Bitch About Hitchens Here

sensibleken

Beruthiel wrote: »

Nobody is perfect you know.
I also did not agree with the war in Iraq.
But, like other people in my life, I can still respect and care for someone who's opinion I completely disagree with.
Are you only surrounded with people who agree 100% on everything you believe?

What? no, and i wasnt surrounded by christopher hitchens either.

sensibleken

ShooterSF wrote: »

I doubt anyone familiar with your posts are shocked at the fact that you don’t care about people being helped free themselves from indoctrination but many of us here do so that'd probably explain the difference in opinion.

Care to elaborate on that? Are you confusing me with someone else?

ShooterSF

sensibleken wrote: »

Care to elaborate on that? Are you confusing me with someone else?

Oh **** I am. Blame the phone My humble apologies! Message erased.

_________
In that case you're just wrong :P

joseph brand

Gonzor wrote: »

Well I didnt want to comment on the troubles in the East (I assume thats what you're getting at) because I havent being there personally. But all the "middle easterners" I go to college with, they seem to think that religion isnt the problem at all.

Take Osama Bin Laden (the biggest boogey man there is/was in recent years) how many people of his own religion hate him and think what hes doing is wrong. Its a similar situation to our catholic priests abusing kids, the majority of us Catholics hate them and would believe what they are doing contradicts the religion.

I'm just guessing here, but, if those child raping priests really believed what they were preaching, would they not be afraid of 'eternal damnation' and burning for eternity in flames? Were they just in it for the money/ power/ something else?

Paedo priest = non-believer.

joseph brand

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The man was clearly insane. If ever a situtation demands doggy style, this is it!:eek:

As for hitchens, I always thought he was a bit of an asshole to be honest. I've seen no reason to change my view so far. He was undeniably smart and a good talker, but an asshole nonetheless.

Any reason why he was an asshole? It's always nice to back up a statement like that.

A man telling people to think for themselves and not be bullied by 'leaders', what a p*ick. :rolleyes:

Gonzor

Why is there so much vibes comming of this thread (and the other one) that pretty much says "Hitchens is the guy that taught us to think for ourselves".... Jesus Christ, are people that thick and stupid that they actually needed to be told at some point in their lives to 'think for themselves' :rolleyes:

Sonics2k

Gonzor wrote: »

Why is there so much vibes comming of this thread (and the other one) that pretty much says "Hitchens is the guy that taught us to think for ourselves".... Jesus Christ, are people that thick and stupid that they actually needed to be told at some point in their lives to 'think for themselves' :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone said that

They may have said he opened their eyes to new views, possibly changed their minds on some issues, but no-one said "taught us to think for ourselves" or similar.

Gonzor

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't think anyone said that

Joesph Brand: I did not have you in mind when I wrote my last post, so please dont see that post (or this post) as an attack on you. Im not going to say who, but theres one decent(ish) example of my original point in this thread, one or two in the other thread, and countless great examples on the comments on Hitchens youtube videos.

Sonics. Firstly I said "vibes", or in other words- nobody said that exact phrase. It was just impressions I was getting.

But coincidently enough, Joesph Brand posted right before my post (and his post wasnt there when I was typing mine up) and he pretty much used the same words I did.

Bandana boy

Gonzor wrote: »

Why is there so much vibes comming of this thread (and the other one) that pretty much says "Hitchens is the guy that taught us to think for ourselves".... Jesus Christ, are people that thick and stupid that they actually needed to be told at some point in their lives to 'think for themselves' :rolleyes:

Yes -In fact the vast majority of the planet needs to be taught this.
They certainly do not learn it in school or church.

religion by its very essence is "do not think for yourself"

Gonzor

Bandana boy wrote: »

Yes -In fact the vast majority of the planet needs to be taught this.
They certainly do not learn it in school or church.

religion by its very essence is "do not think for yourself"

I wont argue with you about the religion aspect of "thinking for yourself" Im quite sure you're right

But in this day and age, (especially in the western world), we shouldnt need Hitchens (or anybody) to tell us to think for ourselves.

There is so much information out there for anyone who opens their eyes and looks. Its not like perhaps in our grandparents times were information wasn't as freely available and you just had to take the newspapers/priest/politcians word for it.

