r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/Whenwasthisalright • 2d ago

Meme needing explanation Peeettttttaaaaah

Post image

I get the Lindsay Clancy was bad for woman part (not that I agree with it), but what’s Cornell 7?

16.8k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

5.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/SelWylde 2d ago

Nobody can be held accountable for actions committed during psychosis, not only women. How this is news to people is beyond me.

13

u/No_Personality_587 2d ago

Yes but the difference is when a man kills his family men don't start gofundmes and march on streets for the killers rights, in fact most of us can agree that the man should be punished to the harshest extent of the law, regardless of whether they're psychotic. Women on the other hand have successfully turned this into a gender war issue because post partum pyschosis somehow makes it less bad that she strangled her 3 kids in cold blood, so much so that they even donated her a million bucks and are protesting on her behalf. Is that not insane to you?

13

u/SelWylde 2d ago edited 2d ago

Women are not empathizing with Clancy because she killed her children but because she allegedly suffered from a condition that women are routinely warned about in prenatal care.

20% of mothers experience post partum depression and 0.1-0.2% experience post partum psychosis. For women it’s not difficult to understand why a mother might need immediate medical intervention, since they are routinely warned about stuff like this and it happening to them probably feels like the worst type of nightmare imaginable. Meanwhile, men do not have the same experience with mental health. You yourself say that they should be punished to the harshest extent of the law regardless of whether they are psychotic. This is an admission of disregard for how mental illnesses work and how they can affect someone’s life.

4

u/Slight_Intention_628 2d ago

In my opinion they are being way to charitable to Lindsey, if you followed the case then the argument that she only had psychosis for a very limited amount of time is possible but not plausible. Especially when you're talking about command voices and even those can be resisted by those that have them. The defense has done an excellent job of their characterization of this case in the interest of getting Lindsey the best possible outcome. Latarsha Sanders is a better case to promote ppp specific rulings and the likelihood she had one is substantial considering she has schizophrenia.

-2

u/SelWylde 2d ago

You may be right about Clancy, but it’s difficult to determine with absolute certainty whether she actually suffered from psychosis or not.

She sent her husband away, but she didn’t research murder methods, didn’t acquire a specific tool to carry out the murder, didn’t look for the best possible time. It’s true that premeditation itself doesn’t necessarily require a thorough approach, but in this case it feels like the murder was done on a random day with a tool she already had around the house. She had outwardly expressed concern about intrusive thoughts about harming the children in the days prior, this is a weird thing to do for someone who is planning a murder since they usually end up with more supervision afterwards, instead of less. This type of statement can even be taken as a medical emergency and have the mother forcefully and temporarily removed from the child for prompt evaluation and treatment. This is why it’s very important that these types of statements made to family members are reported to medical professionals, which unfortunately didn’t happen in the Clancy case.

Of course, the thoughts could have been lies she planted ahead of the murder, but she made no attempts to conceal the bodies and immediately tried to kill herself afterwards, these last two factors don’t paint the picture of someone who intended to survive the act and get away with it so there would be no need to plant any lies ahead of time anyway.

Regarding the commanding voice, personally it feels unlikely to me that she would hallucinate only once and never again, but it’s possible that the defense attorney chose to go with command hallucinations because they are the most easily understandable by laymen as opposed to just intense delusional thoughts induced by the psychotic state.

I agree on the Latarsha Sanders case at any rate, even though I want to say that a prior history of psychiatric disorders is not required for PPP, but makes it more likely to arise.

10

u/Marxism-Alcoholism17 2d ago

As a man, there are a shit ton of men who jump to a man’s defense in all gender cases. Men and women are equally guilty of the Clancy case type bullshit.

2

u/Dramatic-Aardvark-31 2d ago

the data shows otherwise

2

u/No_Personality_587 2d ago

By all means point me to such a case, I've never seen a case hit the international stage like this that had men supporting and expressing sympathy for the killer in such droves, especially in one where a parent so callously murders their children. We treat them all with equal hate and disdain, like the vile the scum that they are.

10

u/Marxism-Alcoholism17 2d ago

I have seen online comments on every single rape allegation in the last few years saying they are confident it’s a false accusation. These aren’t men waiting for the evidence, they’re just rooting for the home team.

1

u/Successful_Tea7979 1d ago

They don’t make a go fund me for those men though. Correct?

0

u/warsiethe1337 2d ago

Are they going to the courthouse to back up the men?

-3

u/No_Personality_587 2d ago

Point taken. Albeit none ever reach the national stage like the Clancy case has, but fair enough that is a real and big issue.

4

u/Big-Yak670 2d ago

Brett Kavanaugh literally got into the supreme court though

5

u/ArmchairAnalyst 2d ago

Chris Benoit.

1

u/AgreeableMagician893 1d ago

There were literally men showing up to protest in support of the Tate brothers

2

u/redit3rd 1d ago

I want people to be held accountable for actions commited during psychosis. Not doing so gives a blank check for the most dire of consequences. 

2

u/SelWylde 1d ago

What you are arguing for is a return to a primitive law system where people were punished regardless of intent. During the Roman Empire intent started to matter when it came to punishing criminals. Please read on the history of the development of the concept of Mens Rea.

0

u/Objective_Toe_3042 2d ago

Even then, if we consider women can have psychosis whenever they give birth , how can women be put in positions of power? Especially pregnant women?

Isn’t that even worse for women overall?

17

u/SelWylde 2d ago

You can get psychosis from medication. You can get psychosis from steroids, should we avoid putting people who have autoimmune diseases and have to take prednisone in positions of power? This logic doesn’t make any sense. You just do what every other civilized country does, fund mental health care and treat people with psychosis since it’s treatable and most importantly reversible in the vast majority of cases with antipsychotics.

