This has nothing whatsoever to do with Dr Ryan. However, her post just reminded me of something...
My account is--as anyone taking any notice would realise--fairly radical. I use an extremely 'liberal' and unfettered voice and tone in this setting (X, which is a bit crazy overall).
I am a self-declared selective Schopenhaurian anti-natalist. I therefore often tell incels and similar anonymous trolls on X that they should only blame their parents for their disappointing looks/intelligence/talent etc. and not blame and attack--for example--the whole of womankind, or gays, or transpeople because of said hangups.
It should go without saying that this does NOT mean that anyone should murder their Mum, or any other woman. If you're an ugly, dumb, unfortunate, angry incel then direct your anger appropriately and seek counselling. Just be a queen and don't be a drag; or be a Buddhist ascetic; or be into tgirls; or be generally stoic about it; or be an intellectual (read a lot); or be a bisexual in a rock band. Hell do all of those things at once. Just don't be a murdery force of more suffering.
I realise that unfortunately this appeal is going to just make some pathological people with no capacity for empathy even more angry, and that's one reason why I often promote selective Schopenhaurian anti-natalism, according to which 'doctrine' (it's hardly a doctrine, and more of a current personal opinion) parents with low to average IQs, or with serious APD or related psychopathologies, should be encouraged not to reproduce.
I realise this is shocking to some people, but my reason for it is my rule-consequentialist-cum-sentimentalist stance. That's the rule based version of Bentham and Mill's classical utilitarianism plus Hume's moral sentimentalism.
The simple premise of utilitarianism is that the right action in any situation is that action which increases happiness and decreases suffering for the most people. It's a form of consequentialism, and the rule based version helps with some of the epistemic and demandingness objections to the classical version.
(Epistemic objection: no human can successfully run the moral 'logic/math' required to get to the right action in time in an emergency. Demandingness objection: the burden on the person's life and resources in order to achieve the right action is too great and unreasonable, and counterproductive.)
The rule based version says that one should follow the/a rule which tends to increase happiness and decrease suffering for the most people and for the individual in a situation.
Oddly, many people find being thus opposed to human suffering to be repugnant somehow. I confess that I deeply distrust those people. In my experience they're usually really all about their own happiness whilst they simultaneously tell their subordinates, followers, flock, or clients that happiness is not important, and that suffering is to be 'embraced'.
In fact there are entire religions which thrive because of human suffering, and if the human suffering went away, they would disappear. They're more invested in preserving their own existence than in alleviating and ending human suffering.
Science, on the other hand (especially medical science) seems to have a pretty damned good track record for eliminating/mitigating human suffering. (Vaccines, microbial science, etc.)
(And before any genius starts brain-farting the obvious fact that science can also be used to hurt people: Semmelweis and women's natal morbidity; The Polio vaccine; The HPV vaccine; Anaesthesia; I win already and I could keep going all day.)
Essentially, I am ideologically opposed to human suffering, or to causing human suffering. Do I have a great personal track record? Not really. But I am determined.
You can see the way this works in the way I deal with anonymous, bigoted, dangerous, pathological cowards (who are in fact group bullies) on X. I give them no quarter because they are very likely to harm someone due to their ignorance, bigotry, group-bullying, and lack of insight, and someone telling them what they are and not pandering to them like Saint Jordan does is most likely important. If they don't like me, I don't care, and I am not trying to sell them a book like St Jordan is. In fact if they don't like me, then that's good. It means I did something right, and ethical.
My Schopenhaurian anti-natalism is selective because Schopenhauer said that nobody should reproduce. I am more optimistic, and think that healthy, strong, talented, intellectually gifted people should reproduce, but everyone else should definitely consider not doing so.
This sounds prima facie just like eugenics, but there is at least one problem. The first objective of eugenics is to eliminate weakness in the service of a kind of worship of the ubermensch. However, my objective is only the utilitarian one: stop human suffering. I dislike suffering, not weakness. Splitting hairs? I don't think so, but many do think so. In philosophy we pay a lot of pedantic attention to whether a distinction matters, and we are averse to equivocation.
(By the way: I have zero problem with black people, trans people, gay people, Slavic people, or secular Jewish people (i.e. the race not the fideist cult).)
If you want to off your Mum or some woman who was unfortunate enough to get involved with you: don't do it, and don't reproduce. You should blame your parents before you blame anyone else, but the solution is estrangement (or perhaps suing them), not murder.
Recently in the news some poor unfortunate, suffering incel-type man cut off his own penis and set it on fire in his Mum's garage. Provided he wasn't trying to burn Mum in her house: this is the preferred solution in comparison to hurting Mum.
For the record: my late Mum and I did not like each other one bit, but I never considered harming her. Moreover I knew enough about her history to not want her to suffer any more: extreme childhood poverty; child sexual abuse by her father; nearly dying from exposure from having to sleep on the patio of her parent's tiny house in winter in Kingswood; emotional and verbal violence by her spouse; likely neurotic mental health issues; lack of educational opportunities. That's not even half of it. What a horrible nightmare that lady's life was. Yet (apart from apparently trying to abort me using alcohol mid-late term) she always tried to be the best mother possible. She even had an idealised, inflated image of how tall and how great I was (which caused stress!)
