Hitchens being an ass

[skeptifem]

It is used extensively within the lesbian community in UK to describe themselves.
Look it up sometime.

LOL!!!!!

this is what racist people say about the n word. "BUT THEY CALL EACH OTHER THAT, WHY CAN'T I???"


I don't understand people ignoring what he said in favor of discussing him as a person. "oh thats just how he is!" instead of wanting to state the obvious fact that making such a point of her race and sexuality was a pretty disgusting thing to do.

Rush constantly manages to offend as well, but if he had said this everyone would be flipping out about it.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have to agree with nails. Hitchens is a dick, and he was being a dick, and he said something that was offensive. Just because he's written a good book and some articles doesn't excuse the fact that he was being a dick.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I've tossed this out before, but whenever this kind of subject comes around I'm reminded of an old line from Mad Magazine back in the 60s. It was in one of their traditional comparison satires comparing Liberals and Conservatives.

Under Liberals it listed:

Secretly wish that Wm. F. Buckley was a liberal.
Aactually wish that David Suskind wasn't.

Buckley was funny, scathing, and sharp-witted. Suskind was plodding and dull.

Hitchens can be a complete horse's p'toot. But he's sometimes funny (if you're in an eff the world I just like good theatre mood) and he often makes points with which I concur. But he's still a horse's p'toot, quite often.

So was Norman Mailer, who'd show up drunk on Cavett and pick fights with anyone and everyone. He, too, was a great liberal and made some great points in his discussions, but he was a misogynist and a creep (in addition to being a great, truly great, writer).

Everyone I agree with politically or "skeptically" does not have to be my best friend, bedmate, or life partner. On these boards, I think I'd rather have a beer with Darth or Beeps (who are probably pretty far from me politically) than XXXXXX (not looking to pick any fights; fill in your own choice) who might see eye to eye with me on issues.

If I walk into a symposium and Hitchens is speaking or debating, I'll probably listen. If I walk into the White Stag and see he's on his seventh drink, I'll probably walk out.

Whole lot of jerks out there who were credible people in their areas over the centuries. Why this birds of a feather debate?

 

[Lonewulf]

On these boards, I think I'd rather have a beer with Darth or Beeps (who are probably pretty far from me politically) than XXXXXX (not looking to pick any fights; fill in your own choice)

HEY!

I will add that the way one composes themselves online may be completely different than the way they compose themselves offline. I'm definitely one of those types.

 

[CoolSceptic]

So this justifies, say, throwing around the word "faggot" and "******" because other words will offend someone somewhere? Hey, why bother to broaden the vocabulary, it just leads to bad things anyways.

Ummm... no. That isn't what I said at all, and there is no logical and reasonable way to get from my (simple) point to this bizarre response. I simply pointed out the word lesbian is offensive to some people as well, I didn't make any assertions on how it should be resolved as you suggest. I said no matter how careful you are you will end up offending someone at some point (possibly inadvertantly); this is entirely different from saying you should go around deliberately offending people. If you can't see the difference between these two views (which apparently you have been struggling with...) I don't think I can help you.

Considering your point, all I have to do is to show one person upset at the word "gay" or "homosexual", and that validates the use of the word. After all, someone might be offended by the word "gay" or "homosexual", so let's just call them all faggots and be done with it.

No, I didn't say that either. Where, in my post, is there anything even remotely like the last sentence? I merely raised a point that some people find the word "lesbian" offensive for a non-obvious reason. How on earth do you go from that to calling all homosexuals faggots? Seriously?

And let's not mention people that might be offended by the terms African American, or black, or whatever else... so let's just call all them blackies ******, right?

Wow, you've really lost the plot here, haven't you?

I'm always up for a challenge. You really want to go this way?

No, you took what I said, distorted it into something I didn't say, and then said "you really want to go this way?". The answer seems to be, you want to go this way, this way being building a bizarre straw man and then beating up on it. If it floats your boat, fair enough, but I can think of more constructive uses of time.

They're cute entertainers, but little else. Especially how funny they are throwing around the term "first amendment". The First Amendment does not protect you from consequences of your words,

I don't think they suggest it does. Try listening to what they say, rather than what you want them to be saying so you can make more straw men. At least I now know you are not singling me out for special treatment

it merely protects you from the government directly attempting to control what you can and cannot say (and even then, there are exceptions to this, as mentioned earlier).

