Christopher Hitchens. R I P

chumlie

Journalist and author lost his battle with cancer last nite. I'll have Johnny Walker Black for you. Rest In Peace Mr. Hitchens.

Timothy Smith

While I disagreed with much of his leftist world view, he was principled and an absolute artist with the English language.

He never stooped to screaming and name calling. He skewered his opponents with wit and logic. He rarely took a conventional approach, instead coming at a subject from a completely different angle (for example:Mother Theresa caused misery rather than relieved it).

When you read almost anything he wrote you didn't want it to end because the writing was so wonderful.

I will miss him. Luckily he left a large body of writing for us to enjoy.

BeefJerky

Timothy Smith wrote: »

He never stooped to screaming and name calling. He skewered his opponents with wit and logic. He rarely took a conventional approach, instead coming at a subject from a completely different angle (for example:Mother Theresa caused misery rather than relieved it).

When you read almost anything he wrote you didn't want it to end because the writing was so wonderful.

I will miss him. Luckily he left a large body of writing for us to enjoy.

Well said, and I agree.

mundakamaal

Timothy Smith wrote: »

he was principled and an absolute artist with the English language.

I could not agree more! RIP!

Timothy Smith

mundakamaal wrote: »

I could not agree more! RIP!

Wow, post #1 !!!

Welcome to the forum Mundakamaal !

Face

R.i.p.

chumlie

Just finished Hitch 22. What a life he had. Be warned if you read it, its best to have a dictionary handy. His command of English is simply amazeing. Thankyou Mr. Hitchens for the education in politics, religon, history, and litterature.

ohskigod

I will admit I never read his work, but anyone who says mother Theresa caused mote misery than good and always "screamed and name calling". Sounds more like a well versed and written Internet troll to me.

From what little I know his view seemed to be religion is all bad. I'm not a terribly religious person ad have bagged on organized religion myself, but to have the view there is nothing good about it? Comes off like a petulant schoolboy than a genuine scholarly mind. Didn't sound terribly objective to me.

BeefJerky

ohskigod wrote: »

I will admit I never read his work, but anyone who says mother Theresa caused mote misery than good and always "screamed and name calling". Sounds more like a well versed and written Internet troll to me.

From what little I know his view seemed to be religion is all bad. I'm not a terribly religious person ad have bagged on organized religion myself, but to have the view there is nothing good about it? Comes off like a petulant schoolboy than a genuine scholarly mind. Didn't sound terribly objective to me.

Considering that you've never read any of his work or seen any of his debates, you come off as more trollish and much less objective than you claim him to be. You certainly don't have to agree with him or his point of view, but you should at least have some solid knowledge of his views before turning to criticism. If you decide to familiarize yourself a bit more about him and his views and still choose to criticize him, that is fine; at least I'd be able to take you seriously at that point.

chumlie

BeefJerky wrote: »

Considering that you've never read any of his work or seen any of his debates, you come off as more trollish and much less objective than you claim him to be. You certainly don't have to agree with him or his point of view, but you should at least have some solid knowledge of his views before turning to criticism. If you decide to familiarize yourself a bit more about him and his views and still choose to criticize him, that is fine; at least I'd be able to take you seriously at that point.

Well said BeefJerky. I have read most of his work and while i agree on most of his positions The ones i don't agree with, he makes a damn good arguement for his position.

Erik Tracy

ohskigod wrote: »

I will admit I never read his work, but anyone who says mother Theresa caused mote misery than good and always "screamed and name calling". Sounds more like a well versed and written Internet troll to me.

The comment was that he never stooped to screaming and name calling - that was what was so refreshing in watching his debates - cool, logical, and his arguments were well presented.

ohskigod

BeefJerky wrote: »

Considering that you've never read any of his work or seen any of his debates, you come off as more trollish and much less objective than you claim him to be. You certainly don't have to agree with him or his point of view, but you should at least have some solid knowledge of his views before turning to criticism. If you decide to familiarize yourself a bit more about him and his views and still choose to criticize him, that is fine; at least I'd be able to take you seriously at that point.

I may not have read him extensively (and felt the need to disclose that), I have tasted him thoughts and mindset....and how he communicates them, and found them to not taste good. I am a firm believer that I do not need to taste a butter covered roofing shingle to know I'm not going to like it.

I look more how how a man comes to his ideas and approaches them more than the pretty words he uses to make them. But that's just me, I have an opinion. Big words and an eloquent coin of phrase lone don't draw me in, it's ho objectively he looks at a topic.....and this man is not the most objective person on the planet. I certainly dont hate the guy and I hope he died peacefully and with relatively little regret. I must say though that if everyone approached an argument like him there would be little peace in the world. I do concede that many he railed against were the same way as well so maybe that's why.

Incidentally I dont feel I came off more trollish, I think it's a tie....he just used more words from a thesaurus than I did ;-)

BeefJerky

ohskigod wrote: »

I may not have read him extensively (and felt the need to disclose that), I have tasted him thoughts and mindset....and how he communicates them, and found them to not taste good. I am a firm believer that I do not need to taste a butter covered roofing shingle to know I'm not going to like it.

This is like judging a book solely by Cliff Notes, or a movie only by its trailer. Simply put, neither gives you an accurate representation of the body of work. Similarly, it is clear that you don't have an accurate understanding of Christopher Hitchens, his body of work, or his views. Comparing something like this to a "butter covered shingle" is absurd.

I look more how how a man comes to his ideas and approaches them more than the pretty words he uses to make them. But that's just me, I have an opinion. Big words and an eloquent coin of phrase lone don't draw me in, it's ho objectively he looks at a topic.....and this man is not the most objective person on the planet. I certainly dont hate the guy and I hope he died peacefully and with relatively little regret. I must say though that if everyone approached an argument like him there would be little peace in the world. I do concede that many he railed against were the same way as well so maybe that's why.

If you had actually looked into his work a bit, you would clearly see that it is more than just "pretty words," "big words," or "eloquent coin of phrase." I do find it funny how you dare to criticize him for lack of objectivity when you are being far from objective in your comments here. The last two sentences truly show your lack of understanding on the subject. If more people were actually like him, the world would be a much more peaceful place.

Incidentally I dont feel I came off more trollish, I think it's a tie....he just used more words from a thesaurus than I did ;-)

This isn't surprising. People who make trollish posts rarely see them for what they really are; or, at least they aren't willing to admit it.

ohskigod

Well. I guess I'll grab on of his books and start re............. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Now see, THAT'S trolling. :-)

Tour2ma

While I know Hitch more from his TV appearances than his writings, I am pretty sure he'd tell us that the standard, old "RIP" is inappropriate for atheists. And there's no doubt in my mind that he would prefer that we simply raise a glass of single malt to his memory. I did so last nite...

Nonetheless I am glad to see that Hitch's passing was noticed here... and glad to see his passing generated at least a smattering of controversy and discussion. He'd be disappointed in that it was only a smattering. If nothing else, he was provocative.

As for his "Leftist views"... please... The man held a veritable barbell of views. Many were very left; many were very right, e.g., his unwavering support for the Iraq War. The real challenge is to see how many moderate views you can think of that he held. I think it was simply a part of his intellectual DNA to take a strong position on everything about which he cared a wit.

Here are a couple excerpts from a nice read on Reuters...

Ian Buruma wrote:

I don?t quite see Christopher as a ?man of action,? but he?s always looking for the defining moment ? as it were, our Spanish Civil War, where you put yourself on the right side, and stand up to the enemy.

Hitch wrote:

It was, if I can phrase it like this, a matter of everything I hated versus everything I loved. In the hate column: dictatorship, religion, stupidity, demagogy, censorship, bullying and intimidation. In the love column: literature, irony, humor, the individual and the defense of free expression.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-christopherhitchens-appreciation-idUSTRE7BH0OW20111218

BeefJerky

ohskigod wrote: »

Well. I guess I'll grab on of his books and start re............. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Now see, THAT'S trolling. :-)

That is one form of trolling, however, that doesn't mean your other posts weren't a form of trolling as well. Seriously, take a small part of your free time and look into Hitch's work a bit more. You might end up appreciating it a bit, but if not, at least you will be able to put together a valid criticism. I think the most amusing part is how extremely different your arguments are from his. His were extremely well researched and contained vast amounts of knowledge; yours, on the other hand, are based on conjecture, with a bit of fear, uncertainty and doubt thrown in for good measure.

ohskigod

Fear? Lol. Dramatic much?

Laziness? Yes. Closed minded on this topic, sure. Fear? Perhaps if the man's ghost attacked me with an edged weapon?

BeefJerky

ohskigod wrote: »

Fear? Lol. Dramatic much?

Laziness? Yes. Closed minded on this topic, sure.

Well, at least you can admit to your glaring faults. I just find it amazing that you come onto a topic to criticize someone and their views, but have absolutely no knowledge of the subject and expect to get taken seriously. It would be like me going up to a physicist and telling them "you're doing it wrong!" But, I have no real knowledge of that subject, so I'd never do that because I know better.

Fear? Perhaps if the man's ghost attacked me with an edged weapon?

I would pay good money to see that.

quadzilla

ohskigod wrote: »

Fear? Lol. Dramatic much?

Laziness? Yes. Closed minded on this topic, sure. Fear? Perhaps if the man's ghost attacked me with an edged weapon?

A closed mind is a terrible thing. Nothing gets in, and only drivel gets out.

tonyb

I'm pretty neutral on the dude. Like others, I agreed on some of his thoughts, not so much on others. Doesn't make him a bad dude though. One thing that seems to stand out for me anyway in reading his stuff, is you never really knew where he stood. He was all over the place. I think he enjoyed being more controversial, and formed opinions around that to keep himself relevent. Thats just my personal take on the guy. He sure had a grasp on the english language though and I thought at times he used that to portray himself as being smarter than he actually was. Regardless, too bad he passed, he was entertaining. The world needs opposing views otherwise we all become sheep.

Timothy Smith

Tour2ma wrote: »

While I know Hitch more from his TV appearances than his writings, I am pretty sure he'd tell us that the standard, old "RIP" is inappropriate for atheists. And there's no doubt in my mind that he would prefer that we simply raise a glass of single malt to his memory. I did so last nite...

Nonetheless I am glad to see that Hitch's passing was noticed here... and glad to see his passing generated at least a smattering of controversy and discussion. He'd be disappointed in that it was only a smattering. If nothing else, he was provocative.

As for his "Leftist views"... please... The man held a veritable barbell of views. Many were very left; many were very right, e.g., his unwavering support for the Iraq War. The real challenge is to see how many moderate views you can think of that he held. I think it was simply a part of his intellectual DNA to take a strong position on everything about which he cared a wit.

Here are a couple excerpts from a nice read on Reuters...


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-christopherhitchens-appreciation-idUSTRE7BH0OW20111218

Mr. Hitchens was a self-described "man of the left".

Supporting the Iraq War is not necessarily a "right-wing" position either. Seeing that a murdering dictator like Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbors, sought or had weapons of mass desruction, swore hatered of the US and it's allies, supported terrorists etc. murdered , impoverished, and suppressed his own people brought many people to say that he must be dealt with forcefully (like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid and others...when it was politically expedient to do it).

Even though he was a self-decribed Leftist, Mr. Hitchens didn't turn off his brain and adopt the standard liberal/leftist position on any issue in a knee-jerk reaction fashion.

That's why a conservative like myself can respect and learn from him.

As a strident atheist, I think Mr. Hitchens took the "up escalator" anyway when he died, and had a pleasant surprise.

He probably said "Oh ****...I was wrong", had a good laugh, and asked for a drink.

ohskigod

quadzilla wrote: »

A closed mind is a terrible thing. Nothing gets in, and only drivel gets out.

Nothing wrong being closed minded on a topic that doesnt move you

Tonyb mentions the man used his keen grasp of the English language to portray himself as smarter than he actually was...... I could not have worded it better myself. What little I looked into him I just could get a connection

After a little digging I also notes he went into what seemed to be a "dick" phase around 2008, maybe thats when I did what little listening to him too. Who knows

ohskigod

By the way mr jerky I may be a troll , but I wouldnt pay money to see someone get attacked with a knife either. :-). I don't get that angry with people with viewpoints that don't match mine.

tonyb

BeefJerky wrote: »

His were extremely well researched and contained vast amounts of knowledge; yours, on the other hand, are based on conjecture, with a bit of fear, uncertainty and doubt thrown in for good measure.

Wow, pretty astute of you to pick all that up from a few sentences of Lou's.
So Lou didn't care for the guy, so what ? Hitch didn't lower himself to insulting those who disagreed with him, like you just did. It is still OK in this country to agree to disagree.....isn't it ?

BeefJerky

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Mr. Hitchens was a self-described "man of the left".

Supporting the Iraq War is not necessarily a "right-wing" position either. Seeing that a murdering dictator like Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbors, sought or had weapons of mass desruction, swore hatered of the US and it's allies, supported terrorists etc. murdered , impoverished, and suppressed his own people brought many people to say that he must be dealt with forcefully (like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid and others...when it was politically expedient to do it).

Even though he was a self-decribed Leftist, Mr. Hitchens didn't turn off his brain and adopt the standard liberal/leftist position on any issue in a knee-jerk reaction fashion.

That's why a conservative like myself can respect and learn from him.

As a strident atheist, I think Mr. Hitchens took the "up escalator" anyway when he died, and had a pleasant surprise.

He probably said "Oh ****...I was wrong", had a good laugh, and asked for a drink.

Wow, well said Timothy! I really couldn't have said it any better myself. It's funny how ohskigod didn't respond to you; I guess he really couldn't come up with a worthwhile response.

ohskigod wrote: »

Nothing wrong being closed minded on a topic that doesnt move you

Wow, I'm speechless. I'm not even sure how to respond to such an ignorant statement.

Tonyb mentions the man used his keen grasp of the English language to portray himself as smarter than he actually was

While I disagree, I can respect his opinion. At least he seems to have knowledge of the subject at hand.

...... I could not have worded it better myself. What little I looked into him I just could get a connection

Considering what little you've actually seen/read of him, your opinion still worthless.

After a little digging I also notes he went into what seemed to be a "dick" phase around 2008, maybe thats when I did what little listening to him too. Who knows

Digging, eh? Please, do indulge us.

ohskigod wrote: »

By the way mr jerky I may be a troll , but I wouldnt pay money to see someone get attacked with a knife either. :-). I don't get that angry with people with viewpoints that don't match mine.

But, it wouldn't just any knife attack, it would be from a dead guys ghost; this would definitely be something special. I'm not angry with you, and I'm certainly not bothered if you choose to have differing viewpoints. What I have a problem with your completely unfounded and uninformed criticism.

tonyb wrote: »

Wow, pretty astute of you to pick all that up from a few sentences of Lou's.

There was nothing to "pick up on." He blatantly admitted to having a lack of knowledge of the subject he was criticizing.

So Lou didn't care for the guy, so what ? Hitch didn't lower himself to insulting those who disagreed with him, like you just did. It is still OK in this country to agree to disagree.....isn't it ?

As I said above, it's not a difference of viewpoint that I take issue with, rather it is his unfounded and uninformed criticism.

Timothy Smith

I am a conservative, but I would love to have dinner with Mr. Hitchens.

On the other hand, dinner with Sean Penn, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or Jimmy Carter would be pure torture to me.

I would love to have dinner with Sarah Palin. I heard her speak in person a few years back and she is a very engaging speaker. Much better that what you see and hear on TV. Oh, and I would also drink and entire bathtub of her bathwater even if it gave me a stomach ache. She is that beautiful.

Tour2ma

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Mr. Hitchens was a self-described "man of the left".

Supporting the Iraq War is not necessarily a "right-wing" position either. Seeing that a murdering dictator like Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbors, sought or had weapons of mass desruction, swore hatered of the US and it's allies, supported terrorists etc. murdered , impoverished, and suppressed his own people brought many people to say that he must be dealt with forcefully (like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid and others...when it was politically expedient to do it).

As a strident atheist, I think Mr. Hitchens took the "up escalator" anyway when he died, and had a pleasant surprise.

First, as a strident atheist, why would you think there was an escalator?

The timing of his self-described leftism (has to be a word if leftist is) is germane. It was in his relative youth when he was a professed Marxist Socialist; a self-description he'd long relegated to his past. If you can find a recent occurrence, please point it out to me.

Iraq war support today, as in we should be staying, is most definitely a very right-wing stance. The key word in my initial statement was "unwavering". Leaving it out of your reply, either intentionally or unintentionally, is the antithesis of an honest debate.

Support waned once the fact creep began. And its pace of change accelerated once it was learned how the facts came to become facts. The Dems you cite as changing due to political expediency changed when the facts changed... just as I did. And just as Willard Romney does... on every issue except Iraq it would seem.

tonyb wrote: »

Wow, pretty astute of you to pick all that up from a few sentences of Lou's.
So Lou didn't care for the guy, so what ? Hitch didn't lower himself to insulting those who disagreed with him, like you just did. It is still OK in this country to agree to disagree.....isn't it ?

"tony, you ignorant ****!" :cheesygrin: Yes, it is OK to do what you and I frequently do, but you've got to know that Beefy was reacting to Lou's dismissal of Hitch as a "petulant schoolboy" and a "troll"; terms I believe fall under "name-callling"...

Beefy, well intended as your defense was, tony's right here. You know Hitch would have said, "No thanks. I've already won this round."

Timothy Smith wrote: »

I am a conservative, but I would love to have dinner with Mr. Hitchens.

On the other hand, dinner with Sean Penn, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or Jimmy Carter would be pure torture to me.

I would love to have dinner with Sarah Palin... and I would also drink and entire bathtub of her bathwater even if it gave me a stomach ache. She is that beautiful.

I am a moderate, yet I'm pretty much right there with you... at least until that last bit. Dude that bathwater thing is effin' sick enough... but a whole dinner with Sarah? No way could I feign interest for that long.

Timothy Smith

Tour2ma wrote: »

First, as a strident atheist, why would you think there was an escalator?

The timing of his self-described leftism (has to be a word if leftist is) is germane. It was in his relative youth when he was a professed Marxist Socialist; a self-description he'd long relegated to his past. If you can find a recent occurrence, please point it out to me.

Iraq war support today, as in we should be staying, is most definitely a very right-wing stance. The key word in my initial statement was "unwavering". Leaving it out of your reply, either intentionally or unintentionally, is the antithesis of an honest debate.

Support waned once the fact creep began. And its pace of change accelerated once it was learned how the facts came to become facts. The Dems you cite as changing due to political expediency changed when the facts changed... just as I did. And just as Willard Romney does... on every issue except Iraq it would seem.

"tony, you ignorant ****!" :cheesygrin: Yes, it is OK to do what you and I frequently do, but you've got to know that Beefy was reacting to Lou's dismissal of Hitch as a "petulant schoolboy" and a "troll"; terms I believe fall under "name-callling"...

Beefy, well intended as your defense was, tony's right here. You know Hitch would have said, "No thanks. I've already won this round."

I am a moderate, yet I'm pretty much right there with you... at least until that last bit. Dude that bathwater thing is effin' sick enough... but a whole dinner with Sarah? No way could I feign interest for that long.

Dude, please read more carefully. Maybe I need to write more carefully. I am not an atheist much less a strident one. I believe in god. Chris Hitchens was a strident atheist Please read his recent book "God is not Great". That's why I think and hope he had a pleasant surprise when he died and went to heaven.

Also, how exactly do facts change? If they "change" they were probably not facts in the first place. If George Bush acted on the information that he had at the time how is that wrong?, especially when Democratic Senators had the same info and made the same noises (honest, or politically expedient, or both) , and remember that GW had to act as the leader and decision maker. Senators like Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry etc. could make speeches, and when it come down to voting, their votes are, taken individually, only one out of a hundred Senators, big deal.

If Iraq descends into bloody chaos after we have left, I am sure you will not say we should have stayed longer to protect the relative peace. You will simply say we never should have been there in the first place. What a riskless exercise in self aggrandizement for you.

Sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities with my "bathwater" comment. Someone used that expression once and I thought it was funny. I am sure you never had an off-color thought. And I have certainly never read anything off-color on this site before.

BeefJerky

Tour2ma wrote: »

"tony, you ignorant ****!" :cheesygrin: Yes, it is OK to do what you and I frequently do, but you've got to know that Beefy was reacting to Lou's dismissal of Hitch as a "petulant schoolboy" and a "troll"; terms I believe fall under "name-callling"...

Beefy, well intended as your defense was, tony's right here. You know Hitch would have said, "No thanks. I've already won this round."

Sure, but that is Hitch, not me. I never claimed to be as good as him when it comes to these types of situations, though I hope maybe one day I can come close. Besides, I stand by what I've said; it is still absurd to come in and criticize something or someone when you have no knowledge of the subject.

Face

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Please read his recent book "God is not Great". That's why I think and hope he had a pleasant surprise when he died and went to heaven.

And what if he was right?

Timothy Smith

Face wrote: »

And what if he was right?

If he was right he never found out (which was what he expected).

A part of me thinks that he left that door open.

The name of his 2009 book was "God Is Not Great" (described by Publisher's Weekly as "The best of the recent rash of atheist Manifestos").

Think about that title. It's as if I wrote a book titled "The Unicorn is a mythical beast and does not exist", and then proceeded to explain why Unicorns were bad and the source of all evil a and why I hated them so much.

Maybe he had the last laugh on us.