Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: ollaimh
Date: 18 Dec 11 - 11:08 PM

i loved his debates with many that are in you tube. and much more. i can't fathon his support for the iraq war, even if inspired by a desire for freedom from a tyrant like saddam. american put so much into proping up saddam, i think a little more finessre was necassary. and of course bankrupting the country for the neo con adgenda hardly looks wise now.

no one deserves esopheageal cancer. a dear frind of mine died of it last year. he was a genius as well. he developed a cheap wasy to purify anything from water. he may have saved the world, but he suffered greatly and no one deserves that

hitchens was a brilliant debater and writer and i'll miss him even if i didn't agree with him.

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: GUEST,Jon Dudley
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 06:54 AM

Personally I looked forward to his jousts and debates on TV and there's a fine legacy of YouTube clips to back this up. As an example, his introduction and support to a speech given by Naom Chomsky is so clever, his legacy cannot be dismissed so peremptorily.

josepp says:

"He was largely a waste of space. An intellectual argument against Christianity? Why, is one necessary? Do we need intellectual arguments against Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?"

I believe Hitchens' views were against all religion, not just Christianity, however josepp has a point...the only difference being that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are not particularly known for initiating wars in their names - which religion, per se, has done throughout history. The conclusion which is absolutely correct is that people of faith have just that...faith...and no amount of argument will dissuade them of it. In support of true balance, however, we shouldn't stop preaching against the excesses of religion though, any more than we shouldn't stop railing against Fascism or Stalinism or any other hideous 'ism' - just because your opponent has faith.

I wouldn't mind betting that twenty or so years ago Hitchens' views would have been perfectly in tune with the radical left but that his (relatively) recent volte face on some issues have made things rather difficult.

But I agree with Big Al...calling the man a fuckhead does little to reinforce an opinion.

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 10:43 AM

I have been reading a lot of the stuff that has come out since his death -- commentary on him, and links to past his material -- to try to get a better read on him.

I have to preface this by saying that he only came on my radar in relation to his atheistic arguments. Although I am an atheist, his style of argument is one I find uncomfortable. It's a style that's more likely to offend than persuade (and can even offend those who are already persuaded).

From my reading, I can see that those who had personal contact with him, including believers who debated him, found him personally charming, and a good friend. That's where that public style fails: in fact, while he was against religion, he saw no reason to reject religious people, but a noisy argument overshadows that. If you call religion "idiotic", people who are religious might reasonably think you consider them idiots. You're left with the relatively small set of people who actually have conversations with you who understand more fully what you mean.

(Similarly if you call someone a "fuckhead", for people of my disposition, you shut down conversation.)

I confess I had tuned him out along with the other "New Atheists". Going back and listening more, I do hear the points with which I agree. But, I recognize that there's a difference in how I hear him when I have been persuaded to listen with a charitable ear.

Many of his friends found that they could understand his support of the Iraq war because they understood the moral basis from which his support arose (even if they did not agree, or like Andrew Sullivan, found that they changed their mind).

But, this morning I think I read the best piece, from one of my favorite current thinkers: Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic. The world is not a black-and-white place (!), and a debate style of approach -- grab onto an argument and defend at all costs -- whether in discussing ideas or people can results in babies being lost with the bathwater.

Coates says:

"Virtues don't excuse sins; they cohabit with them."

"I'd like to say that ... there's no demand for exclusion, or any sense that Hitchens worthy of unalloyed admiration. No one should ever receive, or wisely desire, such a thing. I can't really speak for other people, but I don't believe in an essential, irreducible moral nature. I don't see Hitchens, or anyone else, as a case of either/or."

A commenter wrote: "While I understand your point about how great virtues and great vices can coexist in the same person, I'd like to see more elaboration about why you think this man's virtues (which you remain silent on in this post) outweighed his vices. "

Coates replied:

'Again, I think the frame is wrong. I don't know that his "virtues outweigh his vices." That presumes a kind of grand authority that I neither want, nor feel qualified, to exercise. It's just not a case I would ever make. Nor am I really interested in making the case, it's sort of irrelevant to me. It seems to originate from the need to either declare someone a "good person" or a "bad person." I think it's clear from my writing on slavery and race that I don't really see the world that way.'

