Death of Christopher Hitchens

[The Hitch]

Exactly. It seems to be sliding around in this discussion. And others' of Hitchens' place in things. And not even individuals vs. people, but all sort of combinations between and with means.

I never actually thought of it but now that I do, it seems to me that Hitchens did always take the view that individuals made history. He didnt say it but in his biographies he would usually argue that the world would have been different if not for his protagonists. He for example argued that there would be no US of A without Toussaint louverture.

Even in a science, he in debates on religion, he was fascinated by the scientifci theory that hundreds of millions of years ago, had 1 or 2 small mammals from which we are descended, behaved differently there would be no human race.

Sorry for the digression.

I don't really know what Hitchens represented or place in this is, if he has any place.

Sorry if I haven't answered your question.

With regard to Poland I think Hitchens just knew far less on the issue than he normally did on topics he commentated on. It takes a lot of work to be a historian, more than it does to talk about current events, and with Thomas Jefferson, Hitchens was able to become a historian of sorts by spending years reading and analyzing hundreds of books and primary sources of the man. With Poland, he did not, so his knowledge on the issue was more basic.

 

[The Hitch]

The man said next negative post and the thread will be closed. Am I not reading that right?

Negative views doesn't have to refer to negative opinions regarding a forum subject.

They can mean negative as in negative towards posters, insulting, which is what some of the posts were.

For example if there was a topic - what do you think of cyclists wearing sunglasses, and after a few off topic and insulting posts, a mod intervened asking users to stop the negative posts, would you assume the mod wants to stop the trolling, or that he wants to stop all posts expressing displeasure at the idea of cyclists wearing shades?

 

[Reformed]

Negative views doesn't have to refer to negative opinions regarding a forum subject.

They can mean negative as in negative towards posters, insulting, which is what some of the posts were.

For example if there was a topic - what do you think of cyclists wearing sunglasses, and after a few off topic and insulting posts, a mod intervened asking users to stop the negative posts, would you assume the mod wants to stop the trolling, or that he wants to stop all posts expressing displeasure at the idea of cyclists wearing shades?

Thank you I think I understand now. The mod would not mind it if someone said, "Chris has now come to realize that it is God who is Great and Chris that isn't"? And the mod would not be pleased if someone responded negatively to anyone stating that? Thank you for the clarification and the schooling on posting, I do truly appreciate it.

 

[aphronesis]

I never actually thought of it but now that I do, it seems to me that Hitchens did always take the view that individuals made history. He didnt say it but in his biographies he would usually argue that the world would have been different if not for his protagonists. He for example argued that there would be no US of A without Toussaint louverture.

Even in a science, he in debates on religion, he was fascinated by the scientifci theory that hundreds of millions of years ago, had 1 or 2 small mammals from which we are descended, behaved differently there would be no human race.

Sorry for the digression.

I don't really know what Hitchens represented or place in this is, if he has any place.

Sorry if I haven't answered your question.

With regard to Poland I think Hitchens just knew far less on the issue than he normally did on topics he commentated on. It takes a lot of work to be a historian, more than it does to talk about current events, and with Thomas Jefferson, Hitchens was able to become a historian of sorts by spending years reading and analyzing hundreds of books and primary sources of the man. With Poland, he did not, so his knowledge on the issue was more basic.

Sure. I know many who have run up against Poland that way. All I mean by represented is that while Hitchens may have argued what he claimed were certain particulars, his framing of issues may have tended toward older, more universal conditions of right. (Maybe this comes from the Jefferson.) This is all naive and general, but there's a quote floating around today from him on "postmodernism" that has me thinking he may ultimately have been anti-modern in certain respects. And that he held an aesthetic position which may have overridden his political acuity in the end.

 

[Maxiton]

<snip>


For Hitchens and his circle, Valentines day 1989 was their 9/11

What happened on Valentines Day 1989?

 

[Granville57]

What happened on Valentines Day 1989?

That's when the Ayatollah issued a fatwa on Salman Rushdie.

 

[Maxiton]

That's when the Ayatollah issued a fatwa on Salman Rushdie.

Thanks for that. No doubt it had some bearing on Hitchens' attitude; but certainly neither he nor anyone else needed it in order to know that the "Ayatollah" was an ignorant, backwards fundamentalist with state power, one whose interests, outlook, policies and objectives were antithetical to all things human. The Rushdie fatwa came as no surprise.

In other words, it was not the defining moment of Hitchens' abrupt conversion, nor did it coincide with it. I'll stick with my original thesis.

 

[Rouetheday]

Thank you I think I understand now. The mod would not mind it if someone said, "Chris has now come to realize that it is God who is Great and Chris that isn't"? And the mod would not be pleased if someone responded negatively to anyone stating that? Thank you for the clarification and the schooling on posting, I do truly appreciate it.

Say, by any chance, are you the guy posting as 'hollywoodron' on Andrew Breitbart's 'Big Hollywood' website?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Thank you I think I understand now. The mod would not mind it if someone said, "Chris has now come to realize that it is God who is Great and Chris that isn't"? And the mod would not be pleased if someone responded negatively to anyone stating that? Thank you for the clarification and the schooling on posting, I do truly appreciate it.

