I just came upon this Matt Walsh video which is centered on the Lindsay Clancy case, wherein she strangled her three children, admitted it, blamed it on post-partum depression, and now has hordes of people rising to her defense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMP8iOUns5k
What provoked me to write another post is how it actually makes the argument of my last post even stronger than it already was. Understanding that Walsh's response to the many defenses of this woman will be regarded as just another example of the misogynist and patriarchal ramblings of a privileged white guy rather than the righteous outrage of a decent man against the leftist disregard for the true victims of Clancy's most heinous actions.
So how does it relate to my previous post? Well, Walsh cites the many women who have allied themselves with Clancy, including crowdfunding donations to the tune of around $900K or more. This is similar to support for Karmelo Anthony after he murdered a kid and for Luigi Mangione after he murdered. (Women are notorious for fawning over violent criminals! It's probably because they're historically abused and oppressed!)
This kind of hybristophilia or "empathy for the devil" or "moral disengagement" has already been found in those defending islam, including the most violent forms of it, from the stupidity of the "Light Bringer", Barry Obumble dismissing an islamist mass shooting by Maj. Nidal Hassan as mere "workplace violence", to all those morons stepping up to defend or minimize the Oct. 7, 2023 butchering, raping and murdering of 1200 Israelis (and Americans). Indeed, some actually speak of the felling of the World Trade Center Twin Towers as "deserved"!
Add to all this the routine release of violent criminals by mostly Democrat appointed judges (mostly women judges) and it's difficult to fathom that we should disregard the history and religious teachings of islam when it comes to whether or not we should allow them entry into our country. Indeed, this insanity elevates the threat level to outlandish heights!
No. People with absolute shit for brains, like Dan Trabue, can scold me all they like. They can pretend the jackass on which they ride is the moral high horse. But such people are as much a threat to this nation as would be the islamists they welcome with open arms, without any way to determine who will cut their heads off in front of their own families. Hyperbole? Don't be a dumbass!
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
Arguments Are Less Legit Than I Thought!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Hey Shithead, if you’re going to unload a rage‑soaked screed on the internet, at least try to anchor it to something resembling verifiable reality instead of the fever‑dream mashup you posted. Your entire argument collapses the Lindsay Clancy case, women in general, Islam, terrorism, political ideology, and judicial procedure into one giant slurry of emotional outrage that has almost nothing to do with actual facts. The Clancy case is a documented medical‑legal dispute about postpartum psychosis, supported by psychiatric evaluations, medication records, and clinical deterioration noted by multiple professionals. It is not a feminist cult ritual, it is not a leftist plot, and it is not evidence that “women fawn over murderers.” The GoFundMe you’re ranting about was created for her extended family, not as a trophy for homicide, and the donors explicitly stated they were supporting the surviving relatives, not endorsing the killings. Hybristophilia is a rare paraphilia studied in forensic psychology, not a universal female instinct, and criminological research does not support your cartoonish claim that women are “notorious” for supporting violent criminals. You’re repeating a myth, not a fact.
Your attempt to rope Islam into this mess is even more detached from reality. Islam is a global religion with 1.8 billion adherents, the vast majority of whom are not terrorists, not extremists, and not connected to Hamas, ISIS, Al‑Qaeda, or any other violent extremist organization. Those groups are responsible for severe harm, loss of life, and human rights violations, but they do not represent Islam as a whole. Obama’s “workplace violence” classification of the Fort Hood shooting was a bureaucratic designation tied to military benefits and internal policy, not a moral endorsement of the attack. And your claim that “the left” defended or minimized the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre is simply false. The overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum condemned the attack. A fringe of activists expressed extreme views, but fringe activists do not define an entire political ideology any more than extremists define an entire religion.
Your rant about “mostly Democrat women judges releasing violent criminals” is pure fiction. Judicial release decisions follow statutory guidelines, risk assessments, bail statutes, and case law. Gender and party affiliation are not predictive factors in release decisions, and no credible legal study supports your claim. You’re inventing a pattern because it fits your anger, not because it exists. And your attempt to tie all of this together into some grand narrative about national danger is nothing more than emotional projection dressed up as political analysis. You’re not identifying a real threat, you’re venting your own frustration and calling it insight.