Is this way of looking at people wishy-washy? I don't believe so, but someone like Hitchins might find it so. It certainly makes it hard to have a conversation with someone who has that more adamant style of thinking and speaking.

(If you made it to the bottom of this, thanks.)

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 11:46 AM

My opinions are only that. I could care less if you agree with them. If you supported Bush and his war, you
ARE a fuckhead. I did not say you are a fuckhead if you liked Hitchens but you have tarnished yourself in my eyes which shouldn't bother you unless you really care that much what I think of you and you shouldn't because I don't care what you think of me.

All that said, there are a few things that so go against everything I stand for as a human being that if you support them, I cannot support you no matter how close we may be on every other issue. One of those things is the Iraq war. It was an incredible abuse of power that has been nothing but a huge disaster and made me feel disgusted to be an American. If you support it, you support the Abu Ghraib torture, you support the murder of Abeer Hamza and her entire family by US Marines, you support the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians through sectarian and terrorist violence, you support the unbeliavable amount of contractor fraud and thievery. You are NOT a morally developed human being!!!!

To say, "Other than his stance on the Iraq War, Hitchens was a great guy" is to me like saying, "Other than the fact that he regarded non-white people as subhumans more closely related to chimpanzees than to Homo sapiens, he was a great guy." NO--HE'S NOT!!

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 01:59 PM

Hitchens preached to the converted

I'm not sure that josepp could back that up. I remember Richard Dawkins, in a review of (I think) God is Great, noting that for his promotional tour Hitchens had eschewed the easy pickings of the east and west coasts and instead bravely took his message to "the reptilean brain of middle America." Or words to that effect.

Becky, I did make it to the end, no problem. Your post brought to mind something I've seen attributed to Solzhenitsyn, though I've never managed to track it down: "The line between good and evil passes through the heart of every man."

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Amos
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 03:30 PM

JP:

I deeply wish you had a quarter of Hitchens style, wit, learning, insight and lucidity in language.

From your remarks, it seems you have less than that of all of them.

Your ability to be acerbic without brevity is not a compensation.

A

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: alanabit
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 03:54 PM

I didn't agree with him on every issue, but that goes for most people. If you agree with someone on every issue it is usually just a sign that you are talking to yourself. I am very sad to see him go though. I felt he had fundamental integrity and the right sort of morality - that which is concerned with the value of human beings rather than adherence to abstract (and often arbitrary) priniciples. Much as I disagreed with his views on Iraq, I felt that he did more good than harm by a very long way. I hope there is something beyond this mortal coil - and I hope it is good for Christopher Hithchens - irrespective of the fact that he may not be expecting it!

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 08:39 PM

////I remember Richard Dawkins, in a review of (I think) God is Great, noting that for his promotional tour Hitchens had eschewed the easy pickings of the east and west coasts and instead bravely took his message to "the reptilean brain of middle America."////

What is that even supposed to mean?????

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 10:15 PM

It means he was NOT "preaching to the choir." He was trying to make his points the hard way.


....kinda like I am right now.

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 04:29 AM

"the reptilean brain of middle America." Or words to that effect.

He was!! He was preaching to the choir because they were the only ones who would go see him. Do any of you believe that there are no atheists in Dallas, Atlanta or Chicago? Do you think those cities are populated with nothing but creationist fundamentalists? Or has Hitchens fooled you from the grave with one of his silly reptile manure arguments?

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 06:09 AM

"the reptilean brain of middle America." Or words to that effect.

from an interview With Hitchens. Sounds like his choir to me.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/transcending-god/6076/5/?single_page=true

According to the Wall Street Journal, you've been selling a lot of books in the Bible Belt.

And I promise you, there was no stop where we didn't have to turn hundreds of people away.

Who were these hundreds of people? Were they atheists? Were they religious people who were angry at you?

