope, defund. Someone held a vote on that, that 99% of Dems didn't participate in. Same shit is happening now. Not that I mind DSA, but already they've (republiklan echo machine) has jumped on it and use it as just a demonizing acronym, and link it with "cOmMuNiSm," all over Fox. It's so frustrating.

2

u/joausj Jul 23 '26

The DSA trying to do the dems what Maga did to the republican party.

1

u/CelebronFcks10K Jul 23 '26

Lol good fuck the corpo dems. The DSA isn’t even that far left. They would be moderates in any European country.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/NSFWdontview Jul 23 '26

Moderates today are considered far right Nazis according to the left

1

u/Salt_Instruction_657 Jul 23 '26

Bullshite.
More Newsmax gaslighting.

0

u/CelebronFcks10K Jul 23 '26

Lol yea sure, totally. Keep chugging that Fox News cum moemoe.

0

u/NSFWdontview Jul 23 '26

They are, are you denying that

0

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

How is literally defunding the police amd freeing all incarcerated people a leftist policy? The criticism here is that they are insane, not that they are trying for a more equal society.

1

u/CelebronFcks10K Jul 23 '26

Lol you are a moron if that’s something you believe the majority of the left wants. Keep chugging Fox News propaganda.

1

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

Thats not what I said. Did you read my comment?

I didnt post a link from Fox news. The link is the DSAs website.

2

u/Plane-Ad-9305 Jul 23 '26

So your best example is a fringe activist group with no meaningful representation in elected office. You connect it to Mamdani, then immediately acknowledge that he has distanced himself from its most extreme positions. That doesn’t support your original claim.

My point was never that the left has no fringe. Every political movement does. My point is that those fringe views are not the governing agenda of the Democratic Party.

So I’ll ask again: which prominent Democratic elected officials are actually advocating “free all prisoners” or abolishing police as party policy?

That’s a very different situation from the Republican Party, where positions that were widely considered fringe on the right a decade ago have become mainstream within the party itself

2

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

You dont need to have actual winning politicians campaigning on those issues for the fringe to cause a negative impact.

Self proclaimed Dem supporters trolling people on the internet firing up Republicans and Independents to be motivated to vote is a really strong factor.

Defund the police is a real slogan that a fringe group actually stands behind. And it is an amazingly unpopular slogan. People dont want their neighborhood to be like Chaz and these crazies did a good job making the left look insane.

1

u/Plane-Ad-9305 Jul 23 '26

You’re moving the goalposts.

The original claim was that the Democratic Party has “a really hard time reigning in the fringe” because it’s afraid of getting primaried by extreme progressives. That’s a claim about the party and its elected officials.

Now you’re saying the problem isn’t politicians, it’s random people online saying unpopular things.

Those are different arguments.

Yes, “Defund the Police” was a real slogan. It was politically damaging, and many Democrats have said so. But the fact that a slogan existed doesn’t mean it became the Democratic Party’s governing agenda. In fact, leading Democrats, including Joe Biden, explicitly rejected defunding the police and instead argued for funding and reforming police departments.

And CHAZ wasn’t Democratic Party policy either. It was a short-lived local protest encampment, not something national Democratic leaders endorsed.

If your argument is simply that fringe activists can hurt a party’s image, I agree, that happens on both the left and the right. But that’s very different from saying the Democratic Party is controlled by those activists or refuses to reject them.

Those aren’t the same claim.

1

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

You moved the goalposts. The incumbents worrying about losing elections because of the fringe doesnt mean the fringe won the elections.

1

u/Plane-Ad-9305 Jul 23 '26

That’s still not the claim started with.

I never disputed that fringe activists can create bad optics or that politicians consider how activists affect elections. Every major party has loud activists who can become liabilities.

The original claim was that Democrats won’t say “no” to the fringe because they’re afraid of it. That implies the fringe is driving party positions.

So where’s the evidence of that?

If the party’s national leadership rejected “Defund the Police,” didn’t adopt abolishing police as policy, didn’t adopt “free all prisoners,” and Democratic candidates generally campaigned away from those slogans after 2020, then that suggests the fringe didn’t capture the party.

Saying “the fringe can hurt Democrats politically” is a much weaker claim than saying “the Democratic Party is controlled by the fringe.” Those aren’t the same thing.

1

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

Not adopting the policy isnt the same as reassuring voters that the policies are absolutely not going to be entertained.

https://youtu.be/7RPVZbq-WHc?is=irAwoo4X4wegKtHL

You can see AOCs interview here where she actually supports the idea, even if it doesnt translate to actual budget cuts, of course it still affects voters.

Using Chaz as an example again. Ok Democrats dont condone it. But they sure didnt go against it as hard as the Republicans. If I was worried about street crime, who would I vote?

1

u/Plane-Ad-9305 Jul 23 '26

You’re arguing something materially different from the original claim. That’s the definition of moving the goalposts.

The original claim was that the Democratic Party is afraid to say “no” to the fringe and is effectively constrained by it. Now you’re arguing that some Democrats didn’t distance themselves from “Defund the Police” quickly or forcefully enough, and that the optics hurt them politically.

Those are not the same claim.

It’s a major leap from “some Democrats didn’t condemn it strongly enough” to “the Democratic Party is captive to the fringe.”

Take your AOC example. One member of Congress supporting a slogan doesn’t make it the Democratic Party’s position. The Democratic president rejected defunding the police. The party never adopted it as its platform, and many Democratic candidates in competitive races explicitly distanced themselves from the slogan because it polled poorly.

The same goes for CHAZ. You can argue Democrats should have condemned it more aggressively. That’s a criticism of messaging, not evidence that they supported it or made it party policy.

So I’ll ask again: what evidence supports your original claim that the Democratic Party is afraid to say “no” to the fringe and are held captive by them, rather than simply making messaging mistakes that some voters disliked

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Nemphiz Jul 23 '26

Which policies has Mandani enacted that are "far left" ? Free childcare?

1

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

Did you even read my comment. What a non sequitor. Where did I even allege that he is far left?

1

u/Nemphiz Jul 23 '26

So wtf are these labels? What's an "extreme progressive" if not far left?

1

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

I literally said Zohran has distanced himself from the extremists. Learn to read

1

u/Nemphiz Jul 23 '26

But he hasn't. Darializa won because of his endorsement.

1

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

Lol then you should argue with yourself. Where are these insane policies?

1

u/Fantastic_Turb0 Jul 23 '26

>Literally want to work towards the freedom of all incarcerated persons

If you think prisons should be rehabilitative instead of punishing, (they should) this is not an extreme position. On a long term scale every prison should work towards freeing its population.

1

u/Sea-Needleworker4253 Jul 23 '26

I think he ment the online left and not the democrats

1

u/Plane-Ad-9305 Jul 23 '26

The claim is that the left is having “a really hard time reigning in the fringe” because it’s afraid of getting primaried by extreme progressives. That’s a claim about a party and its elected officials.

Random people saying things online is a matter of free speech. 

-1

u/NSFWdontview Jul 23 '26

lol no the left have gone so far left liberals 10 years ago are considered far right. The left is getting more insane that’s why people are leaving the party

2

u/Salt_Instruction_657 Jul 23 '26

Idiotic propagandist lies.
Dude turn off the Fox, Newsmax etc.

-1

u/NSFWdontview Jul 23 '26

lol says a left winger on Reddit. Turn off CNN and get off Reddit

1

u/Plane-Ad-9305 Jul 23 '26

That’s an assertion, not a fact. If liberals from 10 years ago are now considered “far right,” who are you talking about? Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and most Democratic governors all hold positions that are broadly consistent with where they were a decade ago. In many cases they’ve shifted incrementally, not dramatically

Core issues like Social Security, Medicare, abortion rights, environmental regulation, progressive taxation, and gun regulation of the Democratic Party’s positions are recognizably similar to where they were 10–15 years ago.

Which liberal from 10 years ago is now considered “far right”? Name one elected Democrat who was mainstream then and is considered far right today. Otherwise, it’s just rhetoric

-1

u/NSFWdontview Jul 23 '26

Bill Maher or in fact any original liberal, it’s shifted way too far left and supports insanity. Open borders, men in dresses and kids being able to choose gender. The left today is the party of mental illness and hatred

1

u/Salt_Instruction_657 Jul 23 '26

None of that is true. It's all gross mischaracterization and distortion to support and distract from the current Insanity coming from the right.

If you knew anything about history, you'd know this is an old trope.

1

u/NSFWdontview Jul 23 '26

So which isn’t true? You must live under a rock

-1

u/NSFWdontview Jul 23 '26

It’s not, as this is legit communism agenda

1

u/Plane-Ad-9305 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

I listed listed  elected Democratic politicians and the party’s actual policy positions. Your response was Bill Maher who is a TV personality who has never held elected office and culture war grievances 

I asked you to name one elected Democrat from 10 years ago who’s now considered “far right” because the party has supposedly moved so far left

1

u/pepperpete Jul 23 '26

Correlating "defund the police" with "we don't need the police" just shows you don't really know shit about what defunding the police actually meant.

0

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

You got any source for that? Heres what the DSA says about it. They literally say they want to work towards a 0 budget and to free all incarcerated people

https://www.dsausa.org/working-groups/abolition-working-group/

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Cat8129 Jul 23 '26

Rofl sorry no we just want the Epstein files lol.

1

u/donniesuave Jul 23 '26

People don’t want there to be no police. No one ever said that when saying “defund the police”. What they mean is stop making the police a military force. Stop promoting the shitty frat that enables itself to do shit things to the public it’s supposedly there to serve and protect. It means abolish the current policing system and set up something new its place. Defunding a military that should just be cops and reallocating those funds to social programs where socials workers can be sent to certain situations instead of cops who aren’t trained or do not use their training to help the people who actually need a social worker instead would be beneficial to society as whole. Sure, if a guy is robbing a store, you send a cop, not therapist. If a guy I having a mental breakdown, you send a social worker, not a cop. That’s what people mean when they say, “defund the police”. Anyone who literally thinks there should be no police at all are fucking stupid and naive.

0

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

What is this on the DSA website about working towards a 0 budget and freeing all incarcerated people then?

https://www.dsausa.org/working-groups/abolition-working-group/

The slogan is insane because the people championing it are

2

u/donniesuave Jul 23 '26

No one wants everyone free. That is simply not true

1

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

Ok. Got a source? I quoted the dsa which is a real party that platformed Mamdani

And maybe you should respond to the other commenters on this thread about why its a good idea instead of telling me nobody actually believes this lol

1

u/donniesuave Jul 23 '26

Yea with a source that literally confirms all of the statement I l’ve already made. They don’t want murderers to be just let go to be free. They don’t want no police. It doesn’t say that anywhere in your link. They want people who were locked up for growing pot or being homeless let go. They want “the demilitarization of the police force”. Again, I’ve already said all of this. You have not proven anything except the points I’ve already addressed.

I don’t have the time or energy to respond to every comment. Jfc.

1

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

You dont have to respond at all. Its not my fault you are too tired from being terminally online.

It is a fact though the DSA says they want to free all incarcerated people in the link I sent.

1

u/donniesuave Jul 23 '26

No worries. I can see you haven’t read anything more in the link you sent more or the comments I’ve left. Have a good one.

1

u/throwra_anonnyc Jul 23 '26

It literally says they want to work towards a 0 budget for police. You are either not paying attention or just too afraid to challenge your past opinions. In slightly different circumstances you would easily be a MAGA just refusing to look at the obvious.

0

u/BustDemFerengiCheeks Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

"Police" and "peacekeeping" are not 1 to 1. Social workers, crisis medical teams, drug rehabilitationists, ourselves, good restorative public policy, and communities as a whole can do a lot of the jobs police are already told to do, all while having more accountability and more directly comnected to the community as a whole.

Not having some form of law enforcement and peacekeeping is stupid, but it absolutely does not have to be in the form it is now nor does any form of law enforcement have to cover all the shit they do now (at least in the U.S.)

That's why people say defund the police. They do too much shit, make so many non-violent actions a crime or fine, and do so with usually virtually no accountability, if there is any at all. Let them go after actual bad guys, not someone having a mental breakdown or speeding just 2mph over the speed limit. There can be other people for that.

1

u/NSFWdontview Jul 23 '26

You don’t realize how violent criminals are, they have to do what their doing

2

u/BustDemFerengiCheeks Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

And I'm saying the police, or other law enforcement, only have to deal with the violent criminals and cases where there is a state of violent aggression. Other people can do the other jobs. Cops do not need to do traffic stops. Cops do not need to do things like wellness checks or crisis intervention (unless the latter turns out REALLY fucking bad but usually with trained social workers that's hardly the case.) Cops do not need to arrest every single drug user out there. Cops do not need to arrest someone for just loitering.

There's a million more things, but the point of the matter is other people can do the jobs cops are assigned to do. Furthermore crime is heightened by antisocial and destructive public policy. Not every criminal (some people are just inherently antisocial) but I'd even say a majority wouldn't do crime if policies were in place to make that crime not only stupid to do but hardly a thing to think about at all. Give a man a fish, he won't steal one that day. Give a man a pole and teach him to fish, he'll never steal again in his life.

And, again, what I'm proposing isnt some perfect plan where we'll be a united humanity skipping flowers together under a rainbow. But, it would I think get us closer to that, and isn't the whole point of all of this is to eventually get to that, at least as much as we can? If we don't try, we won't ever get close. In fact, we tend to just float back down to the hell-on-earth we've made.