Another unsigned comment. This one I would wager is from either feo or Dan. It reads like a Dan comment. Given all the form this nonsensical crap takes, I'm going with this being a Dan comment. Let's review:
"Hey Shithead"
Whoever it is is embracing grace. That's for sure.
"...if you’re going to unload a rage‑soaked screed on the internet, at least try to anchor it to something resembling verifiable reality instead of the fever‑dream mashup you posted."
Everything I've said is based on fact and reality. Everything.
"Your entire argument collapses the Lindsay Clancy case, women in general, Islam, terrorism, political ideology, and judicial procedure into one giant slurry of emotional outrage that has almost nothing to do with actual facts."
Except for the facts which supports my argument. This statement is the very type of projection for which Dan is notorious. "Emotional outrage"??? I'm referencing outrageous acts and behaviors. "Emotional outrage" seems perfectly appropriate. But then, unlike fake Christians who regard themselves as "progressive", I don't think children should be murdered, in utero or anytime after birth.
"The Clancy case is a documented medical‑legal dispute about postpartum psychosis, supported by psychiatric evaluations, medication records, and clinical deterioration noted by multiple professionals."
The Clancy case is about a woman who strangled to death her own three small children. Period.
"It is not a feminist cult ritual, it is not a leftist plot, and it is not evidence that “women fawn over murderers.”"
Not quite what I said. This is more evidence this anonymous this comment, not at all an example of "respectful, adult discourse", came from Dan. Moreover, the writer has it backwards. We already know women fawn over murderers. It's well documented. The support this murderer is getting are examples of it.
"The GoFundMe you’re ranting about was created for her extended family, not as a trophy for homicide, and the donors explicitly stated they were supporting the surviving relatives, not endorsing the killings."
What survivors? The husband, who many women are alleging to be the reason this all happened? The grandparents, who aren't on trial? If Clancy's parents want to render aid to defend her against the heinous murderers to which she admitted committing, how does compel anyone to help financially? And is there any proof that the money can be specifically targeted so as not to advantage Clancy herself? Tell me how that works.
"Hybristophilia is a rare paraphilia studied in forensic psychology, not a universal female instinct, and criminological research does not support your cartoonish claim that women are “notorious” for supporting violent criminals. You’re repeating a myth, not a fact."
Not as rare as you need it to be in order to cast aspersion my way, and I never claimed it was in any way a "universal female instinct". You've made that shit up yourself. Try sticking to what I actually say without trying to put words in my mouth. They're never anywhere near as good as the words of truth which actually come from my mouth.
https://neurolaunch.com/hybristophilia-psychology/
"Your attempt to rope Islam into this mess is even more detached from reality."
You mean, you didn't get the connection. Why not just ask for clarification as if your "embrace grace"?
"Islam is a global religion with 1.8 billion adherents, the vast majority of whom are not terrorists, not extremists, and not connected to Hamas, ISIS, Al‑Qaeda, or any other violent extremist organization."
This ignores what percentage not actively involved with terrorism nonetheless support the actions of terrorists acting in the name of their "religion". Even then, what's left over are those who still claim to be muslim and as such are suspect based on the history and teachings of the faith.
"Those groups are responsible for severe harm, loss of life, and human rights violations, but they do not represent Islam as a whole."
It represents most of them and there's no way to ensure it doesn't. One thing is certain: you have no way of guaranteeing any of those numbers and percentages and are less concerned about it than you are disparaging those who love their nation and its people more than posturing as "Christian" to impress the stupid.
"And your claim that “the left” defended or minimized the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre is simply false."
No. It's not. The left, by and large, pretends Israel is the "oppressor" in that conflict (or any Israel/islam conflict) and paying lip service to the barbaric savagery of Hamas while insinuating...as was done with Sept 11...they deserved it at all is more than beyond question.