No, definitely not. They are people who have had enough. Particularly in the South, they're people who don't like being laughed at by people from the North who think they're all rednecks and Falwell fanciers. They're very clear on that. They regard that association as a fucking insult, which it is. Falwell died the week of my swing through the South, making me wonder if someone up there really does like me. So I had to mention it, and I said what I thought about him, and it brought roars of applause. Even the things I said about him that were really, by any standards, quite rude, while the guy's carcass is hardly cold.

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 12:12 PM

I'm amused at all the liberal hypocrisy going on here spoken by people who were so against the Iraq War that they were ready to slay anyone who supported it on sight. Such supporters are, after all, just a bunch of redneck, Christian, Bush-loving thugs.

But when someone they hold in high esteem for being an atheist--Hitchens--goes and says he supports that war and the man who broke every law in the book to wage it, "oh--he was really a great guy. I don't expect to be in agreement with him on everything, you know."

Just what ARE your convictions?? What ones WON'T you sell down the river to maintain your little cult of personality worship of this good ol' curmudgeon?

Why tell me that his arguments are necessary because of the wars started by religion when the man who utters those arguments supports the very wars you tell me his arguments are supposed to prevent??? What is wrong with you that you would rather expose yourselves as hypocrites so that you don't have to call him one??

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: alanabit
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 12:28 PM

"But when someone they hold in high esteem for being an atheist--Hitchens--goes and says he supports that war and the man who broke every law in the book to wage it, "oh--he was really a great guy. I don't expect to be in agreement with him on everything, you know."

If I fell out with everybody who disagreed with me, I would very soon have no friends at all. Any sentient human being will at times hold views, which appear plain wrong to others. I have the right to be wrong sometimes - and so did Christopher Hitchens. People who fail to grasp this principle are going to find it pretty tough to keep up any sort of a dialogue.

For the record josepp, I think Hitchens was wrong on the issue of the Iraq War and I think Bush led a motley coven of crooks into it. That should be an unambiguous enough statement of where I stand.

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 03:22 PM

josepp, your last post was, for me, thought-provoking. It's a pity your earlier comments were not as measured.

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 03:33 PM

"What ones WON'T you sell down the river to maintain your little cult of personality worship of this good ol' curmudgeon?"

I don't see anyone worshiping his personality....and I have RT live friends who have flaws that trouble me.

I could type 9 paragraphs about the logical flaws in equating 'admiring' some aspects of a character with selling anyone down the river, but I kinda think it would be wasted effort.

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 04:04 PM

Peter K (Fionn), thanks for the Solzhenitsyn (maybe) quote.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 06:45 PM

Further, a more critical view from James Fallows at the Atlantic, via Coates.

~ Becky in Long Beach (where I was earlier, too) (it's a confusing life)

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 10:55 PM

////I have the right to be wrong sometimes - and so did Christopher Hitchens. People who fail to grasp this principle are going to find it pretty tough to keep up any sort of a dialogue.////

I'm not talking about being wrong. I'm talking about a fundamental moral failure. The real reason Hitchens supported Bush is because he saw himself in the man--big ego, big talker, always right and no chance that he'll ever change his mind no matter what happens. Hitchens saw nothing wrong with invading another sovereign nation even if Bush had to fabricate charges to do it. And all the murder, torture, brutality, degradation and thievery that resulted was all acceptable in order to achieve an outcome that at best was disastrous. I have absolutely no respect for anyone who thinks that way. I don't how anyone could. For someone everyone here is telling was so intelligent and so very witty, then he understood perfectly well what the Iraq War was all about and so there is no excuse.

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 21 Dec 11 - 04:33 AM

"Just what ARE your convictions?? What ones WON'T you sell down the river to maintain your little cult of personality worship of this good ol' curmudgeon?"

Not everyone is so absolutist in their outlook as you, and you don't understand what Hitchens' arguments if you think it's all so black and white.

Hitchens supported Bush's sordid little war because he felt totalitarianism is one of the greatest threats to free thinking and personal liberty and he had no idea at the time how events were going to play out, the utter ineptitude of the US and UK's policy (what of it existed). To Hitchens, the deification of Saddam within Iraq (the cult of the dictator - one we know so well) and subsequent oppression of his people represented a greater threat than Bush did, and in a sense he's right. Bush doesn't present a long-term threat because the man is such a complete fool and Saddam was far from a fool, plus there is democracy of a sorts in the USA.

So the Iraq war enabled one more totalitarian dictator to be hauled over the side of the good ship Personal Freedom. Of course, the real problems with the Iraq war was that Bush et al were as immoral and corrupt as Saddam, but that wasn't Hitchens point.

Far from being a failure of morality, Hitchens viewpoint was the war could achieve a long-term moral victory, enabling ordinary Iraqis the freedom they lacked under Saddam. The fact the whole enterprise was so fucked-up by neocon maniacs with an insatiable bloodlust is not Hitchen's fault, so you might want to apportion blame where it's due: with Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Cheney and the torturers of Abu Ghraib and the people ordering bomb strikes that have killed 95,000 people.

Hitchens was right in a sense, it was the people calling the shots who were so very wrong.

Subject: RE: Obit: Christopher Hitchens- curmudgeon
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 21 Dec 11 - 05:21 PM

///Hitchens supported Bush's sordid little war because he felt totalitarianism is one of the greatest threats to free thinking and personal liberty and he had no idea at the time how events were going to play out, the utter ineptitude of the US and UK's policy (what of it existed).///

You obviously don't get it: after all of that happened--the torture, the thievery--Hitchens would not change his opinion. He still favored what was going on in Iraq. IOW, he's just like Bush. Just like him.

////To Hitchens, the deification of Saddam within Iraq (the cult of the dictator - one we know so well) and subsequent oppression of his people represented a greater threat than Bush did////

Well, he was wrong. Not that he'd ever admit it. Nor would those who hung on his every word. No different than dittoheads. No matter what the guy says, they'll still love him. He's their hero.

////Bush doesn't present a long-term threat because the man is such a complete fool ////

Wow. When did being a fool preclude the ability to be a long-term threat?? And you're wrong, of course, what Bush did to Iraq and to the United States--and, really, the whole world, is going to last for years.

////So the Iraq war enabled one more totalitarian dictator to be hauled over the side of the good ship Personal Freedom. Of course, the real problems with the Iraq war was that Bush et al were as immoral and corrupt as Saddam, but that wasn't Hitchens point.////

Well, golly-gee, how convenient. So I could walk up to him and say, "Hey, dickhead, your support for the Iraq War was as disastrous as the war itself--which, by the way, was illegal and immoral and as totalitarian a move that there ever was."

And he just says, "Well, that wasn't my point." Oh, well, then excuse the fuck out of me, Mr. Hitchens, sir! As usual, you're right and everybody else with a differing opinion is wrong.

////Far from being a failure of morality, Hitchens viewpoint was the war could achieve a long-term moral victory, enabling ordinary Iraqis the freedom they lacked under Saddam.////

Once again, he was wrong.

////The fact the whole enterprise was so fucked-up by neocon maniacs with an insatiable bloodlust is not Hitchen's fault///

Never said it was. I said he had no morals for supporting the Iraq War not that he was to blame for the Iraq War.

///so you might want to apportion blame where it's due: with Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Cheney and the torturers of Abu Ghraib and the people ordering bomb strikes that have killed 95,000 people.///

I blame them entirely and consider them war criminals. I've never said anything different. I direct your attention to my earlier posts where I called Bush a war criminal because when the shoe fits...

And when you support a war criminal, I don't regard you as any better than him even if you didn't commit his crimes.

///Hitchens was right in a sense, it was the people calling the shots who were so very wrong.////

They were all wrong. No one is right in a sense. He was either right or he was wrong. He wasn't sort of right.

He chose to get into bed with that crowd because he has no moral compass. Like many sociopaths, he had the ability to make those around him think he did but, like a sociopath, his actions spoke louder than his words. He was an irresponsible drunk, a misogynist, at least a borderline racist and a sociopath with no guilt or conscience. But like many people with those traits--Bush, Cheney, etc.--somehow they end up being worshiped by large numbers of utter fools.