The whole thing at discussion here is meeting new people.

My reply was not to "the whole thing at discussion here", it was to a specific comment from LouNeko, and about how he was raised in such a way that he belies that "there is no environment or time where an approach would be appreciated."

…he’s saying that women broadly, you know, women he doesn’t already know, loudly said “don’t approach us”, so, he didn’t.

That's not what he said. What he said was this:

I was raised on the premise that women want to be left alone and be independent which taught me that there is no environment or time where an approach would be appreciated.

He didn't say "women" loudly said anything; only that he was "raised on the premise", with no indication of who it was pushing that idea on him. Where did you get the idea that he's affected by something that (some) women loudly said? Not from his comment, which is the sole basis for my reply.

This is an antagonistically useless thing to say.

I am willing to accept that my words might be useless. I utterly eject your accusation of antagonism. On the contrary, I'm deeply sympathetic to LouNeko's plight. I asked about the nature of his friend group because it is an important aspect to escaping loneliness, not to give him shit about it. Ultimately my goal was to suggest to him that there is a crack in that premise, a route to escape through. That is to say, while it might be inappropriate to make passes at strangers, the friends of your friends are not strangers, and companionship might be there for him.

As for you: In my opinion, you likely misinterpreted my comment as antagonistic due to a hyper-vigilant instinct to white knight the victims of male loneliness (which is noble), or to defend men from women (which is kinda weird, but being broken-hearted makes us lash out, so I get it).

But your decision to reply to the fantasy of what you thought I meant rather than what I actually wrote is just a waste of my time and yours.