Even as an introverted, socially awkward guy, I understand the real answer is better socialization. When the only encounter you have is a brief awkward attempt to hit on someone, which has always been low probability for most of us, you’re going to be frustrated. Too bad there weren’t more ways in everyday life for that frustrated guy to have gotten to know more people, recognized women as people, had varying levels of relationships with varying people.
If that means less women are dead? Yay indeed.
I mean, it’s just gonna make more incels, so that’s not gonna work long-term if the goal is to keep people alive.
Even as an introverted, socially awkward guy, I understand the real answer is better socialization. When the only encounter you have is a brief awkward attempt to hit on someone, which has always been low probability for most of us, you’re going to be frustrated. Too bad there weren’t more ways in everyday life for that frustrated guy to have gotten to know more people, recognized women as people, had varying levels of relationships with varying people.
That requires a societal change, and certain societies are worst suited than others.
I don’t think a society that objects to demonstrations of affection in general or values guns over lives is well equipped, for instance.
Too many idiots breed already. Some less won’t do any damage.
A lot of school shooters were incels. It’s not a reproduction thing.
School shooters wouldn’t exist in a less sick society without a fetish towards guns.
Gun control can reduce, but not eliminate death and suffering. Sane gun laws are only part of the formula.
Yeah, having a sane society would also help. The US already lost the battle there.
Why is this apparently controversial?