• 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.

Christopher Hitchens: A winner, or a ********?

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
Hitchens is arguably one of the greatest intellectuals alive today. Unbelievably well-read, funny and articulate, I would run a mile before debating the man on any issue.

He has contributed much aid to the Atheist 'movement' and provided people such as myself with valid arguments against theism.

That said, I am perplexed at his stand on the Iraq War, which he still stands behind all these years later, being a champion of its.. well, whatever it exactly was supposed to do. Dawkins and Harris, both seeing the Iraq War as a reckless intervention, appear to be as bemused as I am.

On Charlie Rose a while back, he stressed that the Saddam regime offered sanctuary to numerous terrorists involved in the 93 bombings of the WTC. Very well, but the finger is finding a hard time to declare war on the countries surrounding Iraq, in which a very prominent one allowed the influx of Zarqawi and his men into Iraq, destroying its civil society.

Worryingly enough, he also appears to continue to support it on Iraq's position in the gulf, suggesting that the tactical removal of Saddam was an affective move in a hotly contested and bloody chess game. A 'good move' or not, it is becoming a worrying trend to ignore the appalling loss of innocent life in Iraq and the displacement of millions of Iraqis.

I worry intellectuals like Hitchens may succeed in painting the removal of Saddam in a plainly aesthetic sense, and I fear this is his folly. On top of all this, I was struck by statements such as : "I hate our enemies, and I want them to be killed". I'm not in favour of loving those who have commited grave crimes, but as someone who claims he was greatly influenced by MLK, I worry about such aggressive rhetoric such as "Our enemies".
 
Last edited:
A self-serving wanker who makes his money by shooting his mouth off.

Nothing he has written, nothing at all, is in any way great literature; in 20 years' time he will be completely forgotten.
 
I can't say I've read enough of his work to actually have an opinion of him, but I don't recall hearing anything about him that has been in his favor. He's an anti-theist, a stance I do not share, and appears to have a troubling idea of Islam and how to deal with it (as mentioned), which I do not share either.

Of course we can't just read the works of people we like and agree with, but I'd need some kind of motivator to actually gain interest in his opinions. Songs of praise from those who happen to share his ideals won't suffice.
 
If you watch towards the end of "The Four Horsemen", it is clear from what Hitchens says that he and Dawkins once had an impassioned row over Iraq. A shame that was never on camera.

That said Gurdur, could you elaborate a bit more on your statement? Whilst holding questionable politics, the political science section of my university library is loaded with articles written by Hitchens that are utilised by students in their work. He is clearly seen as a signifigant source of value.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
.... That said Gurdur, could you elaborate a bit more on your statement?
Click to expand...

I could, and will, at very great length, but on another day, but soon. PM me to remind me. This is actually already a planned project of mine. A few short remarks here below.

Whilst holding questionable politics, the political science section of my university library is loaded with articles written by Hitchens that are utilised by students in their work. He is clearly seen as a signifigant source of value.
Click to expand...


Really? In just what role? You see, anyone vocal and well-known could be seen as a "significant source of value" to Political Studies students, simply and only because that person reflects some political current or other, that is all.

Do you remember ever learning of the Enoch Powells case? The "rivers of blood" speech? Great significant value to any political studies student there; for that matter, the collected speeches of Mary Whitehouse might also be so seen.

But tell me, what of lasting value is there anywhere in Hitchen's work? Where are the interesting insights? The deep analyses? The novel points of view? The avenues given for further explanation?

None, none at all, in Hitchen's corpus of writings.

He is only famous for being bilious; he represents resentful opinions, given in overblown rhetoric, and since he vocalises resentment, in judgemental tones with speciously clever rhetoric, many love him for expressing their resentment for them.

But lasting value? Deep stuff? Real suggested concrete programs? Ha, ha, ha.
 
Last edited:
I confess I had never heard of Hitchens till TAM V.

I can't honestly say I'm greatly impressed.
He's a bright bloke, and entertaining, but as opinionated as any other bright bloke.
Of course, I would be amazed if any two bright blokes over the age of twenty agreed on everything.
 
IIRC, Hitchens has moderated his view, ever so slightly of Iraq in recent times. He thinks it has been prosecuted badly, again this is just my memory. I think he makes some great arguments for prosecuting this war. Sadly I think the negative outweigh the positive, a view I've not always held BTW.

In any event, Hitchens is one of the greatest orators and debaters of modern times. He is simply outstanding and I count myself lucky to have heard him in person. It's clear that he commands a good deal of respect and admiration from intellectuals of many ideologies and disciplines.

That said, he's human, imperfect and flawed. He's ripe for criticism in a number of areas.
 
Gurdur said:
He is only famous for being bilious; he represents resentful opinions, given in overblown rhetoric, and since he vocalises resentment, in judgemental tones with speciously clever rhetoric, many love him for expressing their resentment for them.
Click to expand...
Right on target Gurdur
 
RandFan said:
BTW, listed #10 in the top 20 articles at Richard Dawkins' site is Hitchens' talk on free speech (video). Simply outstanding. A must see.
Click to expand...
That speech convinced me of two things:
1. That Hitchens is, all biases aside, without a doubt, absolutely brilliant when it comes to rhetoric.
2. That his opinions are, nevertheless, just about what I thought them to be.

The combination of these is... well, I don't know. I wouldn't exactly "run a mile before debating the man", but I wouldn't want him as my enemy. And the fact that in certain matters we hold diametrically opposing views means that I might have to view him as such to a certain extent.

Brilliant argument for the freedom of speech, though.
 
I don't see why people are calling him a brilliant intellectual and debator. From what I've seen all he is is eloquent at being a rude, obnoxious, ass. And he doesn't repect the rules of debate at all.

Sure, it can be appealing when you already agree with him, but otherwise he just comes off poorly.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I don't see why people are calling him a brilliant intellectual and debator. From what I've seen all he is is eloquent at being a rude, obnoxious, ass. And he doesn't repect the rules of debate at all.

Sure, it can be appealing when you already agree with him, but otherwise he just comes off poorly.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen him in debate, but seeing the speech RandFan linked to does impress me to a certain extent. He has a way of twisting small words to his favor. Perhaps the fact that I noticed it a few times means he's not that good, but he's definately not a bad speaker.
 
I love Hitchens. My friends always say that he talks and debates the way I do, only with a British accent. :D I own a copy of god Is Not Great and have lent it out to many people.

Like Hitchens I was big proponent of invading Iraq, it was something I started calling for back in the late 90's and was glad to see finally happen. I am, however, thoroughly disappointed with how the post invasion occupation was handled. There is nothing wrong with "painting the removal of Saddam in a plainly aesthetic sense" since there are at least two atheists, Hitchens and myself, that were big supporters of doing so.
 
Christopher Hitchens is just a retarded drunk.

How anyone could call him brilliant is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Sunni Man said:
Christopher Hitchens is just a retarded drunk.

How anyone could call him brilliant is beyond me.
Click to expand...
One can be brilliant in one way and a fool in many others. Based on my uninformed, arbitrary judgement, that is exactly what Hitchens is.
 
When I saw him at TAM I wasn't too impressed and didn't really know who he was. Since then I've read GING and his new "Atheist Reader" and they are both wonderful. The guy knows how to write well enough that I will read anything he writes. Then again, it doesn't mean that I like everything he says. For instance the Iraq war is pure idiocy. It represents the kind of short term thinking that I've come to hate. However, on religion I am also an anti-theist so I pretty much think he's right on there.
 
Well, Hitchens can at times be witty, but he never seems to manage to exercise his wit without being (or at least seeming) an enormously self-satisfied condescending a-hole.

On the Iraq issue I think Hitchens has been caught in a no-win situation.
He started off as a left-wing kind of chap. From what I've read he more or less did a 180 degree switch when he happened to be flying on an airliner on 9/11 (please correct me if I'm wrong). The realisation came home to him on that day that he could have conceivably been flown into some skyscraper. I guess that would have some effect on any human being.
Unfortunately for Hitchens he seems to have reacted in a particularly 180-degree fashion, and has had to progressively ally himself with Neo-Con type idiots. This went on for a not-insignificant period, and it would have been v. difficult for him to backtrack.

He is so enormously wrong on the Iraq issue.
If not convinced please search youtube for his debate with George Galloway on the topic. George completely destroyed him. Partly because the facts are on George's side, but also because George is a much better speaker, and more logical, and sympathetic, than is Hitchens, ... who still, unfortunately, comes across as doing his utmost in all situations in order to come across as "clever".

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom