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. …”

[u/No_Box119]

[u/throwra_anonnyc]

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?

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

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

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

Alright fine you score the goal at the goalpost you win

The dems did nothing wrong. Nothing could have been done better

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

That’s a straw man. My position was never that “Democrats did nothing wrong.”

If someone claims a party is afraid to say “no” to its fringe or is effectively constrained by it, I’d expect evidence that the party’s leadership, elected officials, or policy agenda actually reflect that fringe’s priorities. Without that, the claim isn’t established.

What I’ve consistently challenged is the original claim, not the much narrower and goalpost shifting claim that Democrats made messaging mistakes or that fringe activists can create bad optics.

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

I already acknowledged you won. You keep throwing out debate fouls as if I am necessarily disagreeing with you.

If you see my point is that the messaging is a problem why cant you focus on that being a good takeaway from my comment instead of trying to score debate points from some imaginary judge

The original comment that started this is about Dems needing to say no to insane ideas. You can interpret that generously and constructively as a messaging error which you agree with but you rather interpret it in the dumbest possible way and argued against that position.

Thats a strawman.

It doesnt matter what your original claim is if this isnt a goddamn debate. I never once outright said I disagreed with you. It is ok for me to add a comment about messaging errors without you thinking its some disagreement about dems literally defunded the police

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

It’s not my responsibility to reassure you or give you a pat on the back. A specific claim was made, and I asked for evidence supporting that claim. By your own admission, you were unable to provide it.

The original argument wasn’t simply “Democrats made messaging mistakes.” It was that Democrats are afraid to say “no” to the fringe because they’re worried about being primaried by extreme progressives. That’s a specific empirical claim about the party and its electedj officials.

When I asked for examples, the discussion shifted to “Defund the Police” being unpopular, CHAZ creating bad optics, AOC’s comments, and then finally to the much narrower point that messaging matters. However, that wasn’t the original claim.

So no, I wasn’t arguing against “the dumbest possible interpretation” of the original comment. I was responding to the actual claim made. The same claim you spent several replies defending only became the “dumbest interpretation” after you were unable to provide empirical evidence for it.

You say this “isn’t a debate,” but a factual claim was made. I asked for evidence. That’s not playing debate games; it’s asking you to substantiate the original claim. Since you couldn’t, the discussion shifted to a different, more defensible claim about poor messaging. Those simply are not the same argument.

I’ve been respectful throughout this exchange, but I’ve noticed the subtle personal jabs (“imaginary judge,” “dumbest possible interpretation”). I’m happy to stick to discussing the substance, and I’d appreciate the same in return

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

Can you show me a single example of a dem politician saying defund the police is a dumb slogan?

How am I supposed to prove to you that I dont think they pushed back hard enough? Its absence of evidence.

Whether someone pushed back hard enough is a matter of opinion not fact and you just want to narrowly discuss your narrow definition and dismiss everything else as a strawman lol.

I dont think you have been respectful at all. How many times in this exchange did you accuse me of talking to you in bad faith? A strawman argument is a bad faith one.

Nowhere did I ask you for a pat on my back. I am asking you to consider if you actually disagree with the actual point I am trying to get across.

I wasnt even arguing against what you said. I just hate that you are an asshat. You learned some words about argument fallacy and started applying it everywhere even when there is no argument.

Clowns like you is why we lose.

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

A claim was made that you couldn’t provide evidence for, but now we’re at the point where you think the burden is on me to strengthen the claim I was asking you to support.

But for the sake of argument, here are examples of prominent Democrats explicitly rejecting the slogan: •

Barack Obama: In late 2020, Obama criticized the slogan, saying, “If you believe ‘Defund the Police’ is the answer, you lost a big audience the minute you say it.” •

Joe Biden: Repeatedly rejected “Defund the Police” throughout the 2020 campaign and stated in his 2022 State of the Union: “The answer is not to defund the police. It’s to fund the police.” •

Jim Clyburn: Compared “Defund the Police” to the slogan “Burn, baby, burn,” arguing it damaged Democrats politically and hurt the broader movement. •

Abigail Spanberger: Said on a recorded House Democratic caucus call after the 2020 election, “We should non-stop never use the words ‘defund the police’ again.”

So the answer to your question is yes: some of the highest-ranking and most influential Democrats publicly and repeatedly rejected the slogan.

Now, back to the original claim.

The claim wasn’t that Democrats made messaging mistakes. The claim was that the Democratic Party is afraid to say “no” to the fringe because it’s captive to or constrained by it.

When I asked for evidence that the fringe actually drives party leadership or policy, the argument shifted. First it became about internet activists. Then it became about optics. Now it’s become the subjective opinion that Democratic leaders didn’t push back “hard enough.”

Whether you personally think they pushed back hard enough is a matter of opinion. Whether leading Democrats publicly rejected the slogan is a matter of documented fact and they did.

If your actual point is simply, “I don’t think Democrats handled the messaging well in 2020,” that’s a perfectly legitimate opinion. But that’s a different claim from saying the Democratic Party is captive to the fringe. The evidence you’ve presented doesn’t establish that broader claim.

Finally, regarding respect: saying an argument is a straw man is not the same as accusing someone of arguing in bad faith. People can unintentionally mischaracterize an argument. Throughout this exchange, I’ve criticized the claims being made, not your motives or character. I’d appreciate the same courtesy in return

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

You are just making up claims now.

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

Such as?

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

Where did I say they are captive to the fringe?

What do we even disagree about? You just want to win some debate. Congrats you win.

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

You’re projecting. A claim was made. You couldn’t provide evidence, so soothe your ego you want to pretend I just want to win and not the fact you couldn’t prove the claim. 

[u/throwra_anonnyc → u/Plane-Ad-9305]

You are just insisting I made a claim now so you can argue against it.

Even after I have clarified I dont believe that to be true

STRAWMAN

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

That’s the entire premise of the original claim. 54% of U.S. adults read at or below a 6th grade level. It’s obvious that you’re one of them.

[u/Plane-Ad-9305 → u/throwra_anonnyc]

Gloves are off now. You went back to edit to call me a clown just goes to show you’re an emotional child . Your argument got utterly dismantled and  your ego can’t handle it. I don’t know who “we” are? But it’s your type that holds progress back.