There has been so much weird, impulsive, counter-intuitive and counter-factual support for frauds, knaves and evil-doers on the ideological left that I have had a hard time keeping up with it—or maybe my brain is just rejecting what it regards as bad juju. An astounding number of young Democratic-Socialists lionize Luigi Mangione, who shot an insurance exec in the back in an alley. Hasan Piker, who campaigned with Abdul El-Sayed, now the Michigan Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. Senate, has repeatedly expressed his approval of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I have several Trump-Deranged friends who would have sent flowers of thanks to any of the recent failed assassins whose target was President Trump. The support for Jason Arday and his sanctification as a victim is also part of the trend.
But this latest example is special. Hundreds of women, dressed in pink, protested last week outside Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts to show their support for Lindsay Clancy, the former nurse being tried for the murdered her three young children.
The mob wore shirts reading “Believe,” “She Needed Help” and “Peace for Lindsay.” Clancy, 36, pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children—Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, in January 2023. Her defense now is that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and severe mental illness and therefore should not be held criminally responsible. Okay. That’s the defense’s job in a case like this, and surely any mother who would murder her own kids, or any children for that matter, has a strong argument that she was legally insane. However, in 1994 when Susan Smith was convicted of murdering her two sons, three-year-old Michael and one-year-old Alexander, by strapping them in their car seats, and rolling her car into a lake, there was no such public sympathy for her. The defense’s insanity defense was rejected by the jury.
Social media, of course, is part of the difference, and the Clancy episode may stand as a perfect example of how the internet warps values, perception and ethics. The murderous mother’s sympathizers have followed the livestreamed trial daily, often analyzing witness testimony in real time. TikTok has viral videos with legends like “I Am Lindsay Clancy,” often showing the poster holding her own infant. (I would think such videos justify visist from child protective services.) “I Stand With Lindsay” merchandise—shirts, hats, stickers, mugs, socks and bags —-are being sold on line. A GoFundMe established for Clancy’s parents had 31,000 contributions by the end of last week, raising over a million dollars.
This woman murdered her children, remember, and there is evidence that she planned it; she didn’t just “snap.”
So Ethics Alarms has to ask the threshold question to begin an inquiry into so many ethics problems: “What’s going on here?”
Ethics Alarms 
Jack asked, “What’s going on here?”
A huge swath of our population has been intentionally indoctrinated into accepting moral bankruptcy as an acceptable social standard, that’s what’s going on here. As far as I’m concerned, there really is no other explanation.
An excellent and sobering two-sentence summation, Steve.
1) bluntly: if Lindsay Clancy was a complete battle axe and not an attractive woman that bored progressive wine moms can envision themselves being, she would have exactly none of the support she’s been getting.
2) we are past the bored progressive wine mom stage of support and have moved on to the sexless progressive handmaid LARPers. Next phase is topless Frenchwomen parading through Paris.
Oh. Lindsay Clancy has AOC eyes.
Be warned men.
Susan’s Smith’s allegation that a black man kidnapped her kids kinda undermined her insanity defense. It made her look like she was hiding something, almost as if she knew that what she did was wrong.
-Jut
Where’s the study that demonstrates feminism has made progressive women the most unhappy cohort (by leaps and bounds) in the United States? And that’s even with our culture geared almost entirely to cater to the demands of feminism.
At least some of these women will rally around just because there is a woman on trial, and women are oppressed, can’t get a fair trial, etc.
It is hogwash, and she would have a really tough time if I were a juror.
The one thing that may catch everyone up is the sheer number of prescriptions she had. Something like a dozen drugs and multiple prescribers.
Still not innocent, but perhaps the jury is more sympathetic than I.
The same bunch supporting Lindsay Clancy didn’t seem to have much sympathy for a frustrated mother, Shiloh Hendrix, who merely yelled at a kid.
Eventually only the sane, rational, law abiding, white, heterosexual, traditional by any standard, Christians or Jews will be responsible for all legal, social and individual wrongs…facts be damned.
Would these people simped for Elliot Rodger or Dylann Roof?