• 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.

Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

Easy Test

LostAngeles said:
Can you keep straight who you've been talking to?


Yes.



I just popped up to echo the call evidence. You've been discussing the matter with Cleon and skeptigirl.


No kidding?




Or are you misreading the simple joy of my avatar?
Click to expand...


No.
 
I must say how completely disappointed I am in this thread. I was sure that this was going to be the "Penn's retardos remarks" thread of TAM5, and instead it's become just a "They said/Where did they say" bleh thread. Where's the fun in that?

In the infamous Penn thread, we had pages on and on about theism, atheism, the role of skeptics in the media, rationality, faith, etc etc etc. This thread? Bleh, the usual Repub vs Dem stuff. For shame; how is this thread going to get Chris Hitchens to have someone post a response for him here, or better yet, sign up for an account? Now THAT would be a fight I'd love to read.

I did have high hopes early on in this thread, I must admit. Reading about this fight of words between people on a panel discussion, the only thought I had was "dang! Why couldn't I make it to TAM5 this year!?" Now..., [Jon Stewart] meh. [/Jon Steward]

Ah, I'm lying. I still wanted to go. I would have gladly traded places with anyone in this thread. Even if I walked out on the panel discussion, I'd still love it. I never get to witness such discussions in everyday life, and I certainly missed the opportunity to this year. (I suspect there are many who echo my thoughts)
 
Sorry for the long absence after starting this, I'm battling a major deadline. Some random responses:

Delphi_ote: That's a fascinating theory, about Hitchens and performance art. What a great way to look at him, even if he doesn't see himself that way. Makes me love the stuff I do love about him even more.

varwoche said:
It's not every day that I see a goalpost made of straw moving hither and yon so quickly yet clumsily.
Click to expand...
That's just a beautiful sentence, in any conversation. It bore repeating for the smile it brings.

richorman said:
In a our wonderful modern, multi-cultural, politically correct world full of the mealy-mouthed, the timorous, the people who watch everything they say so as to avoid giving offense, Christopher Hitchens is a breath of fresh air. Horray for Christopher Hitchens.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, Richorman, I don't care for political correctness or timidity, etc. either. But it doesn't take "guts" to be a prick. It doesn't take "guts" to attack someone for something they didn't really say (I know you interpreted it as something else, so I'll grant that we agree to disagree). It doesn't take "guts" to offer an opinion that isn't really all that gutsy, but rather oversimplified, with shades of widely accepted truth. Phil and others have dissected it quite well already so I won't. I'm also all for robust debate. But irascibility isn't the same as robustness. And it's not guts, either. It's actually quite, well, weak.

Phil/TBA and ForPete'sSake: BRAVO! You nailed it in every way. As have others. I enjoy reading the different opinions too, this is all interesting.

Oh, Bignickel, don't worry, I'm going to start quoting verbatim huge sections of last year's thread in a few minutes, just to liven things up.


The rest of this lengthy post (my apologies) is about other stuff brought up since the original topic. Hell, it's long. I'll break it into two.


Pomeroo:

You seem to have a misconception.

And it seems to really bother you.

So let me ease your concerns.

So you can sleep easier at night.

Your conception of the monolithic left is just a fantasy.

Doesn't exist. Neither does the monolithic right, by the way. There are probably more splinters in the left, as that's part of the nature of the left, but the non-monolithic quality of both political poles is something that should comfort you.

And let you sleep nights.

You seem to believe that all -- or even most -- people who consider themselves liberals of one stripe or another are hateful, horrible people who love spewing lies and hating, and when they're done lying and hating they fill their time by comparing Bush to Hitler. Then a bit more hating and lying, before killing puppies. Oh, scratch that, the latter is the right wing. I get confused with the inane rhetoric. (Before you get upset, that's what we call in the business, a joke.)

Maybe you're looking at too many blogs. Blogs are not good places to take the pulse of the masses. You know perfectly well you can find as many wild, crazy right wing blogs as left wing ones. Neither means a thing. The people who write the wildest ones have agendas, they want attention, they want to vent their emotions, they want to use hyperbole to make a point or a joke, they want to get people riled up. They seem to have gotten you riled up. May I recommend doing what I do: ignore them.

Oh, they can also be stupid. Just like people at marches. Marches and rallies bring out all kinds. I'm sure you can find sloppy Hitler comparisons to many people at many protest marches. Have you ever been to right wing protests? You see some pretty ugly things at them, too. I mean offensive ugly. Angry people vent. On the left and right and everywhere else. They sometimes go too far. It makes no sense to judge their whole political party or group based on those individuals' behavior in those moments of irrational venting.

I have a theory. If you avoided making generalizations based on relatively minute, unrepresentative samples, if you avoided saying things like "the leftists" and "the very thing these types say ALL THE TIME," and if you avoided mischaracterizing and slandering the entire "left" as a monolithic group, you might find that you can have some interesting dialogue.

If that's what you're interested in.

The way you speak -- and I know you may not intend this -- you seem to be searching for stuff to get angry at. Stuff that isn't even really there.

Here's an example:

You suggested that the number of hits generated by a basic Google search for the words "Bush" and "Hitler" shows that "the left has promoted this insane comparison for years." I know you're smarter than that. I see others have addressed this, but I still want to illustrate the flaw in this argument:

Here's a very slight improvement on your methodology. (And I mean slight.) "Bush" is a common word. Let's go with the President's full name:

- "George Bush" and "Hitler": 1,330,000 hits (which could apply to his father too, especially since when he was president, the "H.W." was almost never used)
- "George W Bush" and "Hitler": 1,440,000 hits
- "Bill Clinton" and "Hitler": 1,090,000 hits
- "Hillary Clinton" and "Hitler": 1,050,000 hits

These are all in the same ballpark. By the logic you employed, we must conclude from this that the right has promoted this insane comparison between the Clintons and Hitler for years!

Relax.

Breathe.

Ignore the overemotional.

You'll sleep easier.

And by the way, I'm a solid Democrat and I do not think Bush is anything like Hitler. He's like Hussein. (Joke.)
 
Last edited:
I don't think it makes any sense to 'compare Bush to Hitler'. However, most of the time when someone is yelling about this kind of thing, they are just too stupid to understand what the discussion is all about.

For example, if someone discusses propaganda in the US today and how it relates to other well known examples of propaganda, let's say in the US prior to entering WW1, or the Soviet Union, or the Third Reich, then someone will instantly pop up and yell about how completely unfair it is to claim that the US is an evil totalitarian state like the USSR or nazi Germany, even though no such claim was ever infered.

When it comes to Bush and Hillary Clinton, I would expect more vitriol towards Bush than towards Clinton, assuming the same level of moronic opposers to both, simply because Bush has been President for 6 years while Clinton is merely a Senator. An observation which may be relevant is that I have organised a 10000 strong demo with the motto 'Bush Not Welcome', and I didn't have to fend off any references to Hitler or swastikas or such (and that was the kind of things we were specifically looking for.. because as an organiser you should know that if there is even one such sign, that will be the sign shown in the tv images).
 
Ignoring the po...oo, I have it from reliable sources (a fellow TAM attendee) Hitchens was intoxicated when observed away from the podium. That explains a lot of his behavior.

Do you suppose he's lurking? It would be interesting to debate his points in a rational forum discussion.
 
Pomeroo: Okay, back to the questions you raised about Hitchens' lies, or at best, errors.

1) Joe Wilson.

When I said Hitchens incorrectly claims Wilson's been lying, I wasn't referring to the bit about his wife Valerie Plame. But since you bring that one up, allow me to debunk Hitchens.

Hitchens is relying on old data. Specifically, the erroneous "additional comments" section attached by Republican Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch to the 7 July 2004 Senate Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq.

Very shortly after the report was published, the assertion about Plame was discredited.

Here's a later report about it, dating 10/28/05. This is from an interview between Wolf Blitzer and CNN's National Security Correspondent, David Ensor. (You can find the full text here):

DAVID ENSOR: "Secondly, the suggestion that's been out there quite a bit, and there's even some discussion of it in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, that -- that Valerie Plame suggested her husband be sent to Niger, I have talked to very high intelligence officials who say that just isn't true, that it was senior officers above her who had the idea of sending Ambassador Wilson, knowing that he'd been in Niger before and was an experienced hand in Africa, a former ambassador on that continent, and they thought he'd be good.

"They then went to her and said, well, what do you think? And she responded with an e-mail that said, yes, he'd be good for following reasons. That was in response to higher-ups at the CIA who suggested that Joe Wilson be sent."
Click to expand...
You can also read the thorough explanation in Wilson's published letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which points out the errors in the Republican senators' additional comments to the report. We obviously can't rely on him as a final source, but he illuminates a great deal, and backs it up. Here's one snippet:

In fact, it is my understanding that the [CIA Counterproliferation Division] reports officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in the "additional comments." I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement.

It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July 2003. They reported on July 22 that:

"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. 'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be.' 'We paid his [Wilson's] airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses." (Newsday article "Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover," dated July 22, 2003).

In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose me for the trip.
Click to expand...
Also, this is from a 7/18/04 interview Wolf Blitzer did with Wilson right after the Intelligence Committee report came out (you can read the whole thing here). Here Wilson is answering Blitzer's question about the claim of his wife's involvement:

WILSON: There are a number of journalists who have gone to the CIA directly and asked about that, including David Ensor, who was told a different story about how that may have come about. In fact, my understanding -- and I don't want to put words in his mouth, so you better ask him -- is that he was told that somebody in that chain of command had asked Valerie to do my list of curriculum vitae.

But the fact of the matter is, the decision -- the invitation, the offer, or the request that I go out to Niger was made at a meeting, after this issue was discussed in a group of involving analysts from the CIA and other agencies. My wife was not at that meeting, and she specifically absented herself from that meeting, so as to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

BLITZER: And I spoke to David Ensor, our national security correspondent, who says that a high-ranking CIA official does say the Senate Intelligence Committee report got it wrong on that specific point.

WILSON: Well, on July 22nd of last year, a Newsday journalist asked the same thing. And he was told by a senior intelligence official that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked alongside, but said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment.
Click to expand...
Again, what's relevant here is looking at the unbiased sources that back Wilson up. The accusation has been put to rest.

So is Hitchens ignorant, or lying? He's a smart, informed man, so I have to guess the latter. Hitchens: Stop lying. Thank you.


2) Nigerian yellocake:

So what exactly is Hitchens' hard evidence? His own articles speak of conjecture. He proffers no hard evidence. But if I've missed it, kindly list the hard evidence he lists, and I'll assess it. Please don't rant about nobody reading the articles. I have. If I've missed it, please be a gentleman and share it. You could convince me. Thank you.
 
skeptigirl said:
Ignoring the po...oo, I have it from reliable sources (a fellow TAM attendee) Hitchens was intoxicated when observed away from the podium. That explains a lot of his behavior.
Click to expand...

He was most likely intoxicated while at the podium. Hitchens is well-known as an alcoholic, to the point where he even makes jokes about it. (I think he made a crack about "turning water into wine" being his favorite miracle.)

Seriously, this is not news to anyone, not even his supporters.
 
Silly Stuff

Cleon said:
No. They've presented opinion pieces about it.



Gasp! Opinion pieces in JOURNALS OF OPINION?! I can understand now why you have decided that you are a deep thinker. Your grasp of tautology is comprehensive.




The fact that you cannot differentiate between "opinion" and "evidence" speaks volumes.



Let me see: Many, many articles have been written about the left's despicable tactic of comparing Bush to Hitler. The subject is debated frequently on political talk shows. But there is no evidence that leftists, to be more precise, MOVEON.ORG types actually compare Bush to Hitler. Nah, no evidence at all. Again, you can't possibly be serious.
It is a matter of opinion whether or not leftists are JUSTIFIED in making the comparison. If you are trying to pretend that they don't actually make it, you have entered an alternate reality.



Then show us the evidence of that, already.


I've tried.




Repeated Assertion != Evidence. Yes, even if the assertion is also made by others.



Just when I conclude that you are the most hopelessly illogical human I've ever encountered outside a conspiracist site, you stumble onto an accurate observation. Yes, if the behavior of a group is being heavily criticized by many people, we can, without reaching a judgment on that behavior, conclude that the behavior in question has, in fact, been observed.



Also, before you go on about "imagining" things, I should also point out:

Incredulity at Strawman != Evidence.



Incoherent



Tough, ain't it?
Click to expand...


Nearly impossible.
 
Cleon said:
I find it interesting that you persist in refusing to provide any substantial evidence of this beyond skewed opinion articles, but you still claim to be incredulous that we're not buying it.

Honestly, I'm starting to think that "evidence by Google count" should be its own fallacy. It's statistically meaningless, it doesn't establish who's using a word how frequently, and doesn't filter the results for purpose or use.

For example; you can google the forum for "bushitler" by clicking on the "search" dropdown at the top; every single use is by Bush supporters mocking Bush opponents. Every single fracking one. I'm sure in the global google, many of them are "real," but I'm sure many of them are used in the same way.

But ok, let's play this game.

"Bushitler" generates 87,600 results.

"Hitlery" generates 94,500. "Hitlary" generates an additional 19,100, for a grand total of 113,600.

Care to comment? Or are comparisons with Hitler only objectionable if the target is Bush?
Click to expand...

I found about 1.18 million results for "tooth fairy" on Google. Surely this means that all "leftists" (whoever these bogiemen are) all believe in the tooth fairy, right?
 
IMNSVHO this thread has become yet another example of the Usenet/Internet truism that whenever anyone brings Hilter into the discussion, the discussion is over.

It is clearly insulting to compare Bush to Hitler. All you guys are now arguing over is which of the two is more insulted by the comparison.
 
Slippery Logic

Chaos said:
I found about 1.18 million results for "tooth fairy" on Google. Surely this means that all "leftists" (whoever these bogiemen are) all believe in the tooth fairy, right?
Click to expand...

Whenever people who fancy themselves very tricky prattle about moving goalposts, I assume that they're telling me about a technique they favor. Am I supposed to believe in a monolithic left? Do I regard Leslie Cagan as indistinguishable from Chuck Schumer? A silly question, but Alan Colmes apparently does. He famously called the old Castroite a "liberal." I wonder if that Democratic big tent is big enough to accommodate Kim Jong Il, given that it's not big enough for Joe Lieberman.

When Bob Beckel complains about Michael Moore's prominence at the Democratic Convention or the influence the BusHitler crowd, someone should explain to him that it's all in his imagination. There is no sense in debating the size or infuence of a phenomenon that doesn't exist. Right?
 
Glenn said:
Pomeroo:

You seem to have a misconception.

And it seems to really bother you.

So let me ease your concerns.

So you can sleep easier at night.

Your conception of the monolithic left is just a fantasy.



Your conception of my conception is the real fantasy.


-

Doesn't exist. Neither does the monolithic right, by the way. There are probably more splinters in the left, as that's part of the nature of the left, but the non-monolithic quality of both political poles is something that should comfort you.


As true as it is banal.



-
Click to expand...
 
Glenn said:
Pomeroo: Okay, back to the questions you raised about Hitchens' lies, or at best, errors.

1) Joe Wilson.

When I said Hitchens incorrectly claims Wilson's been lying, I wasn't referring to the bit about his wife Valerie Plame. But since you bring that one up, allow me to debunk Hitchens.

Hitchens is relying on old data. Specifically, the erroneous "additional comments" section attached by Republican Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch to the 7 July 2004 Senate Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq.

Very shortly after the report was published, the assertion about Plame was discredited.

Here's a later report about it, dating 10/28/05. This is from an interview between Wolf Blitzer and CNN's National Security Correspondent, David Ensor. (You can find the full text here):

You can also read the thorough explanation in Wilson's published letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which points out the errors in the Republican senators' additional comments to the report. We obviously can't rely on him as a final source, but he illuminates a great deal, and backs it up. Here's one snippet:

Also, this is from a 7/18/04 interview Wolf Blitzer did with Wilson right after the Intelligence Committee report came out (you can read the whole thing here). Here Wilson is answering Blitzer's question about the claim of his wife's involvement:

Again, what's relevant here is looking at the unbiased sources that back Wilson up. The accusation has been put to rest.

So is Hitchens ignorant, or lying? He's a smart, informed man, so I have to guess the latter. Hitchens: Stop lying. Thank you.


2) Nigerian yellocake:

So what exactly is Hitchens' hard evidence? His own articles speak of conjecture. He proffers no hard evidence. But if I've missed it, kindly list the hard evidence he lists, and I'll assess it. Please don't rant about nobody reading the articles. I have. If I've missed it, please be a gentleman and share it. You could convince me. Thank you.
Click to expand...


Wolf Blitzer, an unbiased source--now there's objectivity for you!

What errors does Stephen Hayes make in the following article:
http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6217&R=111ED1759B
 
Damn, I come to the TAM and meetings subforum and I find that the Politics subforum has invaded!! :eye-poppi ;)

I do not plan on getting involved in this one, folks, except to say Cleon and friends are well ahead on (debating) points, but in re: Hitchens', he is, IMHO, like Absinthe and Light Bondage during sex, an acquired taste.

And I'm out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom