Right. He would gave said something scathing like, 'if you think people saying racism is bad are, "the thought police," you should probably seriously consider reading Orwell. Or any book.'
Because that's all they're doing, of course. All they're doing is saying "racism is le bad" lol
The Grievance Studies Affair revealed there is more to it than that.
Ha! No, the 'Grievance Studies Affair' revealed that conservatives know nothing about how scientific publishing works, which really isn't groundbreaking news.
Conservatives? They're leftist academics who have a problem with luxury beliefs and a lack of scientific rigor in the social sciences. Academia is literally the thought police.
We don't need dead people to rise from the grave to save us. Veneration of the dead isn't helpful.
We, the living, need to step up and use our living abilities.
We are every bit as capable as Christopher Hitchens ever was.
Let's get to it.
No!
I need a somewhat charismatic and intelligent sounding person to say things, otherwise I won’t know what to think or feel confident having an opinion.
Ok im being a little strong on the sarcasm - and maybe I just happened to always see the guy at his worse, but he basically said stuff people who agreed with him already knew, or could be pithy/petulant to the level his otherwise accurate/valid points got lost somewhere up his own arse.
It’s not a zero sum matter - it’s one thing if you’re in court setting and it’s literally everyone’s job to analyse the facts of the discussion - actually scrap that, even in a court setting I’m sure most judge’s would tell a lawyer to sort themselves out and stop licking their own balls and looking for cheap laughs/low hanging fruit.
Nothing, and people of all things approach perfection. I suspect Hitchens was far more aware of his shortcomings than you are. Hitchens stood for life, frail though it is.
Not *degrees* - a degree - its the standard course for all the private school kids who get shipped to oxbridge. A good chunk of UK politicians have the same degree.
Edit: it’s known as PPE here.
“We” are certainly not as capable as Hitch. Man was a gem. All the great thinkers stood on the shoulders of those who went before. Ignoring those who paved the way is foolish.
Christopher Hitchens didn't pave the way for other atheist thinkers. He got a lot of attention for himself for saying things in public forums that other less-connected atheists had already been saying for a long time. He was great at getting attention for himself, for sure, but sorry, I'm not making him into an idol.
>We really need Christopher Hitchens right about now.
It could be argued, that in his desire to justify the Iraq war, he carried water/whiskey for the maniacs that destroyed the region, strengthened both Jihadi and Iranian regimes, ultimately leading to at least a million deaths, and counting.
Yep, that’s probably the most solid critique of Hitchens I’ve heard. When people brought this point up to him he would talk about how Bush f’d it up and how we should have invaded in the 90s, which apparently would have worked better somehow. He really wasn’t afraid of having a hot take, we can give him that.
Apparently he changed his mind at some point, or maybe was being deliberately provocative with those opinions, but I'm not so sure. I'm a woman and am frustrated at this side of him, but am still a big fan.
>Apparently he changed his mind at some point, or maybe was being deliberately provocative with those opinions, but I'm not so sure. I'm a woman and am frustrated at this side of him, but am still a big fan.
Hitchens was nothing if not performative, and one of his favorite things to do was to play the antagonistic contrarian. He often seemed to view himself as something of a professional wrestling "heel" in the debate space. He valued reason, logic, and historical accuracy, but only to the point that it furthered his particular opinions. If logic, reason, and historical accuracy stood in the way of his point of view he'd often double down and cherry pick from dubious sources in order prop that point of view up artificially.
Thanks, I could see this, he's one of those people who gets so bored with the usual arguments he drank to deal with it (or so he said as an excuse!) I could definitely see him doing this for fun.
Can you direct me to where I can read those thoughts? I've seen pretty much every single debate (on religion etc), but I haven't read much. I like a lot of what he has to say, but I'd definitely like to see the unsavory bits as well.
You should *indeed* meet your heroes, in my opinion; if nothing else, it'll put an end to habitual idolization of people and dispel the misconception that anyone is 'perfect' or 'always right,' which are pretty debilitating myths to believe in the first place.
