How is "society" to blame for you being non-sexually satisfied?
You aren't entitled to sex "simply because you exist" or imagine yourself to be a "nice guy", "good girl", or "super duper awesome" in some way or another, (particularly if it not's consensual).
So no, "society" is not automatically to blame; maybe "you" aren't even to blame and it's just bad luck; either way, what is the point of your website?
The only way I could possibly seeing it being a society issue is if you were campaigning for legalized prostitution, or something like that - so why aren't you starting a movement and doing something productive, instead of rationalizing psychotic individuals' motives for murder plots?
More often than not, I see people who simply "don't care", or selfishly or lazily just do the "bare minimum" they absolutely have to simply to "get by".The problem begins with anybody declaring the world a place where anybody's dreams can come true. What's worse is that those like yourself are actually more often than not, the very same assholes who try to tell others how you EARN your own successes and that those who fail are just not trying hard enough. This very mentality is extant in those who DO believe that there must be something intrinsically WRONG with themselves with respect to others telling them that they are just NEVER right regardless of what they TRY.
So you're assuming that anyone who has "succeeded" in some avenue of life solely did it because they "look good", and not because of other talents, character traits, or values at all (despite there being many successful people who are not "sex symbols"). Fine, believe that to your grave if you want to...When you have arrogant lucky 'beautiful' people asserting they EARNED their successes and/or add how GOD favors them uniquely, you get some who actually learn that this world's 'promises' aren't actually so FAIR.
My honest opinion, given that you're fixated on physical "looks" is that the main cause of "unaesthetic" physique in this consumerist society is morbid obesity; which is the result of what any reasonable, legally licensed doctor would assert is the result of following unhealthy diet and exercise routines; (if you want to argue other philosophy here such as concepts of "free will" or "determinism", or other excuses which it has been well documented that the human mind is a genius at inventing, I'm not bored enough to care; even if "free will" doesn't exist in some abstract speculation, the reality is that people nevertheless do change their diets, exercise routines, quit smoking, and so on, so it makes no difference, beyond what selfish, dependent and hapless individuals will intentionally misinterpret it to be).To fix this requires first NOT insulting these people as being DEFECTIVE as though by some CHOICE of their behavior assumed EQUAL among all people.
I'm not a bodybuilder or a fitness model, and not a huge fan of working out, but by simply "not being obese", I am already 'hot' to some women, at least compared to the 50 or more percent of the "average" unhealthier population members who are. On the physical level, there are correlations between health and physical beauty, and this isn't reasonably deniable, whatever subjectivity elements are also present in theory or practice, or trends and variations in "standards" thereof fluctuate from time-to-time, advertisement to adverstisement based on whatever childish or lowbrow interest it is pandered to (though, for that matter, most serious theories of arts or aesthetics to begin with do not reduce it solely to the "physical" or "pornographic", which is just the lowest common denominator, or the 6th grade or 100 IQ or less demographic, which is what most "beauty"-related advertisement and media is marketed to to begin with, or else it wouldn't sell to people of superior intelligence or aesthetic interest to begin with.
Ss compared to more serious, time-tested aesthetic theories or theories of art, whether art which depicts people, such as Creation of Adam, or other art or creative areas such as literature, abstract arts, and so on).
The law will not by that excuse for your violence, nihilism, or angst, period; the reality is that some people never marry but managed to live fulfilling lives; or even regret being married and advise against it.The vast majority are MORE likely worse off if THEY had this reality. How often do you run into someone who could not stand being alone for more than a week after they break up with someone? If their 'pain' is justified for such a petty concern in contrast to someone who doesn't even get ANY relationship at all, then imagine what would occur if this large percentage of the population who DO get success 'normally' were denied the same? I think we'd see that in contrast, these odd lone individuals who blow up would be relatively SANE relative to most.
Some philosophers such as Epicurus even argued that being "single" but having decent platonic friends is superior to being "married" or dating and having a miserable relationship. Plus "relationships" aren't something you "get" or are "handed out" to people, they're a voluntary contract formaly or informally entered into by both parties.
So by "isolated", you're not talking about "solitary" confinement; nothing stopping you from "interacting with others" that you have some common interest with, and the internet hosts "free porn" on demand for those of you who have no ambitions or dreams about life other than masturbating.
For that matter, have any of you ever attempted to date girls who aren't stereotypically "hot, sexy, attractive", or with... similar interests to yours, whether it be... err... Minecraft, anime, or anything else? Or is it only the top 10% hottest chicks on Tinder who you are lamenting rejection by?
This is a deep subject, but in reality, in 1st world countries, most basic material wants are already met, even for those of "lower income", the majority of them are or incorporate "higher mental wants", with many base on comparison to what others supposedly "have" (e.x. a faster car, a hotter girlfriend, a newer cell phone, etc); this is documented by economists such as Jolan Chang which distinguishes "absolute poverty" (e.x. famine, starvation) from "relative poverty" (e.x. "poor" in-come wise in comparison to Warren Buffet or Bill Gates).If society wants to stop this, they'd have to first RESPECT the reality that most people DO NOT get even the minimal of necessities let alone the 'luxuries' beyond that, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY DO or CAN DO. Then we can learn to figure out how to HONESTLY redirect people toward their capacities AS THEY ARE and not based upon irrational "will power" beliefs and dreams.
I don't consider that just or excusable, no; if you're talking about idiots or idiotic content in mass media; most of it is written for the 6th grade reading level or 100 IQ demographic, and will turn people's brains to mush, so turning off the nonsense media would be good or great for starters; even most of the so called "news" is the mental or intellectual equivalent of the National Enquirer and is intentionally sensationalist and insipid simply because it sells to stupid or worthless people of the lowest common denominator (e.x. reporting on every Tweet on Trump's twitter account is not "news" or "current events" in the same way that a major event, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks are)..While it may be admirable that the Christmas children stories everywhere that tell people they just have to CHOOSE TO BELIEVE in order to see Santa Claus or other most desired wish, this kind of 'positivity' itself is NEGATIVE when it imposes upon everyone to interpret their failures of success as ONLY DUE TO THEMSELVES UNIQUELY. We need to first rid the world of those arrogant idiots who think it is alright for them to HAVE unilimited powers of wealth or that it is alright to flaunt one's default genetic 'beauty' as though their success is NOT DUE to how the majority PROPS them up to succeed, we will always have SOME people who WILL justly flip their lids and start shooting up people for their confusion.
Um... no; shooting innocent people over some perceived and/or delusional "wrong" is terrorism; thinking that self-identified "incels" their assorted counterparts are "not well" in some way or another is not "terrorism".To me, your own behavior is precisely the very quality of these 'terrorists' because your anger is precisely their own justification of interpreting others as relatively TERRORISTS against them! You should be trying to appeal to them by looking at their perspective with understanding and then try to CORRECT what flaw in their reasoning may exist OR to recognize where their own IS CORRECT but may need redirecting in a way that they CAN GET some happiness. Censoring them is just the first stage in justifying them to act out.
Um no, if by "shut up" you mean "involuntarily committed", then the law cannot voluntarily commit someone to an institution unless they've been deemed to be a credible threat of harm to themselves or others.I am reminded of an example I used before. Imagine a pet dog a large family has in a household where everyone is just thinking of themselves. When the dog is a cute puppy, they feed and attend to him. But as he grows older and less 'cute', the members begin to 'ignore' them and while no one intends harm, they might starve the dog when EACH member thinks another family member would be doing so.
The dog at first begins to bark louder when he's hungry and still not fed. But given the assumption that another is feeding him, EACH family member confuses the dog as merely barking 'mad' as though selfishly wanting unnecessary attention. Then the dog begins to nibble and gets interpreted as being 'bad'. So they lock him up in some back room or yard out of sight.
Eventually, this dog WILL go apparently 'mad' and this behavior may be irreversible for it NOT getting what it perceives as 'needed' While this NEED is 'real' it is equally as 'real' for one WANTING something they deem essential to their life. I just use this extreme to get the perspective understood by the dog here.
If you believe the 'dog' IS being fed, as all the members thought so, this denies the dog's barking as meaning anything but to 'terrorize' the family. And so this appropriately gives a good analogy of how those 'Incels' may act out. To diminish them as 'bad' without and only worthy of being 'shut up', then you are as worthy of those 'dogs' to bite back harder.
If you simply mean girls or women saying "no", "not replying", or "blocking" you on Plenty of Fish, then it's their right as citizens to not enter into a relationship with someone for whatever reason they want to.
And no, even if you were in a "3rd world country" with archaic notions such as "arranged marriage", you would have been in for a shocker; the idea that "every man was equally entitled to a relationship" would not have been entertained, it would have been "high status men" such as kings or nobility marrying multiple wives, with "low status men" in some cases even being made into eunuch and forced to work in the king's haram.
So "incels" even so much as simply being allowed to "exist" and fester in their own malcontent is more than would have been afforded them in many ancient times past.
Give me a realistic proposal on how "we" would be able to do that, whatever that even means?Do you understand this analogy? If not, do you at least agree that we have to at least stop propping up 'dreams' as being realistically able to become true for everything and anything for one who is able to 'try hard enough'?