Just want to make a quick point on this shooting that occurred in Manhattan. Two are reportedly dead, including the gunman. Initial reports suggest that the man was recently fired from his job at a firm inside the Empire State Building. Further details are of course sketchy so my argument is speculative.
I’ve previously responded to articles written after James Holmes shot up the Colorado movie theater. A few commentators suggested that Holmes had some sort of white male entitlement complex. As a white male he felt he had a right to certain resources. He deserved certain life outcomes and any setback was met with outrage. Mixed with his psychological issues, a mass murderer was born.
But job related shootings seem more common over the past several decades than the random psychopathic rampage. Instead of “white male entitlement” being the cause of such shootings, there seems to be an “Occupy Wall Street” type mentality. People who get fired from their jobs must believe that they were wrongly fired. They believe that the job they were let go from was their property. As if you can own a position with a firm. We could even make the case that Holmes had an entitlement mentality not based on his race but based on the vaunted position held by students in our society. Massive pushes for “student rights” have drastically altered campuses across the nation.
There are a lot of moving parts here because I feel bad for anyone who gets fired (unless it’s an incident like Omar Thornton’s who got fired for stealing but then made up other excuses to justify his outrage). The Manhattan shooter likely had other outside pressures that he felt justified his going on a rampage. But the question will be, what ungirds a person’s belief that they have had something taken from them that was previously theirs? From whence that privilege comes? I’d argue that Marxian arguments that teach workers that they are locked in battle against their bosses creates a conflict which helps push marginally mentally healthy individuals to lash out in dramatic fashion.
Like this:
Like Loading...
I’m not going to comment on shooters, but the general idea.
Employers, bosses, unions, etc tend to promise people a lot of things in the future in exchange for work today. Then when it comes time to make due on the promises they fall through. This isn’t some sinister conspiracy, it happens all the time. Especially with young workers who often have little bargaining power and figure they’ve got a lot of future ahead of them.
Add to that the usual office politics and backstabbing. It’s no surprise that people snap sometimes. You don’t need an entitlement complex to know when you are getting screwed.
According to Yahoo news, the shooter was “a disgruntled women’s accessories designer named Jeffrey Johnson”. Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions here, but not many straight dudes are employed in the profession of designing women’s accessories. This begs the question, was the Empire shooter driven by gay privilege?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112621/-What-James-Holmes-and-the-Colorado-Movie-Massacre-Tell-Us-About-White-Male-Privilege
Turnabout is fair play.
Pingback: Manhattan Shooter's Occupy Wall Street Mentality « Gucci Little Piggy | Occupy Wall Street Info
Your view is a total fallacy. You fail to realize occupy is a peacful protest, adressing real issues that exist. Is there some lazy/entitlement issues with ows sure… but you negate that there has been a reduction of jobs, and distrbuted wealth in the country. I can assure you, life is most unpleasent for people who can’t pay their fines an bills in the confines of nyc.
Was this wacko just for his shooting. No.
Does your bad analogy somehow throw peaceful ows protesters in the same boat as this murderer? Not on your life.
I could go on some rant about how he as a police point of view… if something threatens your existence.. shoot it dead, ask questions later.
Spare me
Pingback: Manhattan Shooter's Occupy Wall Street Mentality « Gucci Little Piggy | PAULitics.US – Wake Up America
To follow up on asdf – most employment contracts are utterly one-sided. I understand the necessity of a large employer needing to protect themselves in a world of endless ‘employees rights’ legislation, but often these agreements are used to violate the spirit of the agreement: ie that if the worker shows up, works hard, and accomplishes the companies task, that they will become part of the family.
Many companies today rely upon rent-seeking, not competence, to maintain their market share. Because a previous generation established their reputation and contacts, and because to start such a business would require billions in loans with a long-term payoff, no competition arises. They run their businesses like they’re a social club, promoting the cool kids over the incompetent (think ‘Peace Time Army’), and those who worked long hours, thought strategically, and covered up for the mistakes made by their bosses are often sacrificed on the altar of ‘we just don’t like you’ because they failed to follow all 108 of the contradictory rules that were imposed upon them.
Being angry about this doesn’t seem like entitlement to me. Most people just want a fair shake.
I’ve worked for a few lying abusive assholes who went out of their way to hurt me and try to destroy my life. Maybe if more of these types get treated like this, then management will get the message to treat their employees like actual human beings.
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You 8.26.12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Stop hating on bankers.
It’ll get you killed.