Christopher Hitchens RIP

[bleeding heart]

Apparently, yes.

Then you might, I dunno, perform the courtesy of explaining why you think I'm wrong about the man, just as I made some attempt to explain my objections to him.

After all, I can directly source his remarks on zionism and Israel, his defense of anti-democratic measures undertaken by the Bush administration, his hyper-sensitivity to any criticism of the administration (particularly from the Dixie Chicks, whom he deemed "sluts" and "fat fucking slags" because they didn't admire his heroes properly....)

And so on.

I know a bit, because I was a longtime admirer of the man, never quite able to admit to myself that he was a moral weakling, until he started pissing this truth right into everyone's face.

(Not coincidentally, this was when he was embraced by the hawkish right wing...who liked to pretend he didn't say whay he did about Israel...a thousand times over. )

I could also cite his far better work: his scathing critiques of Kissinger and Clinton, his sharp wit, and etc.

Presumably, so could you.

Conversely, you can just blithely say someone doesn't know dick about a subject, and then not bother to explain yourself.

Your current method of "debate."

Edited July 23, 2012 by bleeding heart

[msj]

Then you might, I dunno, perform the courtesy of explaining why you think I'm wrong about the man, just as I made some attempt to explain my objections to him.

After all, I can directly source his remarks on zionism and Israel, his defense of anti-democratic measures undertaken by the Bush administration, his hyper-sensitivity to any criticism of the administration (particularly from the Dixie Chicks, whom he deemed "sluts" and "fat fucking slags" because they didn't admire his heroes properly....)

And so on.

I know a bit, because I was a longtime admirer of the man, never quite able to admit to myself that he was a moral weakling, until he started pissing this truth right into everyone's face.

(Not coincidentally, this was when he was embraced by the hawkish right wing...who liked to pretend he didn't say whay he did about Israel...a thousand times over. )

I could also cite his far better work: his scathing critiques of Kissinger and Clinton, his sharp wit, and etc.

Presumably, so could you.

Conversely, you can just blithely say someone doesn't know dick about a subject, and then not bother to explain yourself.

Your current method of "debate."

What is there to debate?

We can all cherry pick quotes from time to time and put them into a different context. In fact, there is a thread doing exactly that elsewhere looking at 12 words spoken by Obama.

I see little point debating anyone on this when I can read the mans' own words and see his interviews on youtube which clearly show his arguments are much more complicated than the cherry picking BS you would serve.

Sure, I disagree with him on many things too, but I'm not about to be so disingenuous about it.

[bleeding heart]

What is there to debate?

We can all cherry pick quotes from time to time and put them into a different context. In fact, there is a thread doing exactly that elsewhere looking at 12 words spoken by Obama.

I'm not thinking of 12 words written by Christopher Hitchens; I"m talking of years of a downward spiral, in comparison to the way he once wrote.

I should no doubt have added that he was, in later years, rather returning to his earlier, better polemicist and thinker. For instance, no one could argue atheism better than he could. No one.

Further, he almost completly stopped writing about Iraq, a subject which contained the lion's share of his foolishness (including his explicitly anti-democratic opinions, as when he said the Bush administration had no choice but to lie the country into the war. (An astonishing declaration, in my view, and contradictory to virtually his entire canon on political subjects.)

That is, I believe 9/11 drove him a little mad...but that he was quite possibly beginning to regain his senses, precisely when he became fatally ill.

The "anti-Zionism" bit, too, was not some remark he once made, to be taken out of context; he returned to the subject many times, and his disgust for Zionism was a constant, and quite visceral.

But I should also have added that on this particular point, I didn't mean to denounce him; I'm not an anti-Zionist, but I don't believe it's an evil stance, or that it's anti-semitic.

However, many of Hitchens' 21st century admirers, particularly from the Western political Right, do equate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism...and I was poking at them on this point, not at Hitchens. (Yes, I was carelessly unclear.)

I see little point debating anyone on this when I can read the mans' own words and see his interviews on youtube which clearly show his arguments are much more complicated than the cherry picking BS you would serve.

Some of his arguments are quite nuanced, I agree. But calling critics of President Bush "fat fucking slags" is not; it's unhinged, a common problem with Hitchens between 2001 and, say, 2009 or so. Totalitarian-style, he would simply brook no dissent.

Anyone who disagreed with the Iraq War (ie most people on Earth) were "objectively pro-Saddam," and "proto-fascists." (I use quotation marks because they're direct quotes.) That's not a complicated and nuanced argument; it's the direct, literal opposite.

He even tried to explain that, after many decades of venal and corrupt behaviour, the United States, through its government, had institutionally and suddenly reformed itself--without a word, and without warning--and was now a noble and humanitarian force for good under George Bush Jr....and his evidence of this? "Conversations I've had in Washington."

Such outright credulity, sycophancy even, is amazing from a mind like his, but there it stood for all to see.

However, even his close friends expressed relief that the Hitchens who had veered to the militaristic Right was starting to ease back in his last couple of years. ("Less on Iraq, more on Bosnia," Rushdie reports he pleaded with him...concerned about his legacy, perhaps.)

Sure, I disagree with him on many things too, but I'm not about to be so disingenuous about it.

How am I being disingenuous? I'm trying to be expansive in my explanation.

Edited July 24, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Manny]

I"m talking of years of a downward spiral, in comparison to the way he once wrote.

Which shows that the final and inevitable outcome of his belief is amoralism. A shining testament, for the rest of us.

[bleeding heart]

Which shows that the final and inevitable outcome of his belief is amoralism. A shining testament, for the rest of us.

No, I don't think he ever lost a strong moral sense; his moral sensibilities were forever being offended, for good and for bad. I simply think he was too often thoughtless (and quick to underline it, rather than remain quiet and think things through), and too sensitive to dispute.

[msj]

Bleedingheart:

I'm not taking issue with CH and anti-zionism. Or even his defence of the noble lie which I find quite despicable even when Plato/Socrates argues the point.

His arguments regarding that are well documented for anyone to see and to disagree with.

I'm taking issue with your paraphrase of why he believed in rape charges against Bill Clinton (and the upward mobility nonsense).

At least Shady had the decency to give us a few words of Obama's quote (albeit totally out of context).

Here all we have to go on is your paraphrase.

I have read and heard CH give his reasons with respect to Bill Clinton and his criticism regarding the man are well thought out and deeply disturbing.

Bill Clinton may have been a pretty good President but he is a creep for a man.

[bleeding heart]

I'm taking issue with your paraphrase of why he believed in rape charges against Bill Clinton (and the upward mobility nonsense).

When I have more time, I'll try to find the relevant quote. It's long ago enough that, yes, possibly I misread it, or am viewing it through the distortions of time. (I do remember being almost gobsmacked when I first read it, but we'll see.)

Here all we have to go on is your paraphrase.

Insufficient, I agree. Fair enough.

I have read and heard CH give his reasons with respect to Bill Clinton and his criticism regarding the man are well thought out and deeply disturbing.

Bill Clinton may have been a pretty good President but he is a creep for a man.

I don't know if he was a good president, or what constitutes that (war crimes, for example?). But I think, yes, he is basically a charming and affable creep.

Edited July 24, 2012 by bleeding heart