site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   18304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My initial post mentioned how both expert witnesses and general experts (with no incentive) seem to be mostly lining up in support of the defense's narrative.

This was a shock to me and part of why I changed my view.

Also keep in mind, as mentioned in my linked podcast - you can hire an expert witnesses and pay them and have them generate work product you do not want. It happens.

Resnick absolutely could have seen Clancy, been paid, and been like nah you don't want me to testify. Instead he helped the defense.

From this guy's bio:

"He has provided consultation in many high profile cases including: Jeffrey Dahmer, Susan Smith, Timothy McVeigh, Andrea Yates, Scott Petersen, Brian Mitchell (kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart), Theodore Kaczynski (Unabomber) and Casey Anthony."

There's a reason I'm so pissy on this topic.

I don't doubt Resnick can evaluate whether a woman sitting in front of him was suffering from post-partum psychosis or not, but I'm sceptical he can tell if a woman whose had months to start building an insanity plea legal defense was suffering from post-partum psychosis or just post-partum depression several months ago, based on her testimony alone. I'm not sure anyone has that ability, that's practically mind reading.

If he'd seen Clancy before she killed her children or right afterwards I'd put more weight on his evaluation. As far as I understand the medical professionals that did evaluate her at the time made no indication that she heard voices.

I'd recommend you watch the podcast if you are legitimately interested in hearing the argument and are potential open to having your view changed.

I just listened to the podcast, and they skipped over the point I was making on whether or not it's possible to determine if Clancy really had command hallucinations at the time of the crime. There's actually a comment on the video noting that Dr. Resnick's court opinion seems to contradict his own teachings in other places on determining if a report of command hallucination is malingering or not.

Dr. Fu is probably correct that it's irrelevant for determining guilt vs innocent due to how Massachusetts law is written, so I guess I'm mostly taking issue with the legal criteria, and the psychiatrists that helped to put it in place.

Which podcast? I scrolled up the conversation but I'm not seeing any links.

Search on YouTube for "Lindsay Clancy Trial: Forensic Psychiatrist Explains Psychosis, Malingering, & Insanity Defense."

No direct link because I remember hearing something about YouTube links showing the account source and I'm too lazy to figure that out.

Thanks! It's this one for anyone else who's interested.

No direct link because I remember hearing something about YouTube links showing the account source and I'm too lazy to figure that out.

Just keep the "?v=XXXXX" part of the link and delete anything that comes after it, such as "&si=YYYYY". This is a problem only if you use the "share link" button in YouTube's interface; it doesn't show up if you copy the link directly from your browser's address bar.

What even is the point of a trial (or a defense at a trial) aside from generating the biggest male ICK heard around the world?

What difference does it concretely make to be convicted of having been insane while killing your kids vs not really that insane for somebody who killed their kids?
Do the caretakers of her paraplegic body have a more favorable skin color or?

Resnick absolutely could have seen Clancy, been paid, and been like nah you don't want me to testify.

Wouldn't that mean you just need to get a different one or do you still have to make him testify if you paid for it?

At Resnick's level of prestige he gets to investigate, charge, and ask them if they want his conclusions (with a potential need to get someone else). It's absolutely possible he's gone senile or decided to collect one last case or get some money for his grandkids. It's more likely that he's involved because it's a big case and he found what he found.

In a more normal case you are just as likely to have the witnesses conclusion change the defense's tack as to keep rolling the dice on witnesses until you get what you want.

And yes it's not clear if this is doing that much for Clancy, perhaps her defense sees a way out here, but realistically she's just likely to end up in a different kind of facility (with women's prison probably being better than the psychiatric hospital). Perhaps its safety concerns as she might get murdered in prison. Perhaps its just a desire to clear her name.

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