Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 11:10:34 UTC No. 16158808

>>16158801
Extensive testing on parental neglect was done in the 70's I believe, both on humans and on rhesus monkeys

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:27:33 UTC No. 16158874

>>16158801
The very premise strikes me as retarded pseudo-science intended to pathologise one's political opponents

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:29:38 UTC No. 16158878

>>16158801
that's retarded

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:43:00 UTC No. 16158892

>>16158801
>I don't WANNA be stuck in traffic! I don't WANNA!!! You can't inconvenience -me- just because there are problems in the world! I'm gonna be for those problems now just to spite you!
>Anyway here is why everyone but me is a toddler

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:45:20 UTC No. 16158895

>>16158801
>Is "the daycare effect" real?
Yes, but I don't think this is responsible in the rise of seemingly narcissistic behavior in young people. Easily influenced kiddoes are simply being fed a stream of half-truths that makes them act out against their parents or against something.
> Are there any significant scientific investigations into this topic?
You can prove anything and everything with science. Just depends on what you understand by proving something.

Barkon at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:48:15 UTC No. 16158899

>>16158878
Yeah, you mug. That was well funny. Back to life 1 now. Fucking spas.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:48:17 UTC No. 16158900

>>16158801
>If you disagree with jews you are le <bad thing>

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:54:52 UTC No. 16158909

>>16158899

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:36:05 UTC No. 16158947

>>16158801
>beefing for centuries
ummm, someone should probably tell him

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:40:28 UTC No. 16158952

>>16158801
no, just sounds like post-hoc explanation. this person's parents were likely doing what kids are doing now in the 60s over vietnam, which occurred before the rise of degenerate feminism. the problem was, is, and always will be, the marxists that make up almost the entirety of the academic class, and the application of their degenerate ideas

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:44:29 UTC No. 16158954

>>16158952
>the problem was, is, and always will be, the marxists that make up almost the entirety of the academic class,
so close, just look a little closer at these marxists.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:45:33 UTC No. 16158957

>>16158954
we all know what marxist implies anon, it doesn't even need to be said

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:46:48 UTC No. 16158959

they aren't protesting for the conflict to end, they're protesting the fact that the united states is a ZOG controlled by pro-israel lobbyists

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:52:33 UTC No. 16158963

>>16158959
God I wish they were.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:54:43 UTC No. 16158968

>>16158892
>having your movement restricted illegally is "inconvenience"
Reminds me when libs said that anyone complaining about inflation is spoiled. Delusional bordering on psychotic.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:57:03 UTC No. 16158972

>>16158801
"you're all toddlers if you have opposing views to me! but the jan 6 protestors were patriots standing up for their freedoms! waaaa"

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:58:44 UTC No. 16158973

>>16158972
Both are toddlers. Now what

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:01:08 UTC No. 16158975

>>16158972
No, the jan 6 "protestors" were either actors pushing the psyop or duped.
but you only repeat what you saw on cnn or msnbc so it's pointless arguing with you.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:04:25 UTC No. 16158977

>>16158968
Yes, it is an inconvenience, legality notwithstanding. Littering and jaywalking are also illegal. None of them hold a candle to the "inconvenience" of being on the receiving end of a genocide.
>Reminds me when libs said that anyone complaining about inflation is spoiled.
By this you mean neoliberals, right?

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:10:36 UTC No. 16158980

>>16158977
No, having your movement restricted illegally is an infringement on your rights, with a wide range of potential consequences, let alone emergency situations. It's an act that doesn't affect the state one bit. In fact, given how easy it is to deal with scum like these with enough willpower, enabling them makes their actions a form of anarcho-tyranny

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:11:36 UTC No. 16158981

>>16158977
>>16158980
Also, if Jen Psaki counts as a neolib, then sure, it was neolibs.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:12:28 UTC No. 16158985

>>16158801
Dunning-Kruger-victimized twitter retard.
If anything the cringe methods of protesting a consequence of the general intellectual decline and retreat to emotion and shallowness, something to which this retard is clearly contributing.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:16:07 UTC No. 16158991

Unless you are advocating for my political views, then you are mature and based.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:16:17 UTC No. 16158992

>It's another social media outrage screencap thread

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:16:44 UTC No. 16158994

>>16158980
>No, having your movement restricted illegally is an infringement on your rights
Being stuck in traffic is not "having your movement restricted" in the sense that is prohibited by rights. They're not holding you. You're free to go. It's only the road that's blocked, which is of course illegal for other reasons, but it's not an infringement on your rights, and more than a tree is an infringement on your rights even though it also prevents you from driving your car there.
Protestors also tend to let emergence services pass, so the argument that it's a threat doesn't quite hold either.
>It's an act that doesn't affect the state one bit.
If enough people are inconvenienced, the state will certainly have to take notice.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:22:52 UTC No. 16159006

This would be true if they didn't get their way. But the BLM riots were hyper-successful in getting their way. Police funding across the country was slashed, like 70% of cops hired since are DEI, and tons of conservative veteran cops were pushed out. They simply won.

And the current protests are winning too. Public sentiment has swung widely in the favor of the pro-Palestinians.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:26:13 UTC No. 16159018

>>16158994
No, obstructing a path is an infringement on my right of movement, it's a bona fide infringement. A tree doesn't violate the law by falling on my path, but you do if you place it there.
>Protestors also tend to let emergence services pass, so the argument that it's a threat doesn't quite hold either.
Unreliable, and also funny that you assume that 'emergency' must mean something that requires a state vehicle to pass and never the ordinary man himself. A fine bootlicker.
>If enough people are inconvenienced, the state will certainly have to take notice
If it was truly their intention I would say they're idiotic since the state can make itself way more popular by cracking their skulls. Instead, I'm aware that their actions are not directed towards the state at all, and they are merely an act of hostility towards ordinary people. It is fitting after all, the only reason they care about that conflict is because it involves light-skinned people.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:28:02 UTC No. 16159024

>>16159018
>If it was truly their intention I would say they're idiotic since the state can make itself way more popular by cracking their skulls.
Ah yes, I forgot, you're a fascist, of course

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:32:09 UTC No. 16159038

>>16158801
nice theory but have you considered that for most of history children didn't have someone dedicated to caring for them and that this was only a temporary phenomenon that lasted like a couple decades?

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:33:28 UTC No. 16159043

>>16158892
Most people are trying to get to work on time to avoid getting fired, obviously it will generate some frustration. Protesters don't seem to have that kind of problems, so what's their excuse? Personally I think people should have right to protest by blocking roads, but only if people who are getting to trouble because of that, should have legal right to drive over the protesters.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:34:53 UTC No. 16159050

>>16159024
Reminder the general public supported the national guardsmen actions at Kent State. Don't throw rocks, and you won't get shot. The only reason the rioter's victim narrative prevailed - and, in general, the narrative that the 60's were this exciting time fondly remembered - was because most of the people who experienced the 60's as they actually were - a time of chaos, disorder, and low morale - simply died out. The fact that the parasitic intelligentsia class favored the rioters to begin with was the icing on the cake.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:35:56 UTC No. 16159054

>>16158801
I thinks it's something else called the n*gger effect.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:37:05 UTC No. 16159061

>>16159043
>>16159050
I think protestors should just open fire on cars with machine guns, if drivers are going to be such whiny cunts about it

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:41:47 UTC No. 16159070

>>16159061
Might as well, they despise ordinary people anyway

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:43:13 UTC No. 16159073

>>16159070
If you are meant to be a representative of "ordinary people" I can fully understand.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:45:33 UTC No. 16159079

>>16159073
There is nothing more upstanding and pro-social than being aligned against college protesters and traffic-blockers.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 14:48:44 UTC No. 16159090

>>16159079
I hope you get run over by a cop car.