If I go into a black person's house and call him a "******", or suggest that he should be eatin' that dang fried chicken, why should I expect to receive a favorable reaction?

Where did I say what the reaction should be to these words? Of course people are going to be offended by these statements! In fact, I gave evidence that people were offended by the word lesbian, so I am obviously acknowledging people do get offended by words.

I included one question in my last post. This question was key to my point, yet you ignored this question and simply inserted a whole bunch of irrelevant issues that demonstrably do not follow from my point and answered them instead. I'll try and ask it again, only try and spell it out a bit more carefully this time.

I assume we agree that dyke would be offensive to a certain group of people. I demonstrated, with evidence, that the word lesbian is offensive to another group of people. And we're not just talking "one person" with no good reason here like your strange response, but (from the article) a group of 350,000 people (some subset of which would presumably take offence), with a coherent reason, who felt strongly enough about it to take court action.

Why is the former bad but the latter not bad? (There are actually a range of valid opinions stemming from this question, you seem to have latched on to one possible opinion and ascribed it to me, even though there are many other possible views that could stem from it) And why did you completely avoid this question - which was the only point I was actually making - and raise a whole bunch of straw man arguments instead?

 

[Chaos]

Ever? He must be stealing a bucket full of material then.

Well, then, does he arrive at his conclusions through critical thinking, or does he simply pick whatever makes it easiest to piss people off?

I think his behavior suggests that the latter is the case. Including, of course, his being on record, during TAM, dismissing some criticism of his positions as "typical liberal [not so nice word]".

 

[Cobalt]

LOL!!!!!

this is what racist people say about the n word. "BUT THEY CALL EACH OTHER THAT, WHY CAN'T I???"

Or they just think that this:

Trouble is always: unless you're a member of said group, you don't have the privelege of said group to the same degree.

is a stupid idea.
It always has to be some stupid double standard. Equality is good until someone else gets something you don't want him to have.

Rush constantly manages to offend as well, but if he had said this everyone would be flipping out about it.

Yeah, no ****. And then he'd be tossed off the air, etc. Same idiotic double standard exists here too. A black radio host calls some white guy an ignorant cracker, nobody blinks an eye and white folk are just supposed to get over it.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Ron White loves you too.

I had to look up Ron White.

Judging by the Youtube material I've seen, he drinks and smokes on stage.
That is use, not abuse.

As in: he doesn't get plastered.


I used to be quite a fan of Theo van Gogh. the writer and director who got murdered by an Islamist here in the Netherlands. Van Gogh's opinions were a lot more shocking and controversial then Hitchens'. And he didn't exactly live a healthy lifestyle. He was a unapologetic cocaine snorting, chain-smoking alcoholic, but I've never seen him plastered in public.

 

[SezMe]

I will add that the way one composes themselves online may be completely different than the way they compose themselves offline. I'm definitely one of those types.

You mean you're a nice guy offline?

 

[Cobalt]

I had to look up Ron White.

Judging by the Youtube material I've seen, he drinks and smokes on stage.
That is use, not abuse.

As in: he doesn't get plastered.

I dunno, by the end of "You can't fix stupid" you can hear a hint of speech slurring going on.

But he's still funny, and it's kind of part of his whole appeal in a way. I've only seen two bits involving Hitchens. One I liked, one I didn't.

 

[Cuddles]

Let's try to avoid the personal attacks and bickering, shall we? That goes specifically for GreNME and Cicero.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[YULE]

As far as I can see, Hitch just treated her with the lack of respect due to a person that had failed in their obligation of performing a job properly.

Black dyke isn't exactly offensive, it's just not respectful. Seems like it was just a non-respectful descriptor to indicate who the failed comedian in question was. If the offensiveness was actually his aim, there are several more colourful, crude and crass things he could have called her. He didn't.
He was aiming at her failing to actually put her material on the spot and smash the president in the nuts. He was pointing out that she failed in the ultimate test of her comedic ability. Her performance was sub-par, she deserves no respect for that.

 

[Chaos]

As far as I can see, Hitch just treated her with the lack of respect due to a person that had failed in their obligation of performing a job properly.

