>I think the main deciding factor is being exposed to a certain brand of toxic masculinity that promotes misogyny and equates violence with power. One of the strongest red flags for mass shooters, leaving depression, bullying, etc etc far behind, is a history of misogynistic behavior and domestic violence.
The forefathers either had enough hope, restraint, or we have simply forgotten of all the times they took emotional decisions. I can't think of anything personally besides some old fiction[0] that would back up the 3rd possibility. The second possibility seems backwards to me, if anything it should be the opposite, modern men would be less inclined to violence towards women, if not, then what benefit did 200+ years of womens activism do? And the first I have no perspective on, but consider the very real chance that young men today unlike their forefathers see no way out (Even if this perspective is only an illusion, it remains very real in their minds), which the original blogpost tries to address by telling them there is a light at the end of the tunnel and offers activities they can do right now.
For the record, most of the people against "toxic masculinity" would classify the standing under the window of the girl that rejected you to be stalking, and an extension of that toxic behavior.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorrows_of_Young_Werther#C...
Yes, but that is not my point. What I am trying to say that when those young men face hardships, instead of internalizing their response or directing it towards the object of their desire, they somehow decide that the solution to their problem is murdering a bunch of elementary school children. They see themselves as the wronged party against the world, and the way to rectify that injustice is to commit an act of violence against someone who has nothing to do with their troubles.