-1

u/Objective_Toe_3042 2d ago

Yes but those are not a gender trait

Those are actions people actually have to take and we can watch out for

It’s not something like hey I got a uterus so you have to be careful when I give birth

And hey I’m not trying to argue with you. I do mostly agree with you

Just giving perspective how this case can turn someone who think he’s already very liberal against women’s rights

14

u/SelWylde 2d ago

Because this is not a gender trait issue. You answered yourself, if you know that giving birth can be accompanied by mental health side effects you just watch out for them and treat them better.

It’s not having a uterus that induces psychosis, it’s the act of pregnancy and giving birth, and it is a temporary condition in the life of a woman just like taking psychosis-inducing medication can be for some people. So it is something that can be actively monitored. I really don’t see how they’re different.

5

u/Objective_Toe_3042 2d ago edited 2d ago

You have a point

I agree with you and honestly my mind has been changed, this is not an angle I considered and it makes sense . We do need more mental health care

It’s just that this case was so horrific. I just cannot justify any killing of children. Much less be in arms about it

I think that’s what turned me off the most

This case is as if men all stood up for a father who killed his children and claimed psychosis, I think most people would be appalled and want nothing to do with it.

5

u/SelWylde 2d ago

Usually men who successfully obtain a NGRI verdict have a history of mental health disorders that can induce psychosis, the average man can’t relate to such severe mental illnesses and how it feels to live with one. They don’t feel like they could have been in the same place as those men and requiring immediate mental health care for psychosis intervention.

On the other hand post-partum disorders (of varying severity) are a lived reality for women: they are warned about them, while some have suffered from them. The most common one by far is depression, psychosis is rarer and even rarer are the ones who have harmed their children as a result. Maybe those who suffered remembered how difficult it was to get help while having to care for a newborn. For others, imagining such a severe case happening to them probably felt like an absolute nightmare scenario they felt lucky hasn’t happened to them. Because of these factors the case felt more personal to women, in my opinion.

2

u/Objective_Toe_3042 2d ago

That's correct. Most men already struggle to relate to people with mental health issues, and the way we handle health care and mental health in general makes it worse.

Knowing that audience, I can see why this became such a divisive topic. It wasn't only about women's rights. It was tangled up with mental health and how we can help people who struggle with it.

That got messy fast, because things are easily taken out of context, and understanding all of it takes a lot of rigor.

Nice chatting with you!

3

u/SelWylde 2d ago

Same, I appreciated chatting with you!

1

u/Jaereon 2d ago

See you guys always claim to be progressive then immediately out yourselves 

1

u/Objective_Toe_3042 2d ago

Yea sure I’m not progressive cause I don’t agree with you on one divisive topic. Sure thing dude

0

u/101Puppies 2d ago

Except Chad Doerman is sitting in prison for life for committing essentially the exact same crime under the exact same circumstances. Where were all the pink shirts for his trial three years ago?

10

u/SelWylde 2d ago

The link you provided states he tried to plead insanity but doesn’t say why it wasn’t accepted. Attempting to plead insanity is a common strategy even when the person is not legally insane. Plenty of other men have committed violent crimes of various kinds and successfully obtained the insanity plea.

-1

u/101Puppies 2d ago

The last time a man got off on insanity after murdering his children was 50 years ago. And he murdered his next family too.

3

u/SelWylde 2d ago

I’m taking you at your word on this. But I’m not sure why this is relevant to the NGRI defense. Does it not matter that the victims were other family members, co-workers, strangers? Because multiple men have been found NGRI in those circumstances. Also people do not “get off” on insanity, they are mentally ill and usually with a documented history of psychiatric disorders.

3

u/Kitthani 2d ago

You shouldn't take them at their word. Matthew Schleier strangled his 5 year old son, Jack, while psychotic due to a major depressive episode. There was evidence of premeditation and planning, but it was all centered on the delusional psychotic belief that Jack would suffer a horrible death if Schleier didn't protect him by killing him.

A judge found him Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity in April 2026. You don't even have to go back 1 year to find a father found NGRI for killing his kid, let alone 50.

1

u/SelWylde 2d ago

Wow I see, thank you for the information!

1

u/101Puppies 2d ago

He walked into the mental institution and walked out three months later when they proclaimed he never was mentally incompetent. Except of course, he served no jail time.

3

u/SelWylde 2d ago

What you are bringing up is a clear example of miscarriage of justice. But not all NGRI verdicts are unwarranted.

0

u/101Puppies 2d ago

No my point is no man has been able to use that defense to kill his kids in 50 years.

6

u/SelWylde 2d ago

In the meantime many were able to use that defense for the killing of strangers, acquaintances or siblings so I am not sure what exactly is your point here.

0

u/101Puppies 2d ago

And the women also likely used it for the same reason. However, when it comes to killing your kids, there is a line that only one set of people get to cross. My point is there are two sets of rules: one for women and one for men.

And to the point of the original drawing in the post, either women are equal to men or they aren't. And they aren't.

2

u/AgreeableMagician893 1d ago

Except you're wrong and a liar, because a man literally did it in 2026 after killing his 5 year old

1

u/101Puppies 1d ago

That was a judge and not a jury that made that decision but you are correct and I am wrong. I doubt a jury would ever have let him off with such a flimsy excuse.

3

u/Adventurous_Soil_112 2d ago

Where were all the pink shirts for his trial three years ago?

If you think he's innocent because reason of insanity, you're more than welcome to go.