Merged Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

[Childlike Empress]

If you want to persuade me to something (which I don't know if you even know what it is you want to persuade me of) then you need something more than partisan polemics.

Actually, I don't want to persuade you of anything. Ironically enough, it was Pardalis' "fault" that I read over there today (although I have it bookmarked and visit regularly) and found the orbituary. Just posted it here for people "interested", as I said. Make of it what you want, I have no high opinion of Hitchens but really don't know or care enough to debate about him, although the thread is quite interesting.

btw, the word Propaganda has negative connotations because of the Nazis, but originally it is a neutral term. The commercial application is called advertising today. Read Edward Bernays.

 

[RandFan]

Let me ask this as clearly as I can, and may I request that if you answer this question then you are not to bring in any irrelevant things such as atheism, Randi, Dawkins, Dennett, Turek, Wilson, Boteach, etc etc..., which part of my "narrative" about Hitchens on Iraq do you think is wrong or exaggerated or unfair? What issue do you take with my answer to the initial point about Hitchens' stance on Iraq?

I'm honestly sorry you had to do all of that work to make your point. I accept responsibility for that. I formally apologize and I will withdraw what I have said as it relates to your contributions to our discussion.

Please forgive my next question. If you think me impertinent I would understand but I assure you it's not my intent to be obtuse or yank your chain. What is your point about Hitchens' stance on Iraq?

 

[RandFan]

Actually, I don't want to persuade you of anything. Ironically enough, it was Pardalis' "fault" that I read over there today (although I have it bookmarked and visit regularly) and found the orbituary. Just posted it here for people "interested", as I said. Make of it what you want, I have no high opinion of Hitchens but really don't know or care enough to debate about him, although the thread is quite interesting.

Fair enough. I've got a chip on my shoulder and need to lighten up. My bad. I apologize.

btw, the word Propaganda has negative connotations because of the Nazis, but originally it is a neutral term. The commercial application is called advertising today. Read Edward Bernays.

I understand your point about the word. But words evolve and I mean it in the colloquial sense. But you may ignore that. In any event, regarding Bernays I'm quite familiar with the history of propaganda, and I would point out the contributions of the Soviets, particularly their use of cinema to frame propagate ideas that also gave the word a negative connotation.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm honestly sorry you had to do all of that work to make your point. I accept responsibility for that. I formally apologize and I will withdraw what I have said as it relates to your contributions to our discussion.

Thanks Randfan, I completely accept your apology and in turn let me apologize if I sounded bad-tempered in any of my responses.

Please forgive my next question. If you think me impertinent I would understand but I assure you it's not my intent to be obtuse or yank your chain. What is your point about Hitchens' stance on Iraq?

Well, mostly I was responding to "avioletforu" who said she/he was unaware of Hitchens' stance on the Iraq War.

However, my main point is that Hitchens was simply wrong on Iraq. And consistently wrong, in my opinion. But on top of that, while it is one thing to be wrong, it is another to be as insulting and offensive to those who opposed the war in Iraq as he was.

I think in the end he painted himself into a corner. Having so loudly "defected" from the left then he couldn't admit what seemed so obvious to everyone else, that the war had been a terrible mistake that had cost the lives of an untold number of people that he said he was liberating as well as a number of soldiers from the Coalition so he had to instead "double-down" on his mistake.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Thanks Randfan, I completely accept your apology and in turn let me apologize if I sounded bad-tempered in any of my responses.

Seconded. RandFan's classy style of debate is a very positive example for many on this forum and I enjoy reading his posts.

And if Hitchens helped him and others to overcome religious delusions by using brute force, that certainly goes to his credit.

 

[RandFan]

Thanks Randfan, I completely accept your apology and in turn let me apologize if I sounded bad-tempered in any of my responses.

Thank you. Had I followed my commitment to extend the principle of charity to your remarks we wouldn't have been in this position at all. I simply had a chip on my shoulder. That tends to get in the way at times. Actually I think you did a reasonable job of responding to me. Thank you. I'll try to be more careful.

Well, mostly I was responding to "avioletforu" who said she/he was unaware of Hitchens' stance on the Iraq War.

However, my main point is that Hitchens was simply wrong on Iraq. And consistently wrong, in my opinion. But on top of that, while it is one thing to be wrong, it is another to be as insulting and offensive to those who opposed the war in Iraq as he was.

I think in the end he painted himself into a corner. Having so loudly "defected" from the left then he couldn't admit what seemed so obvious to everyone else, that the war had been a terrible mistake that had cost the lives of an untold number of people that he said he was liberating as well as a number of soldiers from the Coalition so he had to instead "double-down" on his mistake.

Yeah, I'll accept that. I started out the invasion in favor. Unlike Hitchens I no longer think it was the right thing to do. Though I suspect I'm not as strong in that position as you are and perhaps a bit more generous to Hitchens. But otherwise, I accept your point in general and feel you adequately made the case.

 

[RandFan]

Seconded. RandFan's classy style of debate is a very positive example for many on this forum and I enjoy reading his posts.

And if Hitchens helped him and others to overcome religious delusions by using brute force, that certainly goes to his credit.

