NEWSFEED

Should We Talk About Lindsay Clancy? (Prob Not)

What Happened

I'm starting to think that when something doesn't align with an ideology we're emotionally attached to, we narcissistically search for a way to excuse it.

In the case of Lindsay Clancy—whose defense never disputed that she killed her three children—that appears to be exactly what happened within a significant online community, much of it made up of women who swiftly rallied around her.

Her defense argued that postpartum psychosis left her without criminal responsibility. In September the trial ended in a mistrial: one juror didn’t agree with the other eleven, who sided with the defense. A verdict for the defense would have found her not criminally responsible. Instead of prison, she would most likely have been committed to a psychiatric hospital. So the outcome, for now, is a mistrial. Prosecutors haven’t said whether they’ll retry her, and her next hearing is Nov. 2.

Being Diplomatic

A positive result of this case is the increased awareness of postpartum mental and emotional health, which, let's be honest, few people—men for sure, but possibly many women too—really knew much about. Hopefully, in the years and decades ahead, we will develop a much stronger understanding of how serious these conditions can become.

But in all the awareness raised about postpartum depression and psychosis, is it possible we forgot that Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children with exercise bands?

Holding both at once is the most diplomatic take this case allows.

Cult-Like

One striking development within this story was how fast a large, visible group—mostly women but not all—seemed to synchronize around defending Clancy. Did it go beyond acknowledging mental illness or trying to understand what happened, and move into rationalization, defending her because she’s a woman and purely ideological, self-preserving excuse-making?

Modern post-feminist culture has trained many people to see a woman in crisis as a victim before they see her as a moral agent. That instinct can come from compassion. It can also become a serious form of bias.

Once that lens becomes ideological, almost any act can be processed as something that happened to her, rather than something she did.

And maybe it comes down to ideological taste: should society be held accountable, or the person who acted?

People do not always arrive at the same conclusion independently. Sometimes they learn how their group expects them to feel.

The Digital Herd

Most likely, our accelerated technology and media environment amplified the cause and set it ablaze, giving some people an identity and an approved emotional response that played out performatively across media platforms.

In 2026, people signal which side they belong to, especially when a powerful narrative or public image feels threatened. If the narrative shifts toward the idea that women can be evil too—not just men—the people invested in the existing premise begin to feel attacked.

In this case, Clancy's supporters—I guess we'll call them that—believe she did not receive the attention and care she deserved, and that the system and the people around her failed her at every turn. When that belief felt threatened, they got louder.

The effect resembled a kind of public hypnosis.

We saw strange versions of this during the COVID era: people rapidly separated into identity groups, performed group dances in masks and repeated slogans like "safe and effective," handed down by authorities like modern-day memes.

It may take future studies, far enough removed from this period, to honestly examine how digital technology, cause-based signaling and algorithms that reward what we already believe created this kind of mass, cult-like behavior.

People do not always arrive at the same conclusion independently. Sometimes they learn how their group expects them to feel.

What Still Matters

Everything is becoming ideologically outlined: blue or red, men or women, victim or perpetrator, compassion or accountability. Once the categories are assigned, people defend their side before they judge the act itself.

Postpartum mental conditions deserve serious attention.

So does the fact that Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children.

Acknowledging that does not make someone anti-woman or anti-mental health. It means refusing to let a cause edit the facts to protect itself.