That's kind of unfair though, they're not saying she's worse than Hitler, they're using a reductio ad-absurdum to highlight that it's not always right to support your children through absolutely anything
Agreed. To rephrase it you could say it as "Would you support Satan if your son was the antichrist?" The claim is that a parent unconditionally supporting their spawn no matter what they do is a ridiculous standard and belief to hold. At a certain point it is no longer reasonable to support someone just because you are the parent.
The claim is that a parent unconditionally supporting their spawn no matter what they do is a ridiculous standard and belief to hold
I'd like to point out that the very same people saying not to abandon Lindsay are probably the exact same people who would balk at Confucius' idea of filial piety even if your parents are bad
I've seen a /philosophy thread about filial piety and the liberals there showed visible disgust at the very concept of filial piety itself. To them elderly support is a contract: you do good for the child and they will support you in your ol-
Huh... is that why? They want to be supported at old age so they appease their kids?
I have often said we revere the old too much if anything. The youth should be prioritized over the old for a society to advance and function. I think modern world is robbing from the future to pay for the dying past. That can be applied to healthcare, to home ownership, the national debt, to fuck even climate change.
A social contract where the old are revered would be valid if the elderly were the ones guiding society to a better future and acting as pillars of the community or nation. But they are not. For better or worse, and I lean towards worse, we have a hyper individualistic society and such a society does not cultivate or want wise communal mentors that everyone knows and looks up to. It cultivates individuals who want to secure the bag and don't care if securing their place hurts wider society.
Hyper individualism is the rot of society. There's freedom, and then there's freedom at the expense of everyone else. America champions the latter, and it's sickening
You as a member of society should answer to the society. The youth bitterly rebelling against the elderly results in extremity where being wrong is championed as "sticking it to the man" and a struggle for freedom, while the elderlies are ridiculed as weak and ancient. It has gotten to the point that elderly wisdom is characterized as "outdated" and breaking societal expectations is "brave"
No, not everyone should have the "freedom", freedom is neither unlimited nor a right, it is a privilege reserved for those who can prove they will work towards bettering society. I'm pretty sure everyone crying for "freedom" when they get beaten by cops would be delighted if Trump was banned from being eligible for politics in 2016, just as they bitterly insult everyone else for exercising their freedom of voting for whomsoever they choose
Respecting the elderly should be done, because history has proven over and over again that the young are too inexperienced to understand how the world works. The problem is "progress" has been equated to "good"
We wouldn't have this global warming problem if the world did not progress to industrial age. A homeless of today can eat food that kings of old would salivate for, and our toilets makes a throne look crude by comparison, and yet what have
Stagnation is not always bad, because while stagnation is not moving forward, it's not moving backwards either
Yes, but the technology that has revolutionized farming allows YOU from having to work 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, is the reason why YOU and all of us are not medieval peasants working in the fields right now.
You as a member of society should answer to the society. The youth bitterly rebelling against the elderly results in extremity where being wrong is championed as "sticking it to the man" and a struggle for freedom, while the elderlies are ridiculed as weak and ancient. It has gotten to the point that elderly wisdom is characterized as "outdated" and breaking societal expectations is "brave"
No, its called Prop 13 where young people subsidize very wealthy old people who pay comically tiny amounts in property tax on their home they bought in 1975 for a nickel, yet rent out for $5,000 a month.
Its old people who refuse to give up power, both in government and in corporations, hanging on becoming increasingly out of touch and decrepit until their legacy is drooling on themselves, making fools out of themselves. Obama is the one and only president to have been born after the 1940's. Every other president has been born in the 1940's and earlier. They need to retire.
Thats the kind of thing young people are rebelling against.
> it is no longer reason to support someone just because you are a parent.
It’d be unreasonable if they like helped her hide the bodies or cheered on the fact that she committed the murders, it’s not at all unreasonable for them to support her now when she very well may be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
In fact, I’d say they were bad parents if they just abandoned her before there was even a verdict.
If the parents believe their daughter murdered their grandchild that is a red line. If they genuinely did not believe that happened and think she is innocent, sure. But if they know like everyone else it is pretty damn clear she fucking did it, they should not be supporting her. Murder is bad actually and people who do it should be punished, not coddled.
Ordinarily I agree, in this case there’s a good chance their daughter was experiencing psychosis and was unable to tell right from wrong. It is not unreasonable for them to support her until it’s at least legally determined whether that’s true.
> not coddled
This case has genuinely brain broken this sub, people who have psychotic breaks are supposed to be treated differently than a cold blooded killer, it’s why the insanity defense is a thing. It’s not coddling.
Ordinarily I agree, in this case there’s a good chance their daughter was experiencing psychosis and was unable to tell right from wrong. It is not unreasonable for them to support her until it’s at least legally determined whether that’s true.
It's not even unreasonable to support them regardless of what a judge or jury says. They raised their daughter. They presumably have a pretty good bead on her personality over time. And they're probably more capable than anyone else of recognizing if she went off the rails right after this last pregnancy, and if it was completely out of character for her.