In your example, the mods would not be pleased if someone responded "Your are a blankety-blank idiot for thinking that".

It is not the opinions which we moderate, but how they are stated.

Susan

 

[oldborn]

Not Susan, me. I'm frankly annoyed by it. Next negative post will result in the thread being closed. I may consider handing out an infraction or suspension if it's warranted.

Final warning.

After morning tempo running I clear my thoughts about Hitchens.
If I say that guy was man behind the trigger (which is sometimes worst than murderer itself), Trotskyist, grotesque low intellectual so called writer which you and Hitch user find as authority by somehow, communist who do not give a **** about freedom of speech or men suffer, guy who hated everyone but his cheque book, men who said "The real axis of evil is Christianity, Judaism, and Islam", the man who changed his opinions in order to kiss asses of politicians, the man who is everything but authority of something...
Is that negative post?
If yes i would be honored to be banned no more or less from communist sympathiser as you and Hitch user are. Just like that.

P.S. I can not recall Gaddafi death thread and your intervention somehow, it is somehow ok to speak against dead Gaddafi, but when that Hitchens communist murderer being criticised suddenly everyone change his opinion or attitude.
Oprah published her next book, get it fast, cos I am sure you will find something really deep.
Stay well!

Hitch calling for arms quote:
"It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."

Guess what? Dude was such a coward that he will never actually pull the trigger, all he might do is call people to arms, while he is watching drunk from his swimming pool

Mediocracy communist thinker!!!

 

[Tank Engine]

As for criticizing Hitchens, I think he is fair game, as some of the obituaries he wrote were very biting (especially Jerry Fallwell's). Alpe is asking us to be civilized to each other.

Here's a development of my thoughts on a "controversial, thought provoking, infuriating, inspiring" character.

As for Hitchens' views, I would be most against his lack of support for (even dismissal of) Solidarnosc. With regard to Iraq (admittedly in this case, I know less about this part of the world than he did), I was against the second war against Iraq. However, I agree with him in saying that there should have more decisive intervention earlier. After the Kuwait war, there was no support for the uprising against Saddam and the insidious system of sanctions against Iraq (which highlighted the west's greed for oil and caused extra suffering of the people of Iraq) was set up while leaving Saddam in power. Basing the second war on the supposed threat of Iraq was always flawed. In defence of Hitchens, he did argue that many mistakes had been made and had always (rightly) been againt Saddam.

In terms of his stand against religion, he did voice his support (even admiration) of India being able to set up a multi-cultural, multi-religious democracy. He was a very vocal atheist living in a very religious country and he also enjoyed the role of "devil's advocate". However, many religious people were also happy for him to play such a role, as seen by the number of debates resulting from "God is not Great". I guess I would be a more liberal member of the "atheist church" than he was. I do subscribe to his view that nothing is too sacred to question and that I should not be ashamed in any way of my explaining and defending my views (although I feel he could be overly dismissive at times).

In total, Hitchens is a person who still (through his writing) makes me laugh, sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with him, think outside the boundaries of convention and will be valued (with a critical eye).

 

[Altitude]

Negative views of him in the days following his death? Hitchens wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[ChrisE]

Can't have contrary opinions can we?
.

Sure we can, but he was way wrong on one of the defining acts of our time. Plus, he was a ***, and that is saying alot coming from me.

Greenwald puts it all in perspective, as usual.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/chr..._protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/singleton/

 

[daveinzambia]

Well one thing i have found in these forums is my lack of knowledge is not just limited to cycling.

seems like i need to do a lot more reading before i am able to form a real opinion of the man.

 

[The Hitch]

Greenwald puts it all in perspective, as usual.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/chr..._protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/singleton/

The piece argues that Hitchens was motivated by a lust for blood. This is a totally new theory, and contrary to the mainstream portrayal.

First of all, when you present a new theory, and challenge the mainstream, you should back it up by solid evidence.
The piece offers exactly 1 piece of evidence. That is a link to a Hitchens article, of which the author comically only bothered to read the title (the description doesn't fit the article)

Second of all writers should never claim to know what somebody else was thinking. Thats a pretty basic rule of writing.

Thirdly one should probably know the subject quite well, and based on the fact that the author has a very vague knowledge of Hitchen's beliefs, admits to not having paid attention to him and couldn't be bothered to read the article he was linking, this is clearly not the case either.

No surprise then that this theory, like the thousands of others the internet produces every day, is limited to some fringe blog, to be forgotten in a day. It doesnt even make the first step into crossfire.

Of course to those like you who have admitted that their entire political information, comes exclusively from such one sided, no counter opinion allowed, fringe sites, such pieces may appear impressive or even insightful.

 

[The Hitch]

Well one thing i have found in these forums is my lack of knowledge is not just limited to cycling.

seems like i need to do a lot more reading before i am able to form a real opinion of the man.

And as with cycling, there are people who know far less than you about the subject making their strong opinions known

 

[Spare Tyre]

Sure we can, but he was way wrong on one of the defining acts of our time. Plus, he was a ***, and that is saying alot coming from me.

Greenwald puts it all in perspective, as usual.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/chr..._protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/singleton/

Thanks for the link.

 

[ChrisE]

The piece argues that Hitchens was motivated by a lust for blood. This is a totally new theory, and contrary to the mainstream portrayal.

First of all, when you present a new theory, and challenge the mainstream, you should back it up by solid evidence.
The piece offers exactly 1 piece of evidence. That is a link to a Hitchens article, of which the author comically only bothered to read the title (the description doesn't fit the article)

Second of all writers should never claim to know what somebody else was thinking. Thats a pretty basic rule of writing.

Thirdly one should probably know the subject quite well, and based on the fact that the author has a very vague knowledge of Hitchen's beliefs, admits to not having paid attention to him and couldn't be bothered to read the article he was linking, this is clearly not the case either.

No surprise then that this theory, like the thousands of others the internet produces every day, is limited to some fringe blog, to be forgotten in a day. It doesnt even make the first step into crossfire.

Of course to those like you who have admitted that their entire political information, comes exclusively from such one sided, no counter opinion allowed, fringe sites, such pieces may appear impressive or even insightful.

It doesn't matter what he was motivated by....he was wrong. Yes, Glenn Greenwald is a "fringe blogger" lol. And, only your idoltry blinds you of the motivation of his position on that war.

Hey, if you need something to believe in other than yourself and you need to have a hero then be my guest. I don't wh*re myself out with a username and avatar so much where I cease to be able to think on my own.

And with that, I am out of this thread. I hope you get over your grief soon. Perhaps you can think about the thousands of innocents that were collateral damage of his "opinion" while you are grieving. They matter too, more so than that blowhard.

 

[gregod]

The piece argues that Hitchens was motivated by a lust for blood. ...

i think one of the many points that was raised was that mainstream opinion is often out of touch with reality.

i don't know what hitchens' motivations were. i was troubled by his refusal to acknowledge the reality of some of his misguided opinions. he was a great writer, but he sometimes fell into the same trap that the fundamentalists that he so adroitly skewered were subject to; he became convinced by his own dogma and was therefore shut off from reality when it contradicted that dogma.

he was a man of many qualities, many positive and some negative. to do any memorial about him justice, his eulogies should reflect all of these.

 

[gregod]

Negative views of him in the days following his death? Hitchens wouldn't have it any other way.

i tend to agree with this, with a caveat: with issues in which he was confident, for example atheism, he was generally tolerant of dissent. with some of his more dubious opinions, for example his support for the iraq invasion, he was notoriously prickly.

 

[Eric8-A]

I came back from a ride almost two hours ago, and on my way back home, I came across a billboard advertising Johnnie Walker Black and another one of those posters that are put at the bus stops, also of JWB. Passing through those made me think of Hitch.

 

[roundabout]

The guy seemed like a real ***. He was like a talented writer I'll give him that but in the end he ended of the day there isn't much point in that talent when it's only used to be controversial with a double dose of smug pretentiousness on top probably to simply draw attention to himself in a needlessly huge crowd of already blowhard enough scribes.

 

[El Pistolero]

The guy seemed like a real ***. He was like a talented writer I'll give him that but in the end he ended of the day there isn't much point in that talent when it's only used to be controversial with a double dose of smug pretentiousness on top probably to simply draw attention to himself in a needlessly huge crowd of already blowhard enough scribes.

A writer who can cause a lot of controversy and discussion about his subject is a very successful writer. As that is the way how new theories and new insights are developed.

So, not only will I disagree with you, but the complete opposite is true. If he caused a lot of controversy and discussion about his theories and insights then he was very successful and influential indeed.

Even if a great writer has a completely wrong theory or insight about something, his works still remain of great importance because of the fact that they caused discussion, controversy, attention, his way of thinking, his way of using sources, etc

For example, Henri Pirenne's theory in his book Mahomet et Charlemagne has long been debunked already, but his theory led to new theories and insights to be developed. In that, he was a very successful historian.

 

[The Hitch]

I guess a general comment to make, in response to a lot of the posts, is that this is a simple battle between science and reason, and ignorance.

I have not linked any articles in this thread. I ask nothing more, than that people, if they want to form their opinions of the guy, should read his book, watch his documentaries, listen to his debates and speeches.

You will then be able to make a judgment for yourself. Negative, positive or in between.

That should apply to any public individual and any topic.

The other side are those, like a few posts and articles linked, who wish INSTEAD to speak for someone, and despite limited knowledge of the subject create a false account if thats what it takes to persuade people.

 

[Granville57]

In total, Hitchens is a person who still (through his writing) makes me laugh, sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with him, think outside the boundaries of convention and will be valued (with a critical eye).

Well said. Hitchens was certainly thought provoking, which is more than can be said for many of the those who he'd often be confronted with on news/talk shows. I didn't agree with everything he said but, as has been pointed it out, that was never his intent—he didn’t seek blind followers. If anything, he stimulated critical thinking.

If you are interested in the mans videos...

Hitch, do you have any clip in particular that you would consider one of his earliest or him at his youngest? Just curious. Thanks.