So now that the dust has settled, what's the official Veeky Forums verdict on elliot's work?

so now that the dust has settled, what's the official Veeky Forums verdict on elliot's work?

>He fell for the Elliot Rodger meme
A lot of what he said isn't necessarily wrong, but it's not anything that wasn't pretty obvious.
It's just a bunch of ranting by a turbo beta who was too much of an idiot to take advantage, or even appreciate, the privileges he was given by being born into a very well off family.

...

he was a really, hilariously shitty writer.
He said he read books constantly, yet continued to make basic grammatical errors at 22 and had the vocabulary of a highschool freshman.
As a person he seemed pretty shitty, like a whiny child but it's certainly funny just to think about him

interesting because any suicidal author is going to be more honest

horribly boring because most of it was written in rememberance, so its all tainted by modern elliott

a 12 year project which he started in youth and finished as an adult showing his entire transformation would be 1000x better than the current shit where hes basically constantly talking over the events of his life by his disgust with women/popular kids

>sexual revolution
>portrayed as communist utopia

No one has ever done that.

His point about sexual permissiveness being a marketing strategy is intro to culture studies tier analysis and he still manages to garble it by imposing his own reactionary value judgment (that a return to an earlier cultural form is preferable or even possible).

He's trash and his writing is trash. Anyone who takes it seriously isn't smart enough to actually read Baudrillard, Foucault, etc.

You say 'transformation'

Do you mean to say that you feel he was moulded into the psychopath he became, that he wasn't always bad?

>communal
>communist
Veeky Forums everyone

sleep tight, pizza

What I find most hilarious is that Veeky Forums's views on and experience (or lack thereof) with women mirror Elliot's to a degree but they also make fun of him.

Really makes you think.

Elliot is the result of what happens when you let your sexual-frustration team up with your autism and take control of your life. Most of us have enough self-control to keep both in check.

> trash

Stop using that word, it makes you sound like a homosexual.

> His point about sexual permissiveness being a marketing strategy is intro to culture studies tier analysis

What? He isn't saying sexuality is used to sell products (though that follows from what he is saying) but that sexual individualism is/was way of destroying the last non-marketed forms of life, the family.

> he still manages to garble it by imposing his own reactionary value judgment (that a return to an earlier cultural form is preferable or even possible).

If we take the idea that non-atomised/marketised forms of life are good (or at least a society with other forms of life is good) then why wouldn't a return to previous cultural forms be preferable?

has anyone watched the full Peter Molyneux video on this kid? I've never heard peter talk

>Peter Molyneux

I dislike Stephan Molyneux and watched (most) of that video because of my intense interest in Elliot Rodger at the time. It was pretty predictable, he threw a lot of shade on the mother/ mother figures of ER because Moly is a twat with his own mommy issues and everything to him his the fault of spanking and single mothers.

For example, he partly blamed the fact that Peter Rodger took nudes of his gf from the back (just her butt showing) in different locations or whatever. So Moly basically said that was damaging to Elliot, because what kind of parental figure would do that blah blah blah.

>all these illiterates missing that it's a Houellebecq quote
Why doesn't this board fucking REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEad?

hownuru?

>implying the family wasn't already marketized

He's positing a false predicate. Engels and Marx railed against the complicity of the family in the capitalist project as far back as the 19th century, well before "the sexual revolution." To pretend that sometime before the 60s the family was totally disconnected from the logic of the market and not directly responsible for the inculcation of bourgeois values is what snobby college Marxists would call "pure ideology."

As for your question about returning to previous cultural forms - it's not possible. You can't turn the clock back on the market. Culture comes from the relations of production in society. It's just as ridiculous to insist on dropping graphic novels for tapestry as it is to insist on dropping Tinder for whatever you think pre-sexual revolution values are. If you don't believe me, try convincing some multinational corporation like Apple to renounce gay marriage.

> To pretend that sometime before the 60s the family was totally disconnected from the logic of the market and not directly responsible for the inculcation of bourgeois values is what snobby college Marxists would call "pure ideology."


If we agree that, to however great an extent, the notion of people confronting the market as individuals is the greatest development of bourgeoisie values (which I assume you would be inclined to agree with if you believe in Marxian teleology) then to the extent that there are institutions that are not like this, the less marketed a society is. It's more complex than that, of course I'm sure that the 'family' in some manner was useful to the function of capitalism, or could be perceived through a capitalist lens (e.g. a division of labour, like in a factory) but it seems like it would have to be less so than a world after the sexual revolution.

> As for your question about returning to previous cultural forms - it's not possible. You can't turn the clock back on the market. Culture comes from the relations of production in society. It's just as ridiculous to insist on dropping graphic novels for tapestry as it is to insist on dropping Tinder for whatever you think pre-sexual revolution values are. If you don't believe me, try convincing some multinational corporation like Apple to renounce gay marriage.


Okay dude, I never mentioned whether returning to cultural forms was possible, just that (if we agree total marketisation is bad) then it would follow that it'd be preferable to do so, cetus paribus.

Also I'm not sure how can you say culture follows on from 'relations of production' but that the family was just as much an institution of the market economy as the later post-sexual revolution norms are.

Ellis did it better.

sleep tight pizza

Sleep tight, Pizza

Actually we have a long way to go. Polyamory is next, as relationships cease to make sense as anything other than consumer choices to suit passing individualized and compartmentalized tastes. Polyamorist's are already talking about how no one person can fulfill all of another person's desires, as if the point of a relationship were to 'find the perfect person' in the same sense as 'finding the perfect ketchup.' Individual people will even be broken down into their constituent sexual and romantic commodifiability: some are good at sex, some are good at watching movies with, some are good at raising children, etc.

Everyone goes through a transformation when reaching pubescence, psychopath or not

Your diction isn't much different than his, tee bee atche eff ay em.

So you agree with Elliot that the sexual revolution was a mistake?

sleep tight pizza

>tfw you intellectually recognise that both men and women are inherently narcissistic and selfish to a core but viscerally hate women for this fact whereas you're mostly indifferent to other men unless they wrong you specifically

What can I do to turn my misogyny into misanthropy?

sleep tight pizza

You hate women for it because it damages your chances of success (with them).
Become gay or celibate

become bisexual

you can't get a gf so you're mad

go gay, still be beta, and you won't get a bf either

misanthropy guaranteed

>what's the official Veeky Forums verdict on elliot's work?

It should be posted in every "red pill" thread as a cautionary tale against r9k and /pol/ thinking.

Sleep tight, Pizza

>Baudrillard
>smart

pick one

Pretty much this. Everything he write about is grossly oversimplified and just autistic to the core. He drones on about how much more he deserves, how he should win the lotto, get a billion dollar movie/book/sitcom deal, and how everyone else is trash.

I like the instances where he documents assaulting people or being an idiot. He tries to fight people for no reason and throws hot coffee on couples that are minding their own business.

sleep tight, pizza


▲ ▲

How anyone can take this guy as some sort of enlightened human being is beyond me

Sleep tight, pizza