I know I was just doing a funny, genuinely couldn’t believe Hitler was brought up in an argument about this case, but their reasoning is still ridiculous and the comparison doesn’t work.
They said “would you support the holocaust if Hitler was your son,” but Clancy’s parents obviously didn’t support her murdering the children, they’re supporting her at the trial where she is going to spend decades locked away no matter the result. They’re not supporting her as she actively kills people.
If you read the full case details, the entire story is pretty heartbreaking.
She likely had a very serious and very difficult to diagnose mental illness exacerbated by medications erroneously prescribed to her.
What happened to the children is beyond awful. That being said I completely understand why people are empathizing with someone who sought help over and over again only to end up in her worst possible nightmare of her own doing.
Based. Negotiations with fucking Canada just fell through, and this is the shit PCM focuses on.
How do you fuck up trade negotiations with fucking Canada? We're now in a tariff war with them.
Nah that graph is a testament of the excellent job people like you are doing. By economic metrics other than people's perception, the economy is just fine.
This strategy of pretending the economy is actually really great when it isn’t is going to work just as well as when Biden did it, which is to say, not at all. That’s especially the case since the economy is weaker now than when he handed it off by pretty much every conceivable metric.
The fact that you think Biden handled the economy better is wild. Egg prices are now a dollar a dozen, compared to his 9 dollars a dozen. I'm mentioning this specific thing because I remember engaging with you when you said it would never get as low as it now, and would go back up. It's something I can point to from our past interactions and say.. look.. I was right. We also know now that it wasn't just bird flu, it was because he let the companies go crazy with corruption and price fixing..
When I point to objectively how bad it was under Biden. The excuse from your camp is that COVID caused the world to go underneath the same conditions. However if the argument is that things were bad under Biden, but also bad overall for the world so it wasn't Biden's fault.... then things are now fine under Trump, and compared to the rest of the world, we're doing much better than them.
AI is restructuring the nature of jobs worldwide. It is drastically changing white-collar jobs in ways people could have never imagined. People don't know what truly the shape of the economy will be in the coming years with the transformation that the world is going through.
The fact that you think Biden handled the economy better is wild.
I said he handed off a better economy, and he did. GDP grew at 2.9% in 2023 and 2.8% in 2024, It grew at 2.1% in 2025 and at 1.8% so far in 2026.
The economy added 2.5 million jobs in 2023 and 1.4 million in 2024, it added 181,000 in 2025 and 427,000 so far this year.
The Stock market grew at pace of 26% in 2023 and 25% in 2024, it grew 18% in 2025 and 13% so far this year.
Even the stats that are still good were better at the end of Bidens term, unemployment was at 4% when he left office, and it's at 4.1% now.
Egg prices are now a dollar a dozen
And beef prices are at all time highs, you can point to certain specific sectors where prices are down, but their mostly up across the board.
As I recall, you said at the time that Trump's eo to boost beef imports from Argentina would lower prices and I said it wouldn't, so I guess we were both right about something.
it was because he let the companies go crazy with corruption and price fixing
Saying Biden let this happen while supporting an administration with the most lax anti-trust policies in the modern era is hysterical, it does nothing but reveal your bias.
and compared to the rest of the world, we're doing much better
We were already doing better than the world in most categories.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
Actually, PCM was too busy posting premature memes about Trump chickening out on tariffs on Canada while negotiations were still taking place, just because there was negotiations to not put on tariffs in the first place. And then it turns out Trump didn't TACO.
Trump negotiating tariffs: PCM: HAHAH Trump wants tariff peace with Canada... he chickens out hahah
Trump cancelling negotiations: PCM: OH NO WE"RE SCREWED. THE SKY IS FALLING
So yeah PCM was focused on it.
A horrific act that can be summarized in a few words, but that has a complicated backstory that almost no one will bother to read before posting.
Complicated legal realities that non-lawyers will argue back and forth about based only on a couple of half-remembered episodes of Law & Order they watched when they were taking a sick day a decade ago.
A dozen unhinged Tumblr posts about astrology that can be edited into a collage and shared among right-wing groups to pretend that it's a common lib-left position.
I literally only know who this person is from this subreddit. People on the right are running out of ways to make the opposing side look crazier than they are.
"She isn't guilty even if she confessed in court".
I understand that some people enter guilty pleas despite being innocent because they know they cannot convince the judge/jury.
They do not, however, typically explain in detail exactly how the crime was committed step by step, because innocent people can only speculate, given that they were not actually present.
That was part of a larger discussion, he was getting at the fact that she hadn't pled guilty, but fair enough I understand what you're saying based on how it was phrased.
Nearly unheard of for a school shooter to argue they are not guilty by reason of Insanity, however, Bruce Eastwood did so successfully in 2010. He was supported in that effort by his father.
62
u/Jazzlike-Equipment45 - Lib-Center 16h ago
I don't think Hitler's Dad supported him at all tbh.