• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

angrysoba said:
What CTs do is rummage around for quotes that are distorted by the context they place them in and cobble together various facts and falsehoods into the narrative that you talked about. Then fail to see the big picture and instead create one of their own.

With Hitchens, I can promise you, I am giving you the big picture here. I have given you only a few links because you requested I show you some links. If you want more they are very easy to find. There are videos and Slate articles galore that you can view and read.

But just so that we are clear, what "narrative" do you think I am giving you that you disagree with or are skeptical of?
Click to expand...
Thank you for the links. As for the narrative, read your posts, what point are you trying to convey? Look, I'm honestly and sincerely skeptical of the picture you seem to me to convey. But I will honestly consider the info. I'm not a sycophant. But I respect Hitchens very much. Given the sins of Lincoln, FDR and others I think humans like Hitchens are fallible. Human.
 
Last edited:
I agreed with Christopher Hitchens about so much and thrilled to his prose. It was his personality that put me off - overbearing, smug, hard and compulsively combative.
 
jenspen said:
I agreed with Christopher Hitchens about so much and thrilled to his prose. It was his personality that put me off - overbearing, smug, hard and compulsively combative.
Click to expand...

I always thought that was part of his charm, and was the main reason I liked him even when I disagreed with him. But I find it surprising that you liked his prose but not his personality, since I always found his prose more thoroughly saturated with his personality than just about any other writer I could name.
 
jenspen said:
I agreed with Christopher Hitchens about so much and thrilled to his prose. It was his personality that put me off - overbearing, smug, hard and compulsively combative.
Click to expand...

I never found him arrogant, and it annoys me when intelligence is confused with conceit.

Hitchens' job was to point out areas of political and philosophical debate which he thought were incorrect and to demonstrate why. His refusal to dumb down his demonstration in order to appeal to those who otherwise can't be bothered trying to understand him is not arrogance.
 
Last edited:
Here's Hitchens' review of Lost in the Levant, from 2010:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/lost-in-the-levant/7980/


Craig B said:
I made clear that it was Hitchens' later works that disappointed me.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was clear to me.
I was wondering what the posters who agree with Hitchens on the Iraq war thought of his other positions, which I suspect they disagree with.

Not that I think there is a problem. Agreeing with anyone on everything is a little unlikely.




There are some out there who dislike Hitchens' attitude to Israel, eg: John Podhoretz:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-1949-2011-2/

Who includes this extraordinary claim as his explanation for Hitchens' attitude:

Podhoretz said:
In the end, his feelings toward Israel calmed down but never underwent an evolutionary change, because his problem was not with the notion of a homeland for the dispossessed Jewish tribe so much as it was with the continued existence of the tribe itself...
Click to expand...

So Hitchens did get it from a couple of directions. Some of the comments refer to Hitchens as a Marxist.


Not that I think he would have cared about any of it.
 
Quinn said:
I always thought that was part of his charm, and was the main reason I liked him even when I disagreed with him. But I find it surprising that you liked his prose but not his personality, since I always found his prose more thoroughly saturated with his personality than just about any other writer I could name.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I should point out that I'm six years older than Christopher Hitchens survived to be and I outgrew my appreciation for his type of aggressive, take no prisoners style some time back. It's great to have him as a cheer leader when we agree with him but the people of whom and of whose opinions he was so dismissive will be more likely to be offended than persuaded. There are kinder and more effective (though more boring and less self-gratifying) ways of making good arguments.

He was a marvellous debater but I think best appreciated in his brilliant prose (up there with H.L. Mencken for me - which is high praise indeed - and they both thought most of us were 'boobs'). It may be that when I *heard* Hitchens, he was having off-nights, boozily? talking down other people and barely bothering to articulate clearly for the listeners.
 
jenspen said:
I agreed with Christopher Hitchens about so much and thrilled to his prose. It was his personality that put me off - overbearing, smug, hard and compulsively combative.
Click to expand...
He was very close friends and admired by many with whom he debated. He reserved his combativeness for debate and writing. He respected his audience and thought the issues too important not to.
 
