politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
There’s some in the comments saying the same. That’s what I heard about Roe v Wade as well and look where we are.
The erosion of women’s rights has been happening and is continuing to happen. Don’t let anyone gaslight you about this.
Not just women's rights but the rights of anyone that isn't a richwhiteman.
May those who are not rich, white and (straight) males should go live somewhere else, just the needed time so we can see how great america becomes...
YES
This will last only as long as women keep paying taxes. No taxation w/o representation, amirite? Once men and business partners see the light and start putting the capital of their ventures and earnings in to their tax-free partner’s hands.. It’s a lot of hot air..
It wasn't until the 70s that women were protected from discrimination when opening their own bank accounts. It's not like they're particularly opposed to taking away our access to financial institutions.
The banks wouldn't appreciate that, for sure.
Banks were the ones who discriminated against women before the government told them they couldn't do that anymore.
They don't care as long as there's still money. The head of the household would still be able to handle bank accounts.
Not every woman is married.
It'll go to their fathers, uncles, brothers, etc.
I actually think this case was a psyop designed to erode women's rights
If tiktok never pushed this then Clancy would have went to prison and we wouldn't even be having this conversation
Her lawyer was discussing the parameters of an insanity plea back in March. This was long before the case blew up on social media.
It's entirely feasible that she would have gotten an insanity ruling without social media influence.
Yeah I agree with this.
Some of these TikToks have gone viral and they've been incredibly extreme, with some of them showing women discussing wanting to murder their children(without any irony or satire).
Even videos that clearly are parody have felt dangerous because the right preys upon people not knowing where the boundaries between irony/satire/parody is and genuine belief in what the content is presenting.
She could at least wear some safety glasses. Throwing ice at a bathtub seems like a good way to get ice to ricochet into your eyeball.
That video is offering something to do that is not hurting the children.
Well yes but I haven't posted any of the more violent parodies. I'd rather not.
I also want to point out that I'm not agreeing with this in any way shape or form, but rather I like many others predicted it unfortunately.
Using a handful of fringe extremist examples and then applying that to all women is problematic.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.
I'm not applying it to all women. The discussion was mainly centered around the reactions and that they existed. And the possibility that the outrage was stoked and pushed towards certain extremes in order to provide an excuse.
The article that we're conversing about is talking about applying these cases to all women and stripping women of their rights because of that.
Conservatives are constantly looking for ways to disenfranchise minorities, including women. The Clancy case didn't need to be astro-turfed to cause this kind of reaction.
It was astro turfed though and now maga will use these extreme reactions posted on tiktok to say all women are insane
I said this to you a few weeks ago and you downvoted me and you essentially said i'm crazy but here we are
https://sh.itjust.works/post/66059803/27261304
Yep, I remember you now.
I still don't watch TikTok.
MAGA would have latched on to anything to say all women are insane or to justify stripping women of our rights. This isn't new. Hell, a postpartum psychosis murder case isn't new - look at Andrea Yates.
You were probably pushing that it's women on TikTok that are causing this like you did in another comment here. Pushing that this is an astro-turfed subject is also pulling the conversation away from reforming healthcare and focusing more on women's health which is the bigger conversation that's happening on a larger scale.
No I think the algorithms are controlled by maga and the tiktok users, who happen to be mostly women, are the ones falling for the propaganda in this case
Just like young men latching onto the far right via the algorithms they subscribe to
Why are you so focused on the TikTok aspect of this?
Because that's where this narrative is primarily coming from. I don't know why you find this hard to believe really
I'm going to repeat myself from our previous conversation:
This case has gone far beyond just TikTok.
You could conduct your own experiment and hop on the app. Your algorithm will become this almost instantly and you'll see women saying the ex husband did it probably as soon as you start scrolling
I'm aware of some of the content on TikTok in regard to this case. You're doing the same thing as MAGA here - conflating a small number of women making social media posts with all women.
There are more reasons that just TikTok that made this case spark such division and passion from people. A lot of that is rooted in the dire lack of women's healthcare that has been prevalent for pretty much all modern history. That is a conversation worth having instead of trying to blame all reactions on astro-turfing.
Well no i'm playing devil's advocate because they are highly predictable
And this is probably the first case in history where a parent killing their children has gotten any sympathy. Isn't that a little odd to you?
You're being willfully obtuse if you believe this.
Link me some examples then
This comes to mind for me but it's obviously just a small number of crazies https://abc7.com/post/women-are-sending-love-letters-to-convicted-killer-chris-watts/4926127/
Bringing up Chris Watts is whataboutism. It's not the same situation at all.
Well I'm here waiting if you can name other loved child killers
Having sympathy for someone isn't the same as loving them.
Andrea Yates is one such example that I've already listed in the comments. I'm not going to dig up more just for you to turn around and say "What About Chris Watts?!?!?!"
Every person I know sympathizing with her including my gf is a regular tiktok scroller, for what that's worth, haha
There are many more conversations about this happening outside of TikTok.
To counter your anecdotal evidence, I've never watched TikToks and especially not on this topic. I still sympathize with Clancy.
Tiktok isn't the reason so many people empathize with Clancy.
Besides the psychosis can you explain to me what else they might be empathizing with?
Maybe I'm missing knowledge about the case somewhere but I have tried to go over the various points of the case that I'm aware of in order to give her some validation and I've really struggled.
Edit
I appreciate your time and what you have shared. I decided to spend more time googling the case and looking up the details.
I don't disagree with anything you've shared at all.
That said, some of the more extreme viral content of people showing solidarity with her has been people making content showing them pretend to hurt their children.
We are both well aware that conservatives are always scheming about ways in which to remove the rights of others. So yes, I do think there is merit to the idea that this was astroturfed someway in order to provide them with a casus belli.
There's a lot of concerns about the investigation. The police arrive to 3 dead children and a woman with catastrophic injuries and the husband saying she did it. The husband's phone or phone records weren't seized, as far as I can work out his clothing wasnt seized, her apple watch wasnt seized, blood on the bedroom door knob wasn't swabbed, there's a roughly 15 minute gap in the timeline where he's not accounted for, and multiple other things. His phone should have been seized cos apart from anything else, the cops may not have been able to get into hers.
The children deserved a high quality investigation and didn't get it. A lot of people have understandable concerns about the evidence.
This I didn't know. The children deserve it but she does too.
I haven't really seen any of this in the news at all when it comes to this topic, thanks for sharing.
Yes she did. And youre welcome
Women's healthcare has been neglected for a long time. Health studies routinely treat women as smaller men. That includes during pregnancy and postpartum care. There are many, many women who have struggled with postpartum depression, and some psychosis, and did not receive any help from their doctors, husbands, families, etc.
The maternal mortality rate in the US is the highest of any developed nation.
So there are thousands to millions of women who desperately needed help, who were drowning while having to care for a newborn and possibly other children, with very little to no help at all. They were forced to tough it out. Sometimes being forced to tough out getting scant hours of sleep each night and healing from birth and dealing with postpartum depression leads to mental breaks and psychosis.
Many mothers can empathize with that feeling of being abandoned and having to put everything ahead of taking care of themselves to their own detriment. We're often told to lose weight, we're hysteric, we just need to take a break, whatever when we seek help for women's health issues. Women are often not taken seriously when we report symptoms.
Have you read the Lemon Clot story? It is focused on having to entertain guests during the postpartum period, but it's an eye-opening look at some of the physical ailments women deal with immediately after birth:
Well, none of this was anything new to me. I have read Lemon Clot as well.
Again, I'm very sympathetic towards this and a lot of this does apply to Clancy, but she's also in a different class than most women. She had access to a lot more than the average woman did, hence why I struggle to understand the surge of sympathy towards her in particular.
This is why I mentioned my possible lack of knowledge on the case.
Even with her access to more than the average woman, she didn't receive adequate care. It's actually because she's an affluent white woman that we're even talking about this case and the overwhelming issues with women's healthcare that helped lead to this tragedy.
You can believe that Clancy deserves prison. But to use this case to argue that women and mothers don't need a better system or better help when they are struggling is my main issue with most conversations surrounding this. Or worse, to argue that women are too emotional and too beholden to our hormones to make rational decisions or to be trusted with our own children.
This woman asked for help and her family and doctors didn't do enough. That's my personal opinion. And having been a woman who was abandoned by her husband and family during a postpartum period, I can empathize with Clancy and what it took to push her to the point of psychosis.
Postpartum can be an incredibly dark and scary time for women. I would never wish what I went through on my worst enemy.
Conservatives will use whatever excuse is available to try to strip women of their rights. I think it’s lazy to shrug this issue off as just another way for conservatives to exert control even if there’s some truth to it. Because when you assert that the reason so many people are invested in this is because of bad actors, you’re ignoring the very real women and allies that are shouting from the roof tops about the issues with women’s healthcare.
Why not wrangle this topic to push the conversation about improving health outcomes for women instead of telling others to be quiet because conservatives might use our concerns to subjugate us?
I have never said this and I would appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. My statement was in regards towards how people have chosen to act in solidarity towards Clancy.
Obviously a lot of these acts have been used against you but more importantly they haven't done anything to shine a light on these issues either. Posting videos on socials pretending to abuse your children in support of her doesn't shine a light on these issues or even show that they exist.
There's a reason I edited my post and left it at that. I'm not really sure you get what I'm saying and it's fine. I support the cause and I appreciate the heightened awareness you've given myself and anyone else that reads the comment chain on the issues.
No. She'd be in a psych ward for twenty years after her not guilty verdict wasn't derailed into mistrial by a magat.
The belief that there is no excuse for killing children is a belief held by people of all political views
But only magat trash is too stupid to understand mental illness as a defense against criminality, and too lazy to look up what that means.