What Patrick Clancy's Testimony Proved That TikTok Ignores

**Tony Brueski** (0:01)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

**Tony Brueski** (0:08)
While the Lindsay Clancy Trial plays out in Plymouth Superior Court, a different trial is happening on TikTok. The theory is that Patrick Clancy, the father of those three children, is the one who actually killed them. Yesterday, we talked to Attorney Eric Faddis about how he could legally go after the folks who are pushing this theory, and I encourage him to. I hope to God he puts some people out of homes, out of lives, out of existence, for pushing this one.
That's the vengefulness I have in my heart. When you're going after someone who is a victim of the absolute unimaginable, and the fact that he went and three years later, remarried, whoo, three years later, he remarried. That's too quick for some people. Some people, it's just fine. I'm sorry he didn't consult TikTok before and go, hey guys, you know what? I went through hell. I found someone who loves me and supports me and cares about me. But Susan in Ohio, do you think it's too quick? Is this going to make you uncomfortable that I get married? Should he have done that, Susan in Ohio? Should he have checked in with you first?
That's the level of absurdity that I'm seeing here.
Robin, when you look at these comments, and from a human behavior side of things, I mean, it just makes me want to scream. But what the hell is going through people's mind that number one, they feel that their own inter-dialogue and they're feeling that they should be the ones that are granting permission of what's okay and not okay to someone getting remarried three years after a horrific tragedy, that somehow their opinion matters? I guess, I don't know. I don't think, we do this for a living and we express our opinions. I don't think my opinion matters about much of anything. I'm just throwing it out there. But why the fuck do people think they can take that vitriol, that weirdness, that darkness, and assign it to someone who they've never met in an experience that they'll probably never experience, and dictate to them how they should live their lives and what's appropriate and not?

**Robin Drake** (2:23)
So we can take the case aside and take a look at this, because I think they're two separate things, because you brought up a really good point about the laws of human nature and how we as human beings interact with the world around us. And so let's look at it from genetics, evolution, and biology about us as a species, whether you look at Robert Greene's book, Laws of Human Nature, you read books like Robert Chaldean's book, Influence. What happened is, is human beings are born with this incessant need to correct others.
And what happens is we want to prove our worth and value to the world around us, because when we prove our worth and value, they'll accept us as part of the tribe and we're survivors and then we'll pass on our genetic coding. Literally, that's the reason why that happens. We ebb and flow the dichotomy between self and others when these things happen. But when we hear or see or experience something that's incongruent with our own beliefs, our own self-impressions of ourselves, our own thoughts and ideas, we have this need to want to correct others to prove that we're right, you're wrong.
When we can suspend our egos, our vanities, and our own insecurities to actually open our ears and get curious about why someone has a different opinion of us, now we're going to enter the world of critical thinking. This is why us as a species, we are not great critical thinkers when we're emotionally hijacked in our prefrontal cortex. It's fully flooded with all the adrenaline because we're filled with rage, retribution, all these emotions. Hence, when you give someone a platform like TikTok, Twitter, X, whatever it is, where there's no reciprocity directed against you, where you feel unsafe for saying things that are incongruent with someone else's thoughts, opinions, behaviors, you feel empowered to say stupid shit. Because there's no accountability for it. In other words, society up until probably the information age really took off in the last couple of years, has put guardrails on our behavior because we're accountable to things we say to others. We have to face them. We have to have a dialogue. We have to have the discussion. We have to be able to defend our points of view. We have to be curious about others. All these things we had as a society for our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution simply can't be erased in the last couple because of technology, because we can hide behind a screen. And so that's where this incessant need to correct and come up with stupid shit because it doesn't agree with what we think the world should be from our own context. As all this comes down to, at every human disagreement on this planet, it's not about what is. You can't argue that the wind is blowing at 15 miles an hour across this parking lot where I'm at right now. That's just a fact of is. But what that interpretation of our context is, I can say that's a great breeze today, and someone next to me can say this is a horrendous wind we're having.