"Obama’s “workplace violence” classification of the Fort Hood shooting was a bureaucratic designation tied to military benefits and internal policy, not a moral endorsement of the attack."
It was a blatant lie to frame it publicly in that manner when it is clear to all rational, honest people that it was a radical islamic attack. Assuming what you've said is accurate, that's just how the legal system deals with this blatant islamic terrorism and Obama is just dishonest enough to know that when he chooses "workplace violence" instead of "this muslim dude murdered for allah" which was the truth.
"Your rant about “mostly Democrat women judges releasing violent criminals” is pure fiction."
No, it's not. You'd be hard pressed to provide examples of Republican judges of either sex letting violent criminals off the hook at the rate common to lefty women. Google this:
Politically left leaning judges notorious for early release of violent criminals
...and read all which comes up.
And here's how it all ties together, because you're too stupid to comprehend the obvious from my post:
Lefties have a less than rational position on crime, immigration and islam. That irrationality elevates the threat of islamic immigration into out country. It's always you dumbasses fighting against the deportation of illegals backed by superfluous and irrelevant sob stories. Your kind doesn't care about the threat level of any particular immigrant. You just stupidly and masochistically assume they're all innocent "seekers of a better life", as if that's reason enough to just swing wide the border gates and let them in. And when their single military aged men, that doesn't matter at all to those who posture stupidly as having the moral high ground.
Your comment exposes you as a fucking idiot. You MUST be Dan Trabue!
Oh, this can continue. I can do this all day long and every day if you like, even though your stupidity knows no bottom.
You can keep pounding out these chest‑thumping replies, but every time you try to “correct” what I wrote, you end up proving the exact point you think you’re refuting. You keep insisting that “everything you said is based on fact and reality,” yet every defense you offer is just another round of assertion without evidence, emotion without verification, and projection without a single sourced statistic. You reduce the Lindsay Clancy case to “a woman who strangled her kids, period,” as if criminal law magically stops at the surface level. The fact is that the case hinges on documented postpartum psychosis supported by medical records, psychiatric evaluations, and professional testimony. Pretending that mental‑state evidence doesn’t exist because it irritates you is not factual analysis. It’s just you plugging your ears and shouting.
Your claim that “women fawn over murderers” is not “well documented.” Hybristophilia is a rare forensic‑psychology paraphilia, not a mainstream female behavior, and your own link doesn’t say what you think it does. It describes a niche phenomenon, not a sweeping gender trait. You keep inflating isolated anecdotes into universal patterns because it props up your narrative, not because the data supports you. And your attempt to twist the GoFundMe into proof of “women supporting murderers” is just lazy. The fundraiser was created for extended family, not as a reward for homicide, and you still haven’t produced a single piece of evidence that the funds were intended to benefit Clancy personally.
Your Islam tangent is even more detached from reality. You keep insisting that “most Muslims” support terrorism, yet you provide zero numbers, zero studies, zero polling, zero citations. You just assert it and then declare anyone who disagrees “stupid.” Islam is a global religion with 1.8 billion adherents, and violent extremist groups represent a tiny fraction of that population. You cannot turn 1.8 billion people into a monolith because it feels emotionally satisfying. And no, “the left” did not “by and large” defend the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre. The overwhelming majority of elected Democrats condemned it immediately. A fringe of activists expressing extreme views does not define an entire political ideology any more than ISIS defines Islam.
Your claim about “mostly Democrat women judges releasing violent criminals” is pure invention. You still haven’t produced a single dataset, judicial review, criminology study, or sentencing analysis to back it up. Telling someone to “Google it” is not evidence. It’s an admission that you don’t have any. Judicial release decisions follow statutory guidelines, bail statutes, and risk assessments. Gender and party affiliation are not predictive factors in violent‑crime release rates, and no credible legal research supports your claim.
You keep stitching all these unrelated grievances together and calling it “obvious,” but it’s only obvious inside your own echo chamber. You’re not presenting a coherent argument. You’re presenting a chain of assumptions, stereotypes, and political resentment dressed up as certainty. If you want to defend your claims, then defend them with actual evidence instead of shouting “you’re stupid” at anyone who points out the holes. I don't know who this "Dan" guy is.
You really need to shut your bean hole.
Identify yourself, coward, or I'll reject your latest submission awaiting my approval in the queue. It doesn't matter to me. My position is solid. Yours is "Nyuh uh".
Tom
You have no Blogger account with a profile one could review? That's not confirmation of identity, but it's something which can serve to better protect you against others falsely submitting under your name. It also shows you're truly convicted in the positions you express, that you'll speak unafraid of others knowing it was you. At least even Dan does that!
It'll do for now.
“Women are out here making the argument that their hormones make them so crazy that murder is justified, without apparently considering what that argument actually implies about women.
Yes, postpartum hormones can influence mood and mental health. Postpartum psychosis is also a real, documented psychiatric condition.1) It’s very rare (1/2 per 1000 births) 2) neither womanhood nor hormonal fluctuation automatically eliminates agency or criminal responsibility.
Even an insanity defense requires evidence that a person’s mental condition met a specific legal threshold at the time of the crime and not simply evidence that she was postpartum, hormonal, depressed, or mentally ill.
For most of Western history, women were explicitly characterized as irrational, emotionally unstable, and intellectually inferior because of their reproductive biology. “Hysteria” itself was historically associated with the uterus, and women could be institutionalized under extraordinarily broad standards.
So when you argue that a woman’s reproductive biology can make her so fundamentally incapable of controlling herself that she shouldn’t be held accountable for killing someone, you’re resurrecting exactly the premise that female biology makes women less rational, less autonomous, and less responsible for their own decisions than men. It’s the same logic used to excuse black murderers. “They could not help themselves.”
You can’t have it both ways.
Either women are autonomous adults capable of equal participation in society and deserving of equal justice under the law, or we’re fragile creatures governed by hormonal madness who cannot reliably be trusted with the same agency and responsibility afforded to men.
If you genuinely believe the Clancy defense, you’ve constructed a better argument for the paternalism of the 19th century than most 19th-century men ever could.
Congratulations!”
https://x.com/coulterculture/status/2091012969660342701?s=46&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Craig
The Clancy case is cut and dried—she murdered her children and admitted to it. The whole psychobabble defense doesn’t matter. Call her GUILTY by reason of insanity but she should still suffer the maximum punishment for murdering children. The evidence show it was pre-planned: sending the husband on an errand and non-life-threatening wrist-slicing to have an alibi—but she didn’t count on the injury suffered from the 2nd story fall!
Islam as a whole has 1300 year history of perfidy; pretending friendship/peace while getting into a position of power. They conquer by murdering anyone opposed to their teachings, and they use the enemy women for rape before murder (“lucky” ones don’t get murdered). Everywhere in the world where they are taking over has crime rates at all time high, especially murder and rape. They conquer now by getting elected into political positions of power, as can easily be seen in the various cities in the USA. At one time in our past Muslims were not permitted to enter the USA and if they did they were not permitted to practice their political religion.
The LEFT is factually anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and falsely claim Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. It’s daily new items!
"I can do this all day long and every day if you like, even though your stupidity knows no bottom."
So...."Tom", is it?...you've exposed no stupidity on my part.
"You can keep pounding out these chest‑thumping replies, but every time you try to “correct” what I wrote, you end up proving the exact point you think you’re refuting. You keep insisting that “everything you said is based on fact and reality,” yet every defense you offer is just another round of assertion without evidence, emotion without verification, and projection without a single sourced statistic."
I'm sorry. I must have missed the plethora of links in your comment to evidence supporting your opposing positions.
" You reduce the Lindsay Clancy case to “a woman who strangled her kids, period,” as if criminal law magically stops at the surface level."
I didn't "reduce" it. I accurately stated what the case is about. How her legal team defends her against the charges against her doesn't change that. And frankly, it's dismissive to the justice owed the kids whose lives were violently taken from them by the one person who is supposed to be most protective of them. That betrayal remains regardless of whether or not her insanity defense succeeds. As to that, I stand with Matt Walsh who insists that argues for her being a far greater risk than if she's not insane.
