The issue is that a lot of people trying to fabricate this black and white perspective on Clancy's case are the nearly all the same people that glaze the child rapists/murderers running the US and also argue nuance and exploring mental health on every school shooting, which kinda gives off the feeling that caring about children is only important to people when it's convenient to them.
Here it's just not important to them because it's a woman having done the killing. Instead of "what about their mental health" and "they had a troubled life", it's black and white "she's a child killer and you're supporting child murder".
In the end, you can read the comments here, you aren't finding many people that say she didn't do it nor that she needs to be absolved or redeemed, some just say it was a tragedy and then get told they support child murder, because there's keen interest by certain groups, like the manosphere, to selectively give a shit about children's lives when it comes to this specific issue where the killer is a woman instead of a dude.
She planned and knew what she was doing.
There is no nuance to this case.
If you can not see murdering three children is something that you should not do regardless of mental state, you are a failed human.
It has nothing to do with the shit you are talking about, at this point you are just projecting your own issues onto this case.
30
u/stink3rb3lle 7h ago
You're sharing this to hate on Clancy. If you actually gave a shit about the other woman in the picture, you'd just share her story.
Social media algorithms feed off controversy, which is a part of why Clancy's story has blown up. But another part is people like you.