RandFan said:
He was very close friends and admired by many with whom he debated. He reserved his combativeness for debate and writing. He respected his audience and thought the issues too important not to.
Click to expand...

Which very close friends are you referring to?
 
JihadJane said:
Which very close friends are you referring to?
Click to expand...
I don't know all of their names. Many we're rabbis and ministers. I've seen several in interviews since his death who counted him as their friend. Francis Collins was a close personal friend. Rabbis Shmuley Botech and David Wolpe, Pastor Douglas Wilson. Some I only learned about since his death and don't know their names.
 
RandFan said:
I don't know all of their names. Many we're rabbis and ministers. I've seen several in interviews since his death who counted him as their friend. Francis Collins was a close personal friend. Rabbis Shmuley Botech and David Wolpe, Pastor Douglas Wilson. Some I only learned about since his death and don't know their names.
Click to expand...


I wonder if "very close friends" could be an exaggeration...
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
I wonder of "very close friends" could be an exaggeration...
Click to expand...
In interviews either Hitchens or they characterized the relationship as very close friends.

I'm not sure of your point. Are you suggesting it's not likely for Hitchens to have close personal friends with opponents? The film collision, documents the very close relationship between Hitchens and Wilson.
 
Halfcentaur said:
Hitchens thought the Iraqi people were being brutalized for decades and that something should have been done about it. He supported the war for that reason alone from what I've gleaned. You make it seem like he became a die hard believer of GW Bush who advocated anything he did.
Click to expand...

That stills makes him a neocon in sprit.
 
MaGZ said:
His one true religion.
Click to expand...

Not really - it temporarily gave a privileged, middle class student with a desire to make a difference a defined enemy to focus on, but he was never much interested in economics. He had some other "religions", too, such as his belief in the moral efficacy of violence and combat.


RandFan said:
In interviews either Hitchens or they characterized the relationship as very close friends.

I'm not sure of your point. Are you suggesting it's not likely for Hitchens to have close personal friends with opponents? The film collision, documents the very close relationship between Hitchens and Wilson.
Click to expand...

I was just fact checking. Did he personally abuse them in debates as he did others?
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
I wonder if "very close friends" could be an exaggeration...
Click to expand...

RandFan said:
In interviews either Hitchens or they characterized the relationship as very close friends.

I'm not sure of your point. Are you suggesting it's not likely for Hitchens to have close personal friends with opponents? The film collision, documents the very close relationship between Hitchens and Wilson.
Click to expand...
Also, evangelical thelogian and debate opponent, Larry Alex Taunton, discusses his friendship with Hitchens.

My Take: An evangelical remembers his friend Hitchens

There was never a formal introduction. There was no need for one. From that moment, I knew that I liked him. We immediately discovered that we had much in common. We were descendants of martial traditions; we loved literature and history; we enjoyed lively discussion with people who didn’t take opposition to a given opinion personally; and we both found small talk boring.
Click to expand...

If my memory serves me well, Turek, D'Souzs and Craig respected Hitchens but they were not as close which is why I didn't mention them earlier. Perhaps you are thinking of them.
 
JihadJane said:
Not really - it temporarily gave a privileged, middle class student with a desire to make a difference a defined enemy to focus on, but he was never much interested in economics. He had some other "religions", too, such as his belief in the moral efficacy of violence and combat.
Click to expand...
Not sure of your perspective. Is it pacifism or simply an aversion of American imperialism? Was the combat of Guverra, a religion to him? Or, simply a means to an end, or do you take exception to all violence?

I was just fact checking. Did he personally abuse them in debates as he did others?
Click to expand...
I've seen one hell of a lot of debates. He could be abusive, arguably it was often appropriate but it was hardly typical. He was most abusive of nonsense, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom