site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15hr ago (text post)   395 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.

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.

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