>it's someone with deep mental illness who happened to turn it towards women

I don't think this was just happenstance. You don't just randomly become a misogynist because of mental illness. This kind of hatred is cultivated over time through what you are consciously and subconsciously taught and conclusions you are making about the world around you. That level of hatred eventually devolves into something clinically diagnosable sure but I don't think it's right to say that he just "happened" to direct his hatred at women.

I agree with you though on destigmatizing mental illness and that our systems are not set up to deal with cases like this well enough.

When religious people violently attack other people over religious beliefs, is it because of some kind of hatred cultivated over time that eventually devolves into something clinically diagnosable, or is it the other way around? Is it possible that a small subset of people with deep mental illness go into religion, politics, or any other self identity (possible as a form of finding social support), and through that the outgoing violence get focused towards a specific out group.

Cause and effect. It not happenstance since what people choose to self identify with is not random, but the chain of events can just as easily be explain from both directions.

As I understand: Anger is a common pool inside you that is instinctively directed toward the easiest outlet. If your boss yells at you, you yell at your subordinates or get ticked off at the cashier or yell at other drivers or get in an argument with your spouse, etc. (I mean, I hope not and I'm obviously not talking about you in particular, but you know the pattern). You don't direct your anger toward your boss for obvious reasons - not an easy outlet. Simlarly, people who are abused often become abusers of others, not of the people who hurt them.

This person obviously had great emotional problems and for whatever reason directed it at women. If somehow women weren't an option, they would find something else - it's not like they would otherwise be a happy, well-adjusted person.

This is what people need to understand about incels. It's grown and evolved into a political movement, with its own mythology, lingo and aesthetics, a community that actively seeks to radicalize and indoctrinate. People don't "come down with" inceldom, they identify with the propaganda and choose to identify with the movement, just as with neo-Nazism or any other extremist ideology. Then some of them inevitably take those ideals to their inevitable conclusion.

Yet I don't think this is what CBS wants people to take away from this. The CBS headline says terrorism and goes on about the government's report confirming but most folks won't even read past that headline.

Good summary thankyou.

> thing that would have been really helpful here would be to have one central dossier on this individual that encompassed all of their different negative interactions with law enforcement, their military discharge, etc. - but that very quickly gets into a level of big brother that I am uncomfortable with.

Yes. Let's not suppose some "system" would or could pick it up. What the individual needed was one reliable _person_ in their life, who loved him enough to guide him to getting help. Radical individualism plus social meida as a substitute for actual relationships is sowing bad seeds,

I agree with most of it, except this.

"and we need to shift law enforcement from a reactionary system to a preventative system."

Given their track record, this is much more likely to be abused than to help. It's a fairly common issue that PFA orders are abused during divorce proceedings. Things like PFAs and Red Flag laws are civil law which lacks many of the protections and rights associated with defense under criminal law.

Dishonorable discharge is kind of a big deal in the military, it comes with similar consequences to outright criminal behavior in the civilian world. So it would not be a huge violation of privacy if the police could put two and two together, since they've got their arrest/criminal history anyway.

EDIT: Parent comment was fixed, sorry for the confusion.

He wasn't dishonorably discharged - that poster was mistaken. He was honorably discharged.

'On June 9, 2010, SB was honorably discharged for “unacceptable conduct.”'

My mistake - I read the "unacceptable conduct" and automatically parsed that as dishonorably - will fix my post.

Part of the incel problem in general is that we generally don't teach boys how to socialize because society generally doesn't respond to their emotional state except when they react violently.

The problem is, like with many things in our current culture, we teach disruption and trauma. We actively teach people to be disruptive and to create trauma, and congratulate them on it. Some are of course learning.