In the meantime, I've not denied mental illness impacts the final judgement against a murderer found to so impaired. And if it's determined that she's not insane or wasn't at the time she planned and executed the murders, what then? Are you suggesting a new trial should be put together because now she's not out of her mind with postpartum depression? That's absurd. It's merely a defense. The case is about the murder of three children by their mother. You've refuted nothing as to that fact.
"Your claim that “women fawn over murderers” is not “well documented.” Hybristophilia is a rare forensic‑psychology paraphilia, not a mainstream female behavior, and your own link doesn’t say what you think it does."
Maybe you should have actually read it. At least the take-aways, wherein you'd find this:
The phenomenon is more widespread than reported cases suggest, partly because many people experiencing it never identify it as such
In the meantime, I never said it was "mainstream female behavior". I just said there's plenty of documented cases of women fawning over murderers. Thus it's not unusual to see so much of it happening on behalf of Clancy.
And I would add that simply because women can "relate" to another with postpartum depression does not justify the position held by them that it should be a mitigating factor in the ultimate finding of the judge or jury. Such things are appropriate in the sentencing phase, not the trial phase.
"And your attempt to twist the GoFundMe into proof of “women supporting murderers” is just lazy. The fundraiser was created for extended family, not as a reward for homicide, and you still haven’t produced a single piece of evidence that the funds were intended to benefit Clancy personally."
This is nonsense. Do you really think there would be this outpouring of financial support if Clancy was not using PD as her defense? I don't need to defend the possibility of Clancy benefiting from the crowdsourcing. Clearly if she's found guilty by reason of insanity, her placement in a facility (if that's what her sentencing demands) would certainly be made more comfortable by the funds. And again, how does the "extended" family justify crowdsourcing? Are they obliged to support the murderer of those kids somehow? I don't think so. If I thought someone charged was innocent of those charges...as was Donald Trump and Derrick Chauvin...I might indeed feel compelled to send a few bucks their way. But this woman admitted her crime and it was a most heinous one at that. Is Tyler Robinson's "extended family" crowdfunding? Is anyone sending them money? It's absurd.
More coming....
https://www.danielgreenfield.org/p/2-million-muslims-in-america-support
As this article demonstrates, muslim support for terrorism is quite high. "Most"? That's a question which requires parsing exactly what and how an individual muslim thinks. The above link, intentionally or not, provokes a question regarding whether or not every muslim considers certain acts of terrorism as "terrorist acts" or the actions of "freedom fighters". If the latter, then they are supporting terrorist acts and their reframing the savagery as "freedom fighting" doesn't alter the reality.
In addition, for an individual of any "faith" to admit they support barbaric actions of terrorists would bring about negative scrutiny of their own selves and they may not be willing to endure that. So they say they don't support blowing up school buses full of Jewish kids to avoid it. As the article suggests, polling is bad enough and likely doesn't truly indicate what are likely higher rates of support for terrorism by muslims in general. The same can be said for the Democrat Party, comprised as they are of anti-Israel types. They can't publicly laud Hamas or other islamic terror organizations without inviting outcry. Public pronouncements by Democrats lack credibility.
Regardless, we're still left with the fact that the history and teachings of islam justifies denying them a presence among us.
"A fringe of activists expressing extreme views does not define an entire political ideology any more than ISIS defines Islam."
The problem here is that islam defines ISIS, Hamas, Hezb'allah and all other islamic. It's what I referenced in speaking of "the history and teachings of islam" justifying a policy of denying entry by muslims to our nation. Those teachings are unambiguously threatening to non-muslims.
"Your claim about “mostly Democrat women judges releasing violent criminals” is pure invention. You still haven’t produced a single dataset, judicial review, criminology study, or sentencing analysis to back it up. Telling someone to “Google it” is not evidence."
Except that I gave you exactly what I myself Googled to find the almost endless bounty of evidence you need. Here's another: "Democrat appointed judges releasing violent criminals".
more later...
Post a Comment