site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14hr ago (text post)   353 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 23, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can someone give me a steelman of the popular pro-Lindsay Clancey argument? I’m not really talking about the defense, whose argument is a complex justification for why she medically and legally qualifies for the insanity defense. I’m more asking about the people online arguing that she is a victim and her being prosecuted/this situation is an example of sexism. My wife told me about the case and is very anti Clancey. ChatGPT also gave what I felt is an unsatisfactory steelman. I don’t have a theory of mind for her supporters, and wish to rectify that.

I don’t know who that is and, after reading the replies, I am thankful for that fact.

I originally learned about this story from my wife. For her, it infuriates her for two reasons:

  1. We are taking care of an infant, so she’s emotionally protective of small kids. She’s also logistically spending more time on the phone.
  2. She has multiple BPD female relatives who often try and pull the card “I’m sick, so I get to treat you badly.” This case seems to be an almost perfect scissor statement for her. She’s quite anti-Clancey, so this is of anthropological interest for me.

I generally think of myself as fairly crusty and well-armored against base emotional currents, but due to some personal events lately, sampling the discourse on this hit me really hard the other night. I'm very, very glad my wife is a sane woman of good sense.

While I wish it wasn't as big of a deal as it is, it is filling that "scandalous legal case" niche that happens periodically in America (what was the last one, Heard vs Depp?) with the biggest probably being OJ.

A lot of the country is thinking about it, in a time where most media isn't scratching that broad itch if you want to know what your common man is doing, it's this.

I can recall making a comment about a megapint of wine over DM with a friend back in the US. I had watched a few bestof clips of the Depp/Heard trial and found that segment funny (Depp is asked about alcohol and is questioned something like "You poured yourself a megapint of wine?" Depp actually seems amused at the term and just asks back: "Megapint?" It's really the kind of interaction made for the internet age. For a while you could find online for sale the Mason jars fixed to winestem glasses of the type seen in the Heard-secretly-filmed videos. They were of course sold as "Megapints." )

My friend had no idea what I was talking about.

The megapint thing was hilarious, but to be pedantic, it would surely take a long time to drink a million pints of wine.

Longer for some than others.

The strong argument is basically:

  1. Some crimes shouldn't result in a "guilty verdict" because of mental illness.

  2. Lindsay had one of those illnesses at the time of the murder therefore she was not "responsible."*

  3. Which illness she had is a bit vague - post-partum psychosis and bipolar have been passed around as possible explanations.

The weaker argument is basically:

  1. "No, no, the husband did it!"**

The weaker argument is far more common than is in any way acceptable. It is also very stupid. The strong argument is very strong and is the rule of the land - not guilty by reason of insanity is a thing and should be a thing. If it applies to her case or not is a technical discussion, which is causing problems.

*There are very specific rules for this and this really should be the case. "I have borderline personality disorder, a DSM recognized mental illness, therefore I can get away with murder" ...we have decided that's bullshit, and that seems a reasonable decision. "My grandma got sent to jail because she attacked her nurse because her UTI made her temporarily crazy" is also bullshit and not sending her to prison is a good decision for society.

**A side game here appears to be liberal, privileged white women who cannot imagine a woman would do something bad for any reason. For them it seems easy to imagine a man killing his kids but a woman.

**A side game here appears to be liberal, privileged white women who cannot imagine a woman would do something bad for any reason

I've seen at least one joke based on the liberal white women premise that's been floating around, something like: "nothing liberal white women will fight for harder than the freedom to kill their children." My favorite joke/meme so far is the more lighthearted Hasbulla crossover.

Indeed, it is interesting how monolithically white Clancy supporters are. It's rather comical, the sight of them gathered up in coordinated pink shirts like it's a sorority bake sale, where their gesture of support for Clancy resembles a strangling motion. Not even trying to beat the meme gender allegations.

  1. "No, no, the husband did it!"

If they really thought he did it, though, they'd be writing him love letters and sending him bikini pics and stuff.

Thanks for the write up. The strong argument makes sense to me. I can get how someone may or may not agree with it and don’t know enough about the case to judge it. If she’s insane or not is a factual question which, as shown by both sides having doctors testify for them, isn’t super clear cut.

The weak man argument to me seems to just be grasping for straws/motivated reasoning to avoid saying “this woman did a very evil act.” This does seem to be a time where the uncharitable explanation does indeed describe a lot of the supporters of one side.

I don't buy the insanity defense. I can't think of a mother I know that wouldn't do suicide attempts till success if she did such thing in a moment of blackout. It is just not something you can live with when the haze over your brain lifts.

A side game here appears to be liberal, privileged white women who cannot imagine a woman would do something bad for any reason. For them it seems easy to imagine a man killing his kids but a woman.

Just giving flesh to the meme that the only thing white liberal women really fear is accountability.

I don't buy the insanity defense. I can't think of a mother I know that wouldn't do suicide attempts till success if she did such thing in a moment of blackout. It is just not something you can live with when the haze over your brain lifts.

This cuts both ways - the murders were probably not cold blooded, if they were she wouldn't have tried to kill herself and she would have done things in a way that she could have had a life afterwards. The cause of the behavior was probably something else - a formal personality disorder (ex: Borderline), issues of general personality structure, or "less serious" mental illness (like postpartum depression, other forms of depression, or anxiety) interacting with stressors and other features of her environment. These things should not impair her "reality testing" and should leave her with an understanding that what she is doing is morally wrong and a shitty idea. That type of explanation is going to function pretty similarly to a psychotic state in terms of feeling miserable about events afterwards. For both she'd end up with some pretty hefty treatment afterwards to try and reduce the impulse to suicide. They'd look the same three years later, at least looking from the outside as we are.

