Posted on Nov 8, 2017
American Hyper-Capitalism Breeds the Lonely, Alienated Men Who Become Mass Killers
882
12
13
3
3
0
Interesting analysis GySgt John Olson 1LT Sandy Annala SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL LTC Jerry Hallman
American Hyper-Capitalism Breeds the Lonely, Alienated Men Who Become Mass Killers
Posted from alternet.orgPosted in these groups: 
Crime
Crime
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
OK, I read the article.
It's a left wing propaganda puff piece, designed to capitalize on the emotional outfall from the recent mass shootings to further gun control, while bashing men and Western ideology as a whole.
It is full of half-truths, twisted facts, and out right lies. I'd dissect it for you but it is honestly not worth my time. If you have 20 minutes to waste, then feel free to read it and see how many distortion and contradictory facts you discover in the first three paragraphs.
For those who have better things to do, I'll summarize the article for you. "Capitalism is bad, guns are bad, masculinity is toxic, men are bad, and white men are especially bad".
This quote from the article sums it up nicely, "American white men once received two wage supplements in what was a sexist and racist labor market. One wage supplement was for whiteness and the other for maleness."
Capitalism is bad. Guns are bad. Men are bad. Masculine men are really bad. And masculine white men are the devil. Just keep repeating that until you believe it and I am sure the good Commissar will spare you a trip to the Re-Education Facility.
It's a left wing propaganda puff piece, designed to capitalize on the emotional outfall from the recent mass shootings to further gun control, while bashing men and Western ideology as a whole.
It is full of half-truths, twisted facts, and out right lies. I'd dissect it for you but it is honestly not worth my time. If you have 20 minutes to waste, then feel free to read it and see how many distortion and contradictory facts you discover in the first three paragraphs.
For those who have better things to do, I'll summarize the article for you. "Capitalism is bad, guns are bad, masculinity is toxic, men are bad, and white men are especially bad".
This quote from the article sums it up nicely, "American white men once received two wage supplements in what was a sexist and racist labor market. One wage supplement was for whiteness and the other for maleness."
Capitalism is bad. Guns are bad. Men are bad. Masculine men are really bad. And masculine white men are the devil. Just keep repeating that until you believe it and I am sure the good Commissar will spare you a trip to the Re-Education Facility.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Could be worse.... you could be "counting trees" instead of that Re-education camp.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I do get some of what the authors are saying but do not agree with their conclusions. Men do seem to have some of the issues that are mentioned (loneliness and being the perpetrators of most mass-shootings) in the article but I do not believe that it is because of hyper-capitalism as we do not have a true capitalist market in our country. A lot of their direction just seems to be towards directing people to socialist causes and/ or against white men. The problem with their conclusion is that men have always been more violent than women, it is nothing new. Capitalism did not make men that way, and white men are not more violent than men of any other color even if they perpetrate most mass-shootings. Other violent crimes (even murders) can be attributed to males of other colors at a greater rate than they can be to whites.
"Many men look to recoup their lost powers." Why did men lose their "powers"? Was it capitalism or did something else happen in the 1970s when the authors say all of this started? Capitalism had been around the US for 100+ years at that point, always looking for a way to reduce costs and increase profits. Henry Ford and the assembly line is a good example and that happened 60 years earlier.
People are becoming more socially isolated and that is an issue but can that be attributed to why the Las Vegas shooting happened since we do not have a motive as to why the shooter did what he did? Can it even be attributed to the Texas shooting as he seems to have been after his ex-in-laws in that case and had a history of violent behavior going back to high school? I can see the loneliness being attributed to the higher suicide rates and lower mortality rates in males but not the instances the article makes its case around.
So why do these people act in this matter? It is easy to say mental illness but that is just a cop out way to deflect any serious thinking on the topic. I do give the authors props on this matter as they did seem to take serious consideration into their thesis but I see it as a flawed work based on their biases against capitalism and for marxism.
"Many men look to recoup their lost powers." Why did men lose their "powers"? Was it capitalism or did something else happen in the 1970s when the authors say all of this started? Capitalism had been around the US for 100+ years at that point, always looking for a way to reduce costs and increase profits. Henry Ford and the assembly line is a good example and that happened 60 years earlier.
People are becoming more socially isolated and that is an issue but can that be attributed to why the Las Vegas shooting happened since we do not have a motive as to why the shooter did what he did? Can it even be attributed to the Texas shooting as he seems to have been after his ex-in-laws in that case and had a history of violent behavior going back to high school? I can see the loneliness being attributed to the higher suicide rates and lower mortality rates in males but not the instances the article makes its case around.
So why do these people act in this matter? It is easy to say mental illness but that is just a cop out way to deflect any serious thinking on the topic. I do give the authors props on this matter as they did seem to take serious consideration into their thesis but I see it as a flawed work based on their biases against capitalism and for marxism.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A little about the authors for you:
Harriet Fraad is a mental health counselor and hypnotherapist in practice in New York City. She is a founding member of the feminist movement and the journal Rethinking Marxism. For 40 years, she has been a radical committed to transforming US personal and political life.
Richard David Wolff (born April 1, 1942) is an American Marxian economist, well known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis
________________________________________________________________________________
So you have a couple of Marxists now trying to use mass shootings to push their brand of Marxist tyranny and you fall for it hook, line and sinker or let me guess, you were just posting this for conversation purposes. When did you find yourself throwing in with the communists and Marxists or did you just not bother to see who wrote this and what their motivation might be?
Harriet Fraad is a mental health counselor and hypnotherapist in practice in New York City. She is a founding member of the feminist movement and the journal Rethinking Marxism. For 40 years, she has been a radical committed to transforming US personal and political life.
Richard David Wolff (born April 1, 1942) is an American Marxian economist, well known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis
________________________________________________________________________________
So you have a couple of Marxists now trying to use mass shootings to push their brand of Marxist tyranny and you fall for it hook, line and sinker or let me guess, you were just posting this for conversation purposes. When did you find yourself throwing in with the communists and Marxists or did you just not bother to see who wrote this and what their motivation might be?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - No it doesn't. First, the authors self identify this way. It is how the present themselves to the public. They are self identified Marxists. I point that out as it is not clear that is who they are and their world view/ideology. Those are important facts when reading a piece such as this. The truth about the writers is not an ad homenim attack. It provides context for others that might read the piece.
I know you have taken your class on logical fallacies and that is great but don't become the logical fallacy police on RP. You will be very, very busy.
I know you have taken your class on logical fallacies and that is great but don't become the logical fallacy police on RP. You will be very, very busy.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Cpl Jeff N. - I certainly agree with your last statement, though some are predisposed toward logical fallacy, mostly unaware they are doing it, while others employ logical fallacies fully aware of what they are doing. I was just curious on which side of the line you stood. It appears that you are aware of the fallacy, but choose to employ it anyway because you have rationalized its use, and you obviously understand the value of the logical fallacy, especially in persuading those who are unaware.
Whether the authors self identify or not, as opposed to someone else characterizing the authors, really has nothing to do with it. Your comments are centered on the authors rather that the material and qualify as an Ad Homenim attack.
I was just curious if you were aware of your methods, and it would appear you are.
As far as what I do or do not do, I will keep my own counsel on that.
Whether the authors self identify or not, as opposed to someone else characterizing the authors, really has nothing to do with it. Your comments are centered on the authors rather that the material and qualify as an Ad Homenim attack.
I was just curious if you were aware of your methods, and it would appear you are.
As far as what I do or do not do, I will keep my own counsel on that.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - The method wasn't employed Steve but nice try. You haven't really made a case for the ad hominem logical fallacy being employed. I provided background on the writers that is material to the piece they wrote that was not in the piece they wrote. It was not an attack on them as that is how they identify themselves in their web presence.
If pointing out the background and possible bias of a writer, in your mind, is an attack then you need the remedial class on logical fallacies. If they were merely left of center Keynesians and I called them Marxists with no evidence they you would have a point. That isn't what happened here. Back to logical fallacy class for you Steve. BTW I do have a full sheet of all of the major logical fallacies and consult it regularly.
If pointing out the background and possible bias of a writer, in your mind, is an attack then you need the remedial class on logical fallacies. If they were merely left of center Keynesians and I called them Marxists with no evidence they you would have a point. That isn't what happened here. Back to logical fallacy class for you Steve. BTW I do have a full sheet of all of the major logical fallacies and consult it regularly.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
What you did what the textbook example of an Ad Hominem attack.
Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example (Purdue University Online Writing Lab):
"Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies."
in contrast with
" Marxists now trying to use mass shootings to push their brand of Marxist tyranny"
You made no statement or assertion regarding the material, but simply chose to attack the writers. It may be you that needs some remediation. Even within the context of our discussion here you are employing a different logical fallacy... can you pick it out from your full sheet of fallacies?
Look, if you wish to purposely employ logical fallacies (and then deny that you are doing so), I suppose that is your right, but it leads to an entirely separate discussion about ethics.
Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example (Purdue University Online Writing Lab):
"Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies."
in contrast with
" Marxists now trying to use mass shootings to push their brand of Marxist tyranny"
You made no statement or assertion regarding the material, but simply chose to attack the writers. It may be you that needs some remediation. Even within the context of our discussion here you are employing a different logical fallacy... can you pick it out from your full sheet of fallacies?
Look, if you wish to purposely employ logical fallacies (and then deny that you are doing so), I suppose that is your right, but it leads to an entirely separate discussion about ethics.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google