---

ANyway. Im done here. Im feeling a bit bad for bringing such a crap attitude about a guy who seems to have to "helped" so many people. Certainly more than I'll ever help.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

no, you were told to create a new thread to discuss the topic.

You can discuss his opinions on the Iraq war here if you like.

Actually, you'll find I was discussing the topic - Hitchens (and his legacy). I just wasn't gushing over a warmonger in a memorial book and looking the other way from the(by some accounts) over a million deaths due to a war he incessantly supported.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

It's not like he made those Iraqi corpses.

By that token it's not like Julius Streicher made any Jewish corpses yet he was executed for Crimes Against Humanity.

Penn wrote: »

And I didn't see many of us praising him for his stance on Iraq, perhaps some respected how he stuck by his guns with it even if we disagreed ourselves.

Anyone who praises him for "sticking to his guns" is as foolish as Hitchens made himself out to be. In this context "sticking by his guns" means being too stupid/arrogant/or deceptive to accept you were wrong about the completely debunked lies that he helped sell to the world an illegal war of aggression. Nonsense like WMD's, illicit uranium deals with Niger and Al Qaeda of 9-11 fame in Iraq.

Penn wrote: »

But his opinion on the war in Iraq doesn't necessarily tarnish all the things people may have liked him for.

Not believing in God..?

Of course it tarnishes it. Who remembers Julius Streicher or Lord Haw Haw for any mediocre positive impact they had on the world?

Penn wrote: »

II'm a huge fan of Kevin Smith even though he believes in some things I don't. I'm a huge fan of Penn Jillette even though he believes in some things I don't. I can still respect what they do.

Yes of course you can but are they warmongers?

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually, you'll find I was discussing the topic - Hitchens (and his legacy). I just wasn't gushing over a warmonger in a memorial book and looking the other way from the(by some accounts) over a million deaths due to a war he incessantly supported.

Did he support the death of over a million people?

What about your views on WWII? I hope you don't support a war against the Nazis you filthy warmonger you.

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Did he support the death of over a million people?

Yes. Indirectly. He campaigned for the war which led to the deaths of over a million people.

MagicMarker wrote: »

What about your views on WWII? I hope you don't support a war against the Nazis you filthy warmonger you.

Well you have that arse backwards. In your example the US would be the aggressors and therefore Nazis and Hitchens would be the Nazi propogandist selling war to the German people. Scribbling away incessantly from Berlin about the Reichstag fire, the Treaty of Versailles, Lebensraum, The Jewish question and so on.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. Indirectly. He campaigned for the war which led to the deaths of over a million people.

Well you have that arse backwards. In your example the US would be the aggressors and therefore Nazis and Hitchens would be the Nazi propogandist selling war to the German people. Scribbling away incessantly from Berlin about the Reichstag fire, the Treaty of Versailles, Lebensraum, The Jewish question and so on.

Nil points, troll harder.

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Nil points, troll harder.

???

What's the difference between a Nazi warmonger hack writing about Lebensraum and Hitchens writing about the need to go to war with Iraq for the WMD they assuredly have?

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???

What's the difference between a Nazi warmonger hack writing about Lebensraum and Hitchens writing about the need to go to war with Iraq for the WMD they assuredly have?

What's the difference between an enemy warmonger and an ally warmonger?

Unless you're a pacifist then aren't we all warmongers? You just happen to be one warmonger who disagrees with another.

Vomit

Nice thread!

Well, lets see- commentators like Christopher Hitchens helped march the West into the East on yet another imperialistic effort, killing over 1,000,000 Iraqis alone, and razing Afghanistan to the ground. Those men, women and children are dead, and they are never coming back. Those aircraft carriers float on public support just as much as they do water, and people like Hitchens, albeit indirectly, have blood on their hands.

But hey, he spoke cleverly about religion...yaaay!! There are people reading this who wish they are as smart as Hitchens was, and who hope that he would have considered them peers. No, he considered you to be paying customers for his books, and nothing more.

It's amazing how many people here are saying, "I disagreed with his stance on the war, but..." But what? Why can't you just dissociate yourself from him? Is your moral fibre so thin that all someone has to do to win your undying fandom is speak favourably on a single topic you care about? It boggles the mind, really. There are plenty of people you can look to who can speak very eloquently about religion and atheism. Why does THIS a-hole have to be your champion, so much so that you'll seek to censor anyone who speaks ill of him. I received a mod warning on the other thread for 'being naughty' for mildly scoffing at someone's attempt to dismiss my opinion as trolling. (As I write this, I see the same user calling someone else a troll too) Did Hitchens make donations to this forum? Am I missing something? When Hitchens put pen to paper in his latter years, I think he knew how easily his target audience could be won over.

MagicMarker

Vomit wrote: »

commentators like Christopher Hitchens helped march the West into the East on yet another imperialistic effort

Did he pay for petrol or something?

Vomit

MagicMarker wrote: »

Did he pay for petrol or something?

Now that really IS trolling.

MagicMarker

Vomit wrote: »

Now that really IS trolling.

That's a no then I guess.

Apart from supporting the war, like millions of people did, then how exactly did he help do anything?

Also, I assume before you befriend people you ask them if they support the war or not? And presumably you've cut contact with all your friends/family who did support the war, stopped reading books by people who supported the war, stopped listening to music by bands who supported the war, stopped doing anything related to people who supported the war, you know, to keep your moral fibre in tact?

Or is it just the popular atheist you have a problem with?

Vomit

MagicMarker wrote: »

That's a no then I guess.

Apart from supporting the war, like millions of people did, then how exactly did he help do anything?

Also, I assume before you befriend people you ask them if they support the war or not? And presumably you've cut contact with all your friends/family who did support the war, stopped reading books by people who supported the war, stopped listening to music by bands who supported the war, stopped doing anything related to people who supported the war, you know, to keep your moral fibre in tact?

Or is it just the popular atheist you have a problem with?

You speak of 'the war' so casually, as if it's just something like a preference for one kind of marmalade or another. This war has cost (I repeat) over 1 million lives, and was based on imperialistic and hegemonic goals. There are lots of people I don't associate with. I choose my friends with care (we have that luxury with those we call friends). And if I encounter anyone in 2011 who (still) supports the war, lets just say I don't exactly hold them up as my hero and deify them to the point of trying to silence anyone who speaks ill of them.

Morag

It's a shame he was so sexist.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher

Christopher Hitchens, my colleague for twenty years, was clever, hilarious, generous to his friends, combative, prodigiously energetic and fantastically productive. He could write with equal ease about Philip Larkin, capital punishment, Henry Kissinger and having his balls waxed. I used to wonder, enviously, how he could write so much, especially given his drinking, his travels, his public appearances and his demanding social life. He told me once that a writer should be able to write with no difficulty, anytime, anywhere—but actually, not many writers can do that.

I think part of the reason why he was so prolific—and the reason he had such an outsize career and such an outsize effect on his readers—is that he was possibly the least troubled with self-doubt of all the writers on earth. For a man who started out as an International Socialist and ended up banging the drum for the war in Iraq and accusing Michelle Obama of fealty to African dictators on the basis of a stray remark in her undergraduate thesis, he seems to have spent little time wondering how he got from one place to another, much less if he’d lost anything on the way.

After he left The Nation he said he had a “libertarian gene.” It’s a rum sort of libertarianism, and a rum sort of gene, that expresses itself first as membership in a Trotskyist sect, and then as support for the signal deed of an administration that stood for everything he had spent his life fighting, from economic inequality to government promotion of religion.

So many people have praised Christopher so effusively, I want to complicate the picture even at the risk of seeming churlish. His drinking was not something to admire, and it was not a charming foible. Maybe sometimes it made him warm and expansive, but I never saw that side of it. What I saw was that drinking made him angry and combative and bullying, often toward people who were way out of his league—elderly guests on the Nation cruise, interns (especially female interns). Drinking didn’t make him a better writer either—that’s another myth.

Christopher was such a practiced hand, with a style that was so patented, so integrally an expression of his personality, he was so sure he was right about whatever the subject, he could meet his deadlines even when he was totally sozzled. But those passages of pointless linguistic pirouetting? The arguments that don’t track if you look beneath the bravura phrasing? Forgive the cliché: that was the booze talking. And so, I’m betting, were the cruder manifestations of his famously pugilistic nature: as F Scott Fitzgerald said of his own alcoholism: “When drunk I make them all pay and pay and pay.” It makes me sad to see young writers cherishing their drinking bouts with him, and even his alcohol-fuelled displays of contempt for them (see Dave Zirin’s fond reminiscence of having Christopher spit at him) as if drink is what makes a great writer, and what makes a great writer a real man.

So far, most of the eulogies of Christopher have come from men, and there’s a reason for that. He moved in a masculine world, and for someone who prided himself on his wide-ranging interests, he had virtually no interest in women’s writing or women’s lives or perspectives. I never got the impression from anything he wrote about women that he had bothered to do the most basic kinds of reading and thinking, let alone interviewing or reporting—the sort of workup he would do before writing about, say, G.K. Chesterton, or Scientology or Kurdistan. It all came off the top of his head, or the depths of his id. Women aren’t funny. Women shouldn’t need to/want to/get to have a job. The Dixie Chicks were “****ing fat slags” (not “sluts,” as he misremembered later). And then of course there was his 1989 column in which he attacked legal abortion and his cartoon version of feminism as “possessive individualism.” I don’t suppose I ever really forgave Christopher for that.

It wasn’t just the position itself, it was his lordly condescending assumption that he could sort this whole thing out for the ladies in 1,000 words that probably took him twenty minutes to write. “Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows” that pro-life women are on to something when they recoil at the idea of the “disposable fetus.” Hmmmm… that must be why most OB-GYNs are pro-choice and why most women who have abortions are mothers. Those doctors just need to spend an hour with a medical textbook; those mothers must never have seen a sonogram. Interestingly, although he promised to address the counterarguments made by the many women who wrote in to the magazine, including those on the staff, he never did. For a man with a reputation for courage, it certainly failed him then. (Years later, when he took up the question of abortion again in Vanity Fair, he said basically the exact same things, using the same straw-women arguments. Time taught him nothing, because he didn’t want to learn.)

That was the bad side of Christopher—the moral bully and black-and-white thinker posing as daring truth-teller. It was the side that reveled in 9/11, because now everyone would see how evil the jihadis were, and that rejoiced in the thought that the Korans of Muslim fighters would not protect them from American bullets. Some eulogists have praised him for moral consistency, but I don’t see that: he wrote tens of thousands of words attacking Clinton for executing Ricky Ray Rector, but seemed untroubled about George W Bush’s execution of 152 people—at the time a historical record—as governor of Texas. He was so fuelled by his own certainty he claimed that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq only proved they were there.

I don’t know how long Christopher will be read. Posterity isn’t kind to columnists and essayists and book reviewers, even the best ones. I doubt we’d be reading much of Orwell’s nonfiction now had he not written the indelible novels 1984 and Animal Farm. But as a vivid presence Christopher will be long remembered. A lot of writers, especially political writers, are rather boring as people, and some of the best writers are the most boring of all—they’re saving themselves for the desk. Christopher was the opposite—an adventurer, a talker, a bon vivant, a tireless burner of both ends of the candle. He made a lot of enemies, but probably more friends. He made life more interesting for thousands and thousands of people and posed big questions for them—about justice, politics, religion, human folly. Of how many journalists can that be said?

[-0-]

Vomit wrote: »

Nice thread!

Well, lets see- commentators like Christopher Hitchens helped march the West into the East on yet another imperialistic effort, killing over 1,000,000 Iraqis alone, and razing Afghanistan to the ground. Those men, women and children are dead, and they are never coming back. Those aircraft carriers float on public support just as much as they do water, and people like Hitchens, albeit indirectly, have blood on their hands.

But hey, he spoke cleverly about religion...yaaay!! There are people reading this who wish they are as smart as Hitchens was, and who hope that he would have considered them peers. No, he considered you to be paying customers for his books, and nothing more.

It's amazing how many people here are saying, "I disagreed with his stance on the war, but..." But what? Why can't you just dissociate yourself from him? Is your moral fibre so thin that all someone has to do to win your undying fandom is speak favourably on a single topic you care about? It boggles the mind, really. There are plenty of people you can look to who can speak very eloquently about religion and atheism. Why does THIS a-hole have to be your champion, so much so that you'll seek to censor anyone who speaks ill of him. I received a mod warning on the other thread for 'being naughty' for mildly scoffing at someone's attempt to dismiss my opinion as trolling. (As I write this, I see the same user calling someone else a troll too) Did Hitchens make donations to this forum? Am I missing something? When Hitchens put pen to paper in his latter years, I think he knew how easily his target audience could be won over.

Since when do you have to agree with everything someone says or does in order to speak favourably of them? I like Roy Keane but I don't like that he walked out of the Irish team when they needed him in the World Cup in Saipan. Does that mean that I should not like everything else about him just because I don't agree with what he did in that instance? You have a VERY black / white view of the world.

Hitchens was a reason unto his own. He was neither right nor left. He did what we wanted, and was able to back up his views better than you or I could ever dream of doing. Like science, when he found out he was wrong he changed his views. He was human, fallible, and never pretended otherwise. I actually supported the wars on Iraq & Afghanistan. I am glad Saddam Hussein is dead, along with Osama and even Kim Jong II for that matter.

robindch

Vomit wrote: »

I received a mod warning on the other thread for 'being naughty' for mildly scoffing at someone's attempt to dismiss my opinion as trolling.

Just to clarify -- you were carded for producing a content-free post, after being asked not to produce content-free posts.

Brown Bomber

Vomit wrote: »

"I disagreed with his stance on the war, but..."

That's what turned my stomach just a little bit. There is no "but", Hitchens came across as homicidal in his bloodlust at times yet for those who idolise him this is somehow supposed to be acceptable because he didn't believe in God, and had a sharp turn of phrase.

For example, PZ Myers, Professor of Biology at UMM attended a talk he gave in 2007 where Hitchens advocated genocide.

Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam. Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy. Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now — Rudy Giuliani — and that Obama was a fool, Clinton was a pandering closet fundamentalist, and that he was less than thrilled about all the support among the FFRF for the Democratic party. We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.

It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy.

This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I'll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you … which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so. I think that what is obvious is that most Moslems are primarily interested in living a life of contentment with their families and their work, and that an America committed to slaughter is a tactic that will only convince more of them to join in opposition to us.

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php

[-0-]

Sharrow wrote: »

It's a shame he was so sexist.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher

Are you serious?

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

The cure for poverty has a name, in fact. It’s called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you throw in a handful of seeds, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but health and education, will increase.

That is real sexist alright.

Vomit

[-0-] wrote: »

Since when do you have to agree with everything someone says or does in order to speak favourably of them? I like Roy Keane but I don't like that he walked out of the Irish team when they needed him in the World Cup in Saipan. Does that mean that I should not like everything else about him just because I don't agree with what he did in that instance? You have a VERY black / white view of the world.

Wow, comparing the Iraq war with Roy Keane walking out. You people astound me.

robindch wrote:

Just to clarify -- you were carded for producing a content-free post, after being asked not to produce content-free posts.

I've looked back over the thread and the closest I can see to what you're referring to is you posting almost simultaneously to me, telling me to either say something positive, or not say anything at all.

Lke I said, this post was so near to mine that it occurred within the same minute. If that was the first 'warning' you're referring to, then there's no way I could possible have seen it, yet I was still carded (hours later). I did try to PM you about this but got no reply.

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

Are you serious?

That is real sexist alright.

Didn't he call the Dixie Chicks "fat slags" for questioning his pal Bush?

Lucy8080

o.k.

what was the topic on the other thread?

oh yeah...me agreeing with hitchens definition of tyranny and that he sees it as an enemy.

and also what to do?

diplomacy b.b. says.

lets explore.

moses: let my people go.

pharoah: no

moses : we cant go on like this forever.

pharoah: what ya gonna do?

moses: ur inviting a plague on ur ass...by our friends in high places...whom we support.

hitchens: works for me.

b.b. god is breaching sovereignty...moses is a warmonger.

sovereignty belongs to the people. government is by the people ...of the people ...for the people.


tyrants are not sovereign.

if they wont listen to the diplomat...and they wont let the people be free of their tyranny...then either the people will go to war or their friends in high places.

as for war crimes....a democracy has lots of noise...and these things come out to the light of day .

in a tyranny the silence is deafening.

but lets not breach the sovereignty of a tyrant. thats a new one on me.