Just giving flesh to the meme that the only thing white liberal women really fear is accountability.

Much as my impulse is to give them zero credit I can't really do that here. Most people are aware of men as the sex of violence and killing, and some people are aware of "family annihilator" crime (as this may have been) and when that happens it almost always men. If you live in a bubble with little crime than you just aren't going to see the existence of cases like this or of women committing violence, which does happen in the real world but not in their milieu.

Most people are aware of men as the sex of violence and killing, and some people are aware of "family annihilator" crime (as this may have been) and when that happens it almost always men.

If indeed it is true "family annihilators" are almost always men, it would only make it even more striking that, to my knowledge, a male defendant has yet to have men show up en masse to his courtroom in color-coordinated outfits to show him their support. To the extent male family annihilators had/have supporters, it coded/codes heavily female, to say the least (e.g., Chris Watts, Scott Peterson, Jeffery MacDonald).

The strong argument is very strong and is the rule of the land - not guilty by reason of insanity is a thing and should be a thing. If it applies to her case or not is a technical discussion, which is causing problems.

*There are very specific rules for this and this really should be the case.

The problem with this is that women's behaviors have historically been attributed to "mental illness" to a far greater degree than men's, and this disparity has been widely criticized as sexist against women due to the negative impacts it has on women. To fall back on that defense in this case because it is beneficial smells a lot like women wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

The problem with this is that women's behaviors have historically been attributed to "mental illness" to a far greater degree than men's, and this disparity has been widely criticized as sexist against women due to the negative impacts it has on women.

Sounds like a good opportunity for a 4chan troll campaign: Support for Lindsay! Because holding women criminal defendants up to male criminal defendant standards of culpability is a misogynistic form of ableism.

To fall back on that defense in this case because it is beneficial smells a lot like women wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Ah, so another day that ends in a "y." The usual Schrodinger's feminism: Women are just as emotionally stable and resilient as men, but are simultaneously more emotionally vulnerable due to hormones/post-partum depression/the patriarchy/etc. so they need additional care and support.

Because female hysteria is a real thing. That our society chooses to pretend women are as mentally/emotionally strong and healthy as men doesn't invalidate that.

While the information I have is somewhat limited, with the information I have I do not believe she was afflicted by a psychiatric condition that would make her not guilty. It is worth noting that she was examined by one of the gods of forensic healthcare and while he is somewhat doddering at this time he did side with the defense (and has more information than I do).

All of that being said, what you are saying is both somewhat untrue historically (and is more of a meme than anything) and is very specifically not applicable to the conditions being evaluated in this case (ex: psychosis).

This is a complex technical discussion involving healthcare and legal structures, people trying to shove the culture war into it are walking into a long running conversation with limited understanding.

I was referring to the reaction to the case by onlookers the OP was asking about ("I’m more asking about the people online arguing that she is a victim and her being prosecuted/this situation is an example of sexism."), which I think is based far more on this level of "culture warring" than on the technical details of the case.

My wife is currently watching the trial (only on day 8, so may have additional information later) and is keeping me informed with elements of the testimony that are somewhat inconsistent. I'm not sure this would be enough to conclude someone else did it, but I do find it interesting that there's at least some strange stuff, and this is I think better than "Leos don't kill their cubs".

  • The husband testifies that when he arrived and found her, she told him the kids were in the basement. When the paramedics arrived, she was in and out of consciousness but unable to communicate.
  • Despite finding his wife post suicide attempt, being told the kids were in the basement, and having previously had her tell him that she felt like she wanted to harm the kids, the husband doesn't check on the kids (and find them dead) until after the paramedics arrived. He had previously called down into the basement before finding Lindsay and received no response.
  • Her body temperature when admitted to the hospital was lower than we'd expect for the time she spent out there, which suggests there may be something wrong with the timeline (that she may have gone out the window earlier). They were able to restart the baby's heart at the hospital, which upper-bounds the amount of time the baby could have been dead, so timeline inconsistencies can't just be arbitrarily pushed, that might suggest that she was out the window before the kids were killed.
  • There are blood drops on the door handle leading out of the bedroom Lindsay jumped out of, which doesn't make a lot of sense given that she killed the kids (in a non blood-producing fashion, asphyxiation), sliced her wrists and neck (with a knife that was found in the bedroom), and then jumped out the window.
  • No conclusive fingerprints on the knife, and her DNA was found on only one of the exercise band murder weapons. His was on all the bands, but he untied the bands so that's expected no matter who killed them.

Unfortunately, the insanity defense means that her defense team won't be making a concerted argument that she didn't do it (which may be a rational strategy even if she didn't do it), and I'd really like to see that trial.

The steelman is the claim that she was being abused and her husband made her psychotic. As far as I know, there is no evidence for this; it's pure pop-feminist misandry.

The steelman is the claim that she was being abused and her husband made her psychotic.

Not quite, see my post, but the specific mechanisms raised by the defense and community for psychosis have been very variable and include things like abuse, medication side effects, baseline mental illness, and post-partum illness (which is a rare but real thing).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats