Christopher Hitchens

take everything · 31-08-2019 07:04PM #1

Just watching a few YouTube videos of Hitchens from years ago and he really is a great speaker. A Charlie Rose interview where IMO he sees right through Bill Clinton and openly expresses his antipathy for him for example (where incidentally Rose is as combative as I've ever seen him- birds of a feather and all that)

I often wonder what he'd think of some of the bull**** that goes on today.
I haven't seen a massive amount of his stuff, but from what I've seen, he is eloquent, polite, incisive, insightful and just intellectually honest. Something in short supply nowadays.

He's a huge loss.

31-08-2019 07:09PM

As articulate & savvy as Hitchens could be, his credibility was tainted after gung-ho support for the Iraq war. Far more likeable than his dour brother.

Woke Hogan · 31-08-2019 07:09PM

His only problem was he completely lost his mind after 9/11, transforming into a mouthpiece for American imperialism overnight.

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. · 31-08-2019 07:09PM

Pro-Iraq war new-atheist dullard no thanks. But the kiddies love him. I prefer his brother, Peter.

JohnnyFlash · 31-08-2019 07:11PM

Was he ever sober? Always found him slightly more bearable than that Dawkins dickhead.

biko · 31-08-2019 07:14PM

He had some great sayings though.

My favourite - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 31-08-2019 07:21PM

He had that very real thing - upper class british privilege. People associate that accent with intelligence but he wasn’t all that well read. People who like him tend to like his post 9/11 manifestation as well.

His brother, a total reactionary, was far better on the wars in the Middle East.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 31-08-2019 07:22PM

biko wrote: »

He had some great sayings though.

My favourite - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

He should have applied that logic to weapons of mass destruction.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 31-08-2019 07:26PM

The debate between himself and his brother is fascinating to watch.

I think it's up on YouTube somewhere.

suicide_circus · 31-08-2019 07:26PM

i like both brothers. but then i'm capable of liking people that i dont agree with 100% on everything. and i dont have a chip on my shoulder about posh accents or "privilege". both great writers, speakers and thinkers.

JohnnyFlash · 31-08-2019 07:28PM

The dude had a 3rd class degree. He wasn’t exactly a public intellectual. Being a crank and left-wing social critic is piss easy.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 31-08-2019 07:38PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

i like both brothers. but then i'm capable of liking people that i dont agree with 100% on everything. and i dont have a chip on my shoulder about posh accents or "privilege". both great writers, speakers and thinkers.

Great writers and speakers, yes.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 31-08-2019 07:46PM

He was a great speaker and writer but I wasn’t in thrall to all of his notions just because of that.

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

He had that very real thing - upper class british privilege. People associate that accent with intelligence but he wasn’t all that well read. People who like him tend to like his post 9/11 manifestation as well.

His brother, a total reactionary, was far better on the wars in the Middle East.

Yes, sometimes people can be very taken in by articulacy as well as by a commanding accent. I can fall prey to it myself but I really try not to and try to listen to the actual point the person is making.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The dude had a 3rd class degree. He wasn’t exactly a public intellectual. Being a crank and left-wing social critic is piss easy.

A third from Oxford in the 1970s is probably equivalent to a 2:1 from many institutions in the present day.

ILoveYourVibes · 31-08-2019 07:52PM

He told a lot of half truths about things.

ILoveYourVibes · 31-08-2019 07:54PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

A third from Oxford in the 1970s is probably equivalent to a 2:1 from many institutions in the present day.

But much easier for white middle class men to get into an achieve.

Back then all you had to do to go to college in the UK was have the money.

tritriagain · 31-08-2019 07:57PM

A great debater to listen to. You don't have to agree with him on everything to appreciate him. I particularly like when he and Stephen fry take on Anne Widdecombe and a Catholic Bishop.

Ipso · 31-08-2019 08:00PM

His interview with Sean Hannity after the death of Jerry Falwell was hilarious.

daveorourke77 · 31-08-2019 08:03PM

I dont like him. I find him to be rather pompous.

moonage · 31-08-2019 08:11PM

biko wrote: »

My favourite - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Still waters · 31-08-2019 08:11PM

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The dude had a 3rd class degree. He wasn’t exactly a public intellectual. Being a crank and left-wing social critic is piss easy.

I know people who left school at 13 who would wipe the floor with doctors and teachers on a wide range of subjects, education is no indicator of a sharp mind, you're statement and post history is testament to that

Irish_peppa · 31-08-2019 08:19PM

I love his religious debates on youtube

The Koran shows every sign of being thrown together by human beings, as do all the other holy books.:pac:

Christopher Hitchens

ILoveYourVibes · 31-08-2019 08:24PM

I always found him shifty. I felt he got away with a lot because he was a posh british guy.

JohnnyFlash · 31-08-2019 08:27PM

Still waters wrote: »

I know people who left school at 13 who would wipe the floor with doctors and teachers on a wide range of subjects, education is no indicator of a sharp mind, you're statement and post history is testament to that

Your.

ILoveYourVibes · 31-08-2019 08:31PM

Irish_peppa wrote: »

I love his religious debates on youtube

The Koran shows every sign of being thrown together by human beings, as do all the other holy books.:pac:

Christopher Hitchens

But when you questioned him it was obvious he had never read the Quran.

The only religious education he had received was Christian.

Dyr · 31-08-2019 08:34PM

Hitchens had a schtick and that was to machine gun the audience with factoids on topics they were not familiar with, stringing them all together to make his points

Every time he broached a topic I had some degree of familiarity with, I could see how deliberately disingenuous he was being even though I usually agreed with his broad points.

ligerdub · 31-08-2019 08:48PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote:

But much easier for white middle class men to get into an achieve.

Back then all you had to do to go to college in the UK was have the money.[/quote]

Emmmmm no.

Bit different now though eh, where there's a trend towards allocating spaces to the "disadvantaged".

There's always a bit of reverse snobbery towards well spoken folk making up the bulk of the likes of Oxbridge, but these sort of criticisms ignore the fact that university was not as important in terms of the jobs market as it is now. Hitchens went, good for him, this modern standard of "ugggh, rich white guy did something, big deal" is a baseless, lazy trope.

31-08-2019 08:50PM

Bambi wrote: »

Hitchens had a schtick and that was to machine gun the audience with factoids on topics they were not familiar with, stringing them all together to make his points

That sums him up very well. Dawkins has a similar MO, as does Jordan Peterson, albeit in a very different context.

I always found it interesting that their target audience was (or is) young men who may not be very well-read, may not be particularly well-educated, but seem to need some kind of epistemological or ontological demi-God to tell them how to be, or how they are, in the world. Maybe it's a natural consequence of the decline of organised, western religions. Maybe it's economic, or a consequence of female empowerment. It is interesting that they have so few successful and/ or female followers.

Westernyelp · 31-08-2019 08:54PM

JohnnyFlash wrote:

The dude had a 3rd class degree. He wasnâ€™t exactly a public intellectual. Being a crank and left-wing social critic is piss easy.

You have certainly demonstrated being a crank is piss easy. I await your social Thesis

31-08-2019 09:05PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That sums him up very well. Dawkins has a similar MO, as does Jordan Peterson, albeit in a very different context.

I always found it interesting that their target audience was (or is) young men who may not be very well-read, may not be particularly well-educated, but seem to need some kind of epistemological or ontological demi-God to tell them how to be, or how they are, in the world. Maybe it's a natural consequence of the decline of organised, western religions. Maybe it's economic, or a consequence of female empowerment. It is interesting that they have so few successful and/ or female followers.

Empty postulating, with more than a hint of smug condescension ("they're not particularly well-read/educated but worry not folks because I am").

A natural consequence of the decline of organised, western religions? "Maybe" you're miles off the mark.

ILoveYourVibes · 31-08-2019 09:07PM

ligerdub wrote: »

Back then all you had to do to go to college in the UK was have the money.

Emmmmm no.

Bit different now though eh, where there's a trend towards allocating spaces to the "disadvantaged".

There's always a bit of reverse snobbery towards well spoken folk making up the bulk of the likes of Oxbridge, but these sort of criticisms ignore the fact that university was not as important in terms of the jobs market as it is now. Hitchens went, good for him, this modern standard of "ugggh, rich white guy did something, big deal" is a baseless, lazy trope.[/QUOTE]
Not the disadvantaged.

The high achieving scholars from middle class areas.

ILoveYourVibes · 31-08-2019 09:09PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That sums him up very well. Dawkins has a similar MO, as does Jordan Peterson, albeit in a very different context.

I always found it interesting that their target audience was (or is) young men who may not be very well-read, may not be particularly well-educated, but seem to need some kind of epistemological or ontological demi-God to tell them how to be, or how they are, in the world. Maybe it's a natural consequence of the decline of organised, western religions. Maybe it's economic, or a consequence of female empowerment. It is interesting that they have so few successful and/ or female followers.

They have very few female followers at all. And any they do have they put a spotlight on.

Corbyn has few female followers either.

But then i know many women who didn't like Hilary.

I don't think women go for individual leaders as much. More the party or idea.

They don't need to support a person.

Christopher Hitchens

Comments