Black dyke isn't exactly offensive, it's just not respectful. Seems like it was just a non-respectful descriptor to indicate who the failed comedian in question was. If the offensiveness was actually his aim, there are several more colourful, crude and crass things he could have called her. He didn't.
He was aiming at her failing to actually put her material on the spot and smash the president in the nuts. He was pointing out that she failed in the ultimate test of her comedic ability. Her performance was sub-par, she deserves no respect for that.

Then why call her "black dyke"? What does her skin colour or sexual orientiation have to do with anything?

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes yes, so to avoid all the conversation about P&T and whatever else, I'll just go ahead and quote this bit:

I assume we agree that dyke would be offensive to a certain group of people. I demonstrated, with evidence, that the word lesbian is offensive to another group of people. And we're not just talking "one person" with no good reason here like your strange response, but (from the article) a group of 350,000 people (some subset of which would presumably take offence), with a coherent reason, who felt strongly enough about it to take court action.

Why is the former bad but the latter not bad? (There are actually a range of valid opinions stemming from this question, you seem to have latched on to one possible opinion and ascribed it to me, even though there are many other possible views that could stem from it)

Compare that fraction of 350,000 people to those that find the word "dyke", used in the way Hitchens did so, as offensive. (Compare to "black dyke" for extra oomph). What would the ratio be? Consider that you're dealing with 300 million people in the U.S. alone. (Allegedly, the UK doesn't find the word "dyke" as offensive, but I'm skeptical on that point). So we're talking about a fraction of 300 million vs. a fraction of 350,000. I don't see why my argument is discredited.

At what ratio do I have to demonstrate the word "faggot" as opposed to "gay" offensiveness? In short, what ratio does it actually matter?

You seem to be arguing degree, while claiming that my arguments are strawmen. They're not. You're still suggesting, albeit indirectly, that at a certain ratio of offensiveness, one word will offend someone, and another word will as well. As you said, it's insane to try to not offend everyone.

As you said:

The point following from this, of course, is the absurdity of trying not to offend everybody. It just can't be done. At some point, you'll offend someone, no matter how careful you are.

I seriously cannot tell the point of this part of your post, if you were not suggesting that "dyke" should be used because "lesbian" is also offensive to some?

It's absurd to try not to offend everybody, at all. It just can't be done. At some point, you'll offend someone, no matter how careful you are... and? Seriously, and?

And why did you completely avoid this question - which was the only point I was actually making - and raise a whole bunch of straw man arguments instead?

Because you failed to notice that I was actually addressing the hidden presumption of your argument.

 

[GreNME]

Let's try to avoid the personal attacks and bickering, shall we? That goes specifically for GreNME and Cicero.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

I'd just like to point out that I was addressing the arguments Cicero was making with the images. Just because they weren't in textual form doesn't mean that they weren't directly addressing the arguments being set forth. Just because Cicero turned it personal should not reflect on my method of addressing what I conclude are obviously ridiculous arguments.

 

[Cicero]

Buckley was funny, scathing, and sharp-witted. Suskind was plodding and dull.

Who could forget this 1968 ABC News exchange between Buckley and Vidal.

* Vidal tells Buckley to “shut up a minute”
* Buckley refers to the protesters as “pro-Nazi”
* Vidal calls Buckley a “crypto-Nazi”
* Buckley replies: “Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8

 

[Cicero]

I'd just like to point out that I was addressing the arguments Cicero was making with the images. Just because they weren't in textual form doesn't mean that they weren't directly addressing the arguments being set forth. Just because Cicero turned it personal should not reflect on my method of addressing what I conclude are obviously ridiculous arguments.

Just accept your time out.

 

[SRW]

Well, then, does he arrive at his conclusions through critical thinking, or does he simply pick whatever makes it easiest to piss people off?

I think his behavior suggests that the latter is the case. Including, of course, his being on record, during TAM, dismissing some criticism of his positions as "typical liberal [not so nice word]".

Why do I get the distinct impression that if he had said "typical conservative bleep" it would not have stuck with you.

He has very carefully crafted himself as the "contrariwise" it helps him get invited to talk shows which sells books. I have seen no evidence in his writings or debates, which would indicate that he is not a critical thinker.

After all Tommy Smothers was really the smart brother, entertainers do what entertainers do.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Lonewulf, I'll slightly change the order of your post to address the more important point first.

I seriously cannot tell the point of this part of your post, if you were not suggesting that "dyke" should be used because "lesbian" is also offensive to some?

Please show me where I stated the word "dyke" should be used. I merely observed (with evidence) that many find the word "lesbian" offensive. It was really a discussion point. I didn't suggest what it should be replaced with. I can see three reasonable possibilities from here:

1. Use neither dyke nor lesbian, since both are offensive, and find a third term;

2. Use either dyke or lesbian, since both are offensive, and you've decided that being offensive is acceptable here;

3. Declare one or the other to be acceptable on some reasoned basis - but be prepared to justify it.

I haven't declared which is my preference, but I'm interested in what others have to say. I think most people would choose (3), but I'm curious to know the justification as to why one is acceptable and the other isn't.

Compare that fraction of 350,000 people to those that find the word "dyke", used in the way Hitchens did so, as offensive. (Compare to "black dyke" for extra oomph). What would the ratio be? Consider that you're dealing with 300 million people in the U.S. alone. (Allegedly, the UK doesn't find the word "dyke" as offensive, but I'm skeptical on that point). So we're talking about a fraction of 300 million vs. a fraction of 350,000. I don't see why my argument is discredited.

The actual number isn't particularly important, but you tried to trivialise it down to a non-sentient object (bundle of sticks), which is clearly utterly ridiculous, or down to one person without a coherent reason. Clearly, you get the odd nutter who will claim offense at anything. That isn't the same as an entire island, with a coherent claim, taking court action against something they find offensive. You are trying to marginalise and trivialise the Lesbian's claim. Perhaps you have a valid reason to do this, but you haven't presented it yet. (Unlike you, I am unwilling to presume the opinions of others until they have been presented, but you seem to be so busy presenting what you think my opinions are to notice this)

And guess what? Predictably, you still haven't answered the one question I've asked. (You've answered loads of questions you think I've asked, even though I never asked them) Why, in your view, is offending lesbians wrong, but offending Lesbians is okay? Or do you think (1) or (2) are better answers to the above view?

Because you failed to notice that I was actually addressing the hidden presumption of your argument.

There was no hidden presumption. There is only the straw man presumption that you inserted. Stop tilting at windmills.

 

[Lonewulf]

Clearly, you get the odd nutter who will claim offense at anything.

Which was your whole point. Notice the quote I made earlier.

The point following from this, of course, is the absurdity of trying not to offend everybody. It just can't be done. At some point, you'll offend someone, no matter how careful you are.

This does not seem to fall into line with the rest of what you are saying above. You have yet to address your own statement.

And guess what? Predictably, you still haven't answered the one question I've asked. (You've answered loads of questions you think I've asked, even though I never asked them) Why, in your view, is offending lesbians wrong, but offending Lesbians is okay? Or do you think (1) or (2) are better answers to the above view?

Several reasons.

1) Totally different country. If you are in the UK and use the word "fag" to talk about a cigarette, I have no problem with the usage of this word. In the U.S., the use of the word is obviously making fun of people from the UK, or directly referring to a homosexual. I consider borders to be at least somewhat important, and Hitchens was not talking to anyone in or around the island of Lesbos. (Possibly from, but I doubt it, statistically).

2) Because when someone says "lesbian", it's rather obvious what people mean. If I were to say that someone was from the island of Lesbos, I would make that clarification. While it's considered offensive, there is a root to that word (notably the works of a poet from the island of Lesbos, if I recall correctly), though I admit, it's not the best connection one can make (I'd be just fine with a new word to use).

3) I just don't care overall, because I'm focusing on Hitchens' use of the word dyke, which was, I know you might be surprised to hear, actually intended to have emotional impact. If I call a homosexual woman a "lesbian", I'm not intentionally insulting her or intentionally insulting the people that live in the island of Lesbos. Hitchens was intentionally being insulting. So, your whole point is even off topic one way or the other. The context that a word is used in is important in considering the usage of that word. When a black calls another black a "******", it's obvious (mostly) that he doesn't mean it in an insulting fashion. People go on about how it's a "double standard", but calling a black man a "******" is like a white man saying "I hate white people" (a friend of mine did that once, randomly) -- it's obvious that they're not serious about it.

4) If the majority of people on the island of Lesbos really cared, why did they even bother changing their name back to Lesbos for increased tourism?