Thanks. I was responding emotionally. I really appreciate that CE. I like your posts also.

 

[joesixpack]

Hitchens' atheism does not excuse his support of the morally bankrupt foreign policy of the Bush and Obama administrations. Stalin's atheism doesn't make him my ideological ally, why should I make the same accommodation for Hitchens? Because he had a quick wit?

 

[bookitty]

Thanks Randfan, I completely accept your apology and in turn let me apologize if I sounded bad-tempered in any of my responses.



Well, mostly I was responding to "avioletforu" who said she/he was unaware of Hitchens' stance on the Iraq War.

However, my main point is that Hitchens was simply wrong on Iraq. And consistently wrong, in my opinion. But on top of that, while it is one thing to be wrong, it is another to be as insulting and offensive to those who opposed the war in Iraq as he was.

I think in the end he painted himself into a corner. Having so loudly "defected" from the left then he couldn't admit what seemed so obvious to everyone else, that the war had been a terrible mistake that had cost the lives of an untold number of people that he said he was liberating as well as a number of soldiers from the Coalition so he had to instead "double-down" on his mistake.

Yes, I completely agree.

It's always a bit sad to realize that our heroes are teetering on their pedestals because their clay feet can't hold them. After all the work we did to put them up there, too.

 

[Matthew Best]

Hitler is informed that Hitchens has died:

 

[IDB87]

Hitler is informed that Hitchens has died:

No.

 

[Matthew Best]

No what?

 

[IDB87]

No what?

Hitler was nothing like an atheist. The Nazi party was not secular.

 

[Matthew Best]

You don't say!

 

[IDB87]

You don't say!

Shocking to some people, I know.

 

[Craig B]

Shocking to some people, I know.

Hitler speech Munich 1922

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I completely agree.

It's always a bit sad to realize that our heroes are teetering on their pedestals because their clay feet can't hold them. After all the work we did to put them up there, too.

I always keep in mind the stories of Lincoln and FDR. Even the greatest can and will trample on basis rights for their cause.

 

[qayak]

However, my main point is that Hitchens was simply wrong on Iraq. And consistently wrong, in my opinion. But on top of that, while it is one thing to be wrong, it is another to be as insulting and offensive to those who opposed the war in Iraq as he was.

I think in the end he painted himself into a corner. Having so loudly "defected" from the left then he couldn't admit what seemed so obvious to everyone else, that the war had been a terrible mistake that had cost the lives of an untold number of people that he said he was liberating as well as a number of soldiers from the Coalition so he had to instead "double-down" on his mistake.

I disagree. Why do people think that everyone must have the same stance on every subject in order to fit a particular label? Since when does "left" = not supporting the war in Iraq?

Reasoned people hold stances that are not aligned with any particular political ideology because no one ideology has it all right. Hitchens felt that the result in Iraq was worth the cost. I don't agree with him but I don't think he is any less of a person for holding a position counter to mine. Even more, I don't think this one issue is the decider on whether a person is a "leftist" or not. There are just so many issues that are equally, or more, important.

 

[Craig B]

I don't agree with him but I don't think he is any less of a person for holding a position counter to mine.

But according to his critics he thought his opponents were less of persons for holding positions counter to his.

 

[angrysoba]

I disagree. Why do people think that everyone must have the same stance on every subject in order to fit a particular label? Since when does "left" = not supporting the war in Iraq?

Reasoned people hold stances that are not aligned with any particular political ideology because no one ideology has it all right. Hitchens felt that the result in Iraq was worth the cost. I don't agree with him but I don't think he is any less of a person for holding a position counter to mine. Even more, I don't think this one issue is the decider on whether a person is a "leftist" or not. There are just so many issues that are equally, or more, important.

I used the term "defected" in quotation marks, not because I endorse the idea that he "defected from the left" or because I believe ""left" = not supporting the war in Iraq" but because both he and "the Left" made a big deal of their disagreement. He left the Nation, because he believed the Nation had left him and he also believed that the Iraqi left were on his side.

I don't care so much for internecine squabbles among various groups of people who all claim to be on the left - as they all did at the time - but if you are concerned about "reasoned people" not accepting different opinions then it is certainly Hitchens who was most at fault for believing that there was no acceptable alternative to his views on Iraq.

As for "Hitchens felt that the result in Iraq was worth the cost" I hope for his sake that he had no idea of the cost before he started his campaign of Bush support. I believe that he didn't and I believe that it probably alarmed him at how much death and destruction was caused not to mention the sickening corruption of the war profiteers and the descent into sectarian war that the US government had huge difficulty stifling. There are even hints in his writing that he vastly underestimated the death toll. He first of all declared, within a few months of the Iraq War beginning, that it was all over and that he was now ready to extend his hand in friendship towards the left and forgive them. Then, as things got worse, he repeatedly tried to pooh-pooh the estimates of Iraqi dead.

I'm not saying I have no respect for him getting things very wrong. I am saying, merely, that he got things very wrong. I am also saying that despite being wrong he was savage in his condemnation of those who turned out to be right. What do you disagree with about that?