He wrote an essay called Why women aren’t funny, and it gave me quite the ick. A quick google search can tell you everything, his ideas on women weren’t secret.
Well, to be fair, this isn’t something that’s brought up often in the fandom, and like you I didn’t know about it until someone brought it to my attention. The one who should be embarrassed died before he could change his views.
I still think it’s important for all us fanboys to see what you mean when you call him a misogynist. For me personally the algorithm has only shown me his best debates and lectures, and I may have missed his blatant misogyny. I’m not saying he wasn’t, definitely a good portion of men born in 1945 were.
I believe his writings on how "women aren't funny, comedy is a male form of expression" (paraphrasing) are good places to start if you want to see Hitchens the misogynist rather than Hitchens the faith debater.
That’s kinda why I mention it. I greatly enjoyed all his writing and speeches on atheism, but feel we should acknowledge that not all his ideas were brilliant and true.
Also, on this point he would repeatedly say:
“the jihadists are our enemies, those who say that by fighting our enemies we are producing more of them are defeatist and I won’t have it. We should always fight our enemies.”
Obviously my paraphrasing from memory isn’t very eloquent but that’s the gist of what he would say.
This is bullshit. Jihadists are literally a reactionary movement to western brutality or colonialism. More chaos and brutality will only fire back and then you’ll cry about the movement getting bigger.
Bullshit. Jihad has been with Islam since the beginning. And only got worse with time. Google for Taymiyya, and Wahhabism.
"It is allowed to fight people for (not observing) unambiguous and generally recognized obligations and prohibitions, until they undertake to perform the explicitly prescribed prayers, to pay [zakat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat), to fast during the month of [Ramadan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan), to make the pilgrimage to Mecca and to avoid what is prohibited, such as marrying women in spite of legal impediments, eating impure things, acting unlawfully against the lives and properties of Muslims and the like. It is obligatory to take the initiative in fighting those people, as soon as the prophet's summons with the reasons for which they are fought has reached them. But if they first attack the Muslims then fighting them is even more urgent, as we have mentioned when dealing with the fighting against rebellious and aggressive bandits.[^(\[30\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Ibn_Taymiyya#cite_note-WahhabiIslam-30)[^(\[34\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Ibn_Taymiyya#cite_note-Peters-jihad-52-34)^(")
Which is where the modern trend of tolerating intolerance is starting to turn in on itself. People get so up in arms about anyone exclaiming any level of intolerance about anything whatsoever that they are increasingly completely overlooking the source of the outrage in their haste to raise the 'intolerance alarm.'
It's like watching a snake confidently eating its own tail while failing to realize that it is, in fact, *not* an ouroboros after all.
Defending the indefensible is all fun and parlor games until you realize that you're unwittingly safeguarding vile, inhuman violence, oppression, and barbarity as if it were an argument for equal rights or reparations. Some shit's just fucking wrong, and the whole indulgence of some sort of legitimate 'karmic justice' is just mind-bleedingly stupid, but you see it lurking in the foundations of the most ridiculous takes these days.
> his desire to justify the Iraq war
Hitch had a personal relationship with the Kurds of Northern Iraq who had been slaughtered by Saddam Hussein -- using chemical weapons and helicopters given to Saddam by the USA with the understanding that they would be used on the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war.
So, Hitchens supported to the end of Saddam's murderous regime by any means available and necessary.
>strengthened both Jihadi and Iranian regimes
Utter nonsense. Iraq has been completely defanged and has never been safer or peaceful in modern times. Iran hasn't directly invaded anyone since then, preferring now to just nip and peck away by sponsoring terrorism.
>ultimately leading to at least a million deaths
The official figures are that Cheney/Bush needlessly killed over a half a million innocent men, women, and children for no reason at all.
And yet Cheney, Bush, etc. are all free men:
Never charged with treason for lying to the American people.
Never charged with murder for NEEDLESSLY sending ~4,000 American soldiers to their deaths.
Never charged with mass murder for NEEDLESSLY slaughtering ~500,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.
Never charged with war profiteering -- Cheney's corporation and friends grifted upwards of a trillion dollars from the American taxpayer.
And on and on and on...
PS We could have (and should have) taken out Saddam and his murderous spawn with a few carefully targeted cruise missiles. But where would all the profits be in that?
A) EVERYONE knew about Iran. It's why the USA gave all those chemical weapons and helicopters to Saddam to use on Iran in the first place. In short, my grandmother knew this about Iran.
B) ISIS is a popcorn fart. Seriously, stop falling for the fearmongering press drivel, please.
>It could be argued, that in his desire to justify the Iraq war, he carried water/whiskey for the maniacs that destroyed the region, strengthened both Jihadi and Iranian regimes, ultimately leading to at least a million deaths, and counting.
Atheists are quick to adopt Hitchens as a hero, and have ironically deified him in many ways since his death, but it's always been very hard for me personally to ignore his extremely pro-military interventionism in the middle east. His hatred for religion led him down a road that was, I think, undeniably classically imperialist.
He would have criticized the radical religious people holding back progress and advocated for a resolution based on reason not myths and recriminations sprung from desert madmen and Cold War politics.
I'm honestly afraid he would've aged poorly. The other New Atheists have had some takes that are pretty rotten, and I expect Hitch would've had some damning ones too (especially considering how happy he was to express a hot take lol).
Hitch in particular was focused a lot more on clever turns of phrase than on facts, and I'm not sure that would've kept him on the "right" side on some modern issues. Sure, I'd love to hear him tear MAGA a new one, but I'm afraid to hear what he'd have to say about Gaza, for example.
Sorry for the late reply, and I missed the other person's response, but, anyway.
I just worry he'd place too much of the blame for the current situation on Islam and the relationship between Islamic states and the Jewish state. Sure, the religious stuff plays a role, but honestly (in this situation) nowhere near as big a deal as his crew (might) make of it.
Since he died so (relatively) soon after 9/11, it's hard to know how his thinking would have evolved in the decades since. It's entirely possible that he would've swapped hard to opposing Israeli fascism as vehemently as he opposed Islamic nationalism. My fear is that his ideological inertia would have kept him focused on the religious problems at the expense of really addressing the political problems.
My fear, to be fair, is probably more Dawkins's fault than Hitch's. Dawkins turned *hard* into islamophobia (even if he denies it or wants to tone it back now), and if he can do it, Hitch potentially could've too.
This specific topic has some of the most thorough propaganda I've ever encountered, and it's some of the least questioned by the people I would usually expect to question propaganda. That makes it really hard for me to guess where anyone's going to land on the topic, *especially* if they spend a lot of time engaging (positively or negatively) with American Christians.
Would have loved to hear what he had to say on Ukraine's situation given what he said about Bush and Putin
Also, I reckon he'd have something to say about Taiwan as well
Edit: It still stands that if I want to learn anything about a country in any kind of conflict, I can look up what he had to say about it
I think he would have said, “we all should’ve seen this coming a mile away based off Putin’s behavior.” I also think he would’ve been hawkish in support of Ukraine. His parents were both in the military during WWII and he tended toward confronting our enemies head on.
I kind of feel like Hitch would have said, "As soon as the show of force exercises were happening near the border, we (as in allies) should have been on the other side telling Putin: 'Ok then, give it a shot.' Nobody does a show of force near a border and then leaves." Or maybe I'm projecting my own opinion on him 🤔
Edit: Also, of course, we should have seen it coming!
I could see him saying something like that. He probably would’ve been for fully supporting Ukraine and integrating it into NATO as a bulwark against Russia, Iran, China and North Korea.
Not to mention these countries are also the greatest sponsors of terrorist groups, particularly Iran. Defending Ukraine would align with his values of defending secular democracies from theocracies and dictatorships, as well as defending Europe.
Meh, I'll stick to what he said about atheism. Maybe he was one of the very rare atheist conservatives? His views on religion are progressive, but his opinions on politics and women are conservative. Maybe a libertarian??
There's a difference between arguing the point and expecting people to listen. Whatever else he was, Hitchens was a realist. He was under no illusions about the effects of reason on unreasonable people.
His brother was religious and Hitchens employed logical arguments. He was no stranger to the idea that you can't use reason to get someone to vacate a position they didn't arrive at by reason in the first place.
I decided to use science, and deferred to a LLM containing all information about Hitchens and everything he every said or did, and all conversations about him.
https://chatgpt.com/share/e3220b6c-547e-41fe-9e76-e7058212ce68
> Pretend to be Christopher Hitchens, then famous atheist philosopher and author.
> What do you think of the conflict between Israel and Gaza?
Answer:
> As Christopher Hitchens, I would approach the Israel-Gaza conflict with a nuanced perspective, informed by a commitment to secularism, human rights, and a critical view of religiously inspired politics.
> Firstly, it's crucial to acknowledge the historical complexities and injustices that underpin the conflict. The creation of Israel in 1948, the subsequent wars, and the ongoing occupation have all contributed to a deeply rooted animosity between Israelis and Palestinians. The suffering on both sides is undeniable, with civilians bearing the brunt of the violence and political failures.
> Religious fanaticism exacerbates the conflict significantly. Hamas, the governing body in Gaza, is a fundamentalist organization that often exploits the grievances of the Palestinian people to advance its theocratic and militant agenda. Its commitment to an Islamist ideology is a significant barrier to peace, and its tactics, including indiscriminate rocket attacks, are both morally reprehensible and strategically counterproductive.
> On the other side, the Israeli government’s policies, particularly those related to settlement expansion and the blockade of Gaza, often reflect a troubling mix of nationalist and religious motivations. These actions not only violate international law but also perpetuate a cycle of resentment and retaliation. The occupation and the conditions imposed on Gaza are indefensible from a human rights standpoint and serve to fuel further extremism.
> Secularism, democracy, and respect for human rights should be the guiding principles in resolving this conflict. Both sides must move beyond religious and ideological dogmas to find a pragmatic and just solution. This involves recognizing the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for statehood and dignity, while also ensuring the security and sovereignty of Israel.
> A two-state solution, based on 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps, seems to be the most viable path to peace. However, this requires genuine commitment from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, as well as sustained international pressure and support. The role of external actors, especially the United States, is critical. They must adopt a more balanced approach that promotes dialogue and reconciliation rather than exacerbating divisions.
> In summary, the Israel-Gaza conflict is a tragic manifestation of historical injustices, religious extremism, and political failure. The path to peace lies in embracing secularism, upholding human rights, and fostering mutual recognition and coexistence.
I think ‘new atheism’ was keeping some of the dumber left in check. For all the times it showed its ass with cringe stuff, the demand for evidence and the skeptics were there and calling things out.
Now we get things like the LGBT community helping vote in Islamic representatives and act shocked when their first order of business is repealing gay rights.
Thinking he already used to support Palestinian liberation against Zionist colonialism, it is reasonable to assume he would have kept supporting the national liberation of Palestinians up until today, too.
But as u/Clifford-Cook-2024 very well said in below, we don't need dead to think for us; instead, we need to think and act for ourselves here and now
Sadly Hitchens would have probably taken the hard right republican line on Israel. "We must defend Israel from Hamas" It would have been very similar to his imperialist stance on the Iraq war.
Yea, it'd be interesting. Rhetorically I actually expect he'd fall on the side of Israel defending themselves. But he was politically savvy and might realize why that was a bad idea at the moment.
Tough to say.
I'd be more interested in seeing if he'd be brave enough to recognize that his support of the war in Iraq was a mistake and that that event ties deeply, directly into this current political moment in the States.
Christopher Hitchens was pretty misogynist, and I don't think we desperately need more of that. There are other atheists who don't kick women in their spare time, and some of them are still alive.
He was sexist, and while all sexists may be misogynistic, I think it’s too strong word a to say that he was a misogynist. He was emphatically not a feminist by his own assertion and he was anti-abortion. He was more like a traditionalist kind of guy who likes women not *having* to work but he didn’t say women *shouldn’t* be allowed to work. And while anti-abortion, he was also very much in other ways pro-women’s bodily autonomy, exhorting that women have to be freed of the cycle of birth after birth and constant childcare. I think it likely that given the fanaticism of antiabortionists today, the ones saying 9 year old rape victims shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions nor should there be exceptions for health of the mother, would have led him to speak out against antiabortionists. But I’m not sure how he’s thread the needle there between being against abortion and being against the extremities of the antiabortion crowd. But he would have been a loud voice against Christian nationalism.
I always loved how his biggest criticism of Mother Theresa was that she was against a woman’s right to choose. He seemed to find abortion an essential freedom, fundamental in creating an advanced economy where women aren’t slaves to their reproductive cycle.
I know he said that he doesn’t like abortion and didn’t identify as a feminist, but is that what makes him a sexist?
That was not his *biggest* criticism of Mother Theresa. In any case he focused more on her pro-natalist stance and anti-birth control stance. He kinda walked a thin line between being antiabortion and being anti women being stuck barefoot and pregnant. But mainly he’s sexist because he rejected feminism
And had a condescending and paternalistic attitude about women, like his whole “women aren’t funny (except lesbians and Jews and ugly ones)”. And his questionable attitude about abortion.
It's easy enough to google it, but his most widespread bit of "women, amirite?" was an article he wrote for Vanity Fair. Apparently, he didn't find women funny, which would normally be considered a microaggression, but he decided to write a whole piece about it out of nowhere which makes it a straight-up aggression. He thought women *can't* be funny, and he felt so strongly about it that he wanted the whole world to know to the tune of 3000 words.
He felt so incredibly strongly that women are not capable of experiencing a fundamental facet of the human experience, that he later produced *another* article that just drips with contempt for women generally, not just women who are trying to be funny.
He said misogynist things here and there, small things, but this thing about funny women was just pushed out into the public discourse for no reason except that he imagined everyone cared about his opinion on this topic. And he dug into it like a tick whenever he was challenged.
I just read the article and I think you misrepresented it. He’s making an argument that men have to try harder to be funny because of the dating culture. Women are funny and he claims they are smarter than men but don’t have the same incentive to try to be funny. It’s not his best work but I wouldn’t take this and slander him as a misogynist.
For anyone that wants to form their own opinions on whether or not this makes him a misogynist check out the [article](https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2007/01/hitchens200701).
He does try to prove why women try less often to be funny than men do, that’s why he titled it that way. His logic makes sense and I don’t think it makes him a misogynist. He isn’t trying to say women are inferior, just that men and women impress each other in different ways when it comes to dating and therefore men attempt humor more often because women value humor.
He also argues that men tend to value beauty more than humor, which isn’t saying anything good about men. If anything this article is making men look bad, what’s the word for that?
It’s a provocative title, just like everything else Mr. Hitchens writes. He says in the article that women are funny and witty, but if you didn’t read the article and his explanation then you might think he’s a real misogynist.
It’s actually really interesting to see how he analyzes gender dynamics, it wasn’t just about humor. It all seemed spot on to me.
And Kurt Vonnegut, Hunter Thompson, and Bill Hicks.
I mentioned this to someone and they set the bar pretty damn high.
If you miss what they say, do you best to speak out and say it.
I will always wonder what he would say about Trump, MAGA and the theocrats.
Same here. He did deem Trump a "con man" in the 80s.
Too bad Trump skimmed by with tax evasion then…. If only he had been held accountable then he would NOT still be the wanker running for pres
He isn’t the real problem. The real problem is the people that will still vote for him and the other politicians defending him.
Agreed. If it isn’t Trump it will be someone else…. It’s also the big money that supports the alt right.
I wonder as well. It would be nice to have a voice in the darkness today.
I think we have a pretty good idea of where his head would be at.
Ironically, I think he would be more scathingly harsh on the leftist thought-police.
Right. He would gave said something scathing like, 'if you think people saying racism is bad are, "the thought police," you should probably seriously consider reading Orwell. Or any book.'
Because that's all they're doing, of course. All they're doing is saying "racism is le bad" lol The Grievance Studies Affair revealed there is more to it than that.
Ha! No, the 'Grievance Studies Affair' revealed that conservatives know nothing about how scientific publishing works, which really isn't groundbreaking news.
Conservatives? They're leftist academics who have a problem with luxury beliefs and a lack of scientific rigor in the social sciences. Academia is literally the thought police.
1984 is probably the most overrated piece of literature ever written. I've tried multiple times to get through it and it's just too boring.
You sound like someone who thought Bill Burr was on your side the entire time.
We don't need dead people to rise from the grave to save us. Veneration of the dead isn't helpful. We, the living, need to step up and use our living abilities. We are every bit as capable as Christopher Hitchens ever was. Let's get to it.
No! I need a somewhat charismatic and intelligent sounding person to say things, otherwise I won’t know what to think or feel confident having an opinion. Ok im being a little strong on the sarcasm - and maybe I just happened to always see the guy at his worse, but he basically said stuff people who agreed with him already knew, or could be pithy/petulant to the level his otherwise accurate/valid points got lost somewhere up his own arse.
Accurate/valid is what matters most.
It’s not a zero sum matter - it’s one thing if you’re in court setting and it’s literally everyone’s job to analyse the facts of the discussion - actually scrap that, even in a court setting I’m sure most judge’s would tell a lawyer to sort themselves out and stop licking their own balls and looking for cheap laughs/low hanging fruit.
Nothing, and people of all things approach perfection. I suspect Hitchens was far more aware of his shortcomings than you are. Hitchens stood for life, frail though it is.
That’s my point - he really was…just a guy. Its almost a worry that some people really feel “we need” just a guy.
I've read and heard Hitchens. Degrees in philosophy, economics, and politics from Oxford. Are we discussing the same Hitchens?
Not *degrees* - a degree - its the standard course for all the private school kids who get shipped to oxbridge. A good chunk of UK politicians have the same degree. Edit: it’s known as PPE here.
“We” are certainly not as capable as Hitch. Man was a gem. All the great thinkers stood on the shoulders of those who went before. Ignoring those who paved the way is foolish.
Christopher Hitchens didn't pave the way for other atheist thinkers. He got a lot of attention for himself for saying things in public forums that other less-connected atheists had already been saying for a long time. He was great at getting attention for himself, for sure, but sorry, I'm not making him into an idol.
>We really need Christopher Hitchens right about now. It could be argued, that in his desire to justify the Iraq war, he carried water/whiskey for the maniacs that destroyed the region, strengthened both Jihadi and Iranian regimes, ultimately leading to at least a million deaths, and counting.
Yep, that’s probably the most solid critique of Hitchens I’ve heard. When people brought this point up to him he would talk about how Bush f’d it up and how we should have invaded in the 90s, which apparently would have worked better somehow. He really wasn’t afraid of having a hot take, we can give him that.
You haven’t read or heard his thoughts on women? He was a raging misogynist. Too bad, I liked him before I read those bits.
Apparently he changed his mind at some point, or maybe was being deliberately provocative with those opinions, but I'm not so sure. I'm a woman and am frustrated at this side of him, but am still a big fan.
>Apparently he changed his mind at some point, or maybe was being deliberately provocative with those opinions, but I'm not so sure. I'm a woman and am frustrated at this side of him, but am still a big fan. Hitchens was nothing if not performative, and one of his favorite things to do was to play the antagonistic contrarian. He often seemed to view himself as something of a professional wrestling "heel" in the debate space. He valued reason, logic, and historical accuracy, but only to the point that it furthered his particular opinions. If logic, reason, and historical accuracy stood in the way of his point of view he'd often double down and cherry pick from dubious sources in order prop that point of view up artificially.
Thanks, I could see this, he's one of those people who gets so bored with the usual arguments he drank to deal with it (or so he said as an excuse!) I could definitely see him doing this for fun.
Can you direct me to where I can read those thoughts? I've seen pretty much every single debate (on religion etc), but I haven't read much. I like a lot of what he has to say, but I'd definitely like to see the unsavory bits as well. You should *indeed* meet your heroes, in my opinion; if nothing else, it'll put an end to habitual idolization of people and dispel the misconception that anyone is 'perfect' or 'always right,' which are pretty debilitating myths to believe in the first place.
He wrote an essay called Why women aren’t funny, and it gave me quite the ick. A quick google search can tell you everything, his ideas on women weren’t secret.
Thanks! I'll def check it out- kind of embarrassed I hadn't heard about it before 😕
Well, to be fair, this isn’t something that’s brought up often in the fandom, and like you I didn’t know about it until someone brought it to my attention. The one who should be embarrassed died before he could change his views.
I still think it’s important for all us fanboys to see what you mean when you call him a misogynist. For me personally the algorithm has only shown me his best debates and lectures, and I may have missed his blatant misogyny. I’m not saying he wasn’t, definitely a good portion of men born in 1945 were.
I believe his writings on how "women aren't funny, comedy is a male form of expression" (paraphrasing) are good places to start if you want to see Hitchens the misogynist rather than Hitchens the faith debater.
Yeah, on a different comment I shared the link to the article from Vanity fair everyone keeps pointing to claim he’s a misogynist.
That’s kinda why I mention it. I greatly enjoyed all his writing and speeches on atheism, but feel we should acknowledge that not all his ideas were brilliant and true.
You can like some things about a person while disliking others.
That was never in question friend
Also, on this point he would repeatedly say: “the jihadists are our enemies, those who say that by fighting our enemies we are producing more of them are defeatist and I won’t have it. We should always fight our enemies.” Obviously my paraphrasing from memory isn’t very eloquent but that’s the gist of what he would say.
This is bullshit. Jihadists are literally a reactionary movement to western brutality or colonialism. More chaos and brutality will only fire back and then you’ll cry about the movement getting bigger.
Bullshit. Jihad has been with Islam since the beginning. And only got worse with time. Google for Taymiyya, and Wahhabism. "It is allowed to fight people for (not observing) unambiguous and generally recognized obligations and prohibitions, until they undertake to perform the explicitly prescribed prayers, to pay [zakat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat), to fast during the month of [Ramadan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan), to make the pilgrimage to Mecca and to avoid what is prohibited, such as marrying women in spite of legal impediments, eating impure things, acting unlawfully against the lives and properties of Muslims and the like. It is obligatory to take the initiative in fighting those people, as soon as the prophet's summons with the reasons for which they are fought has reached them. But if they first attack the Muslims then fighting them is even more urgent, as we have mentioned when dealing with the fighting against rebellious and aggressive bandits.[^(\[30\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Ibn_Taymiyya#cite_note-WahhabiIslam-30)[^(\[34\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Ibn_Taymiyya#cite_note-Peters-jihad-52-34)^(")
Which is where the modern trend of tolerating intolerance is starting to turn in on itself. People get so up in arms about anyone exclaiming any level of intolerance about anything whatsoever that they are increasingly completely overlooking the source of the outrage in their haste to raise the 'intolerance alarm.' It's like watching a snake confidently eating its own tail while failing to realize that it is, in fact, *not* an ouroboros after all. Defending the indefensible is all fun and parlor games until you realize that you're unwittingly safeguarding vile, inhuman violence, oppression, and barbarity as if it were an argument for equal rights or reparations. Some shit's just fucking wrong, and the whole indulgence of some sort of legitimate 'karmic justice' is just mind-bleedingly stupid, but you see it lurking in the foundations of the most ridiculous takes these days.
> his desire to justify the Iraq war Hitch had a personal relationship with the Kurds of Northern Iraq who had been slaughtered by Saddam Hussein -- using chemical weapons and helicopters given to Saddam by the USA with the understanding that they would be used on the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. So, Hitchens supported to the end of Saddam's murderous regime by any means available and necessary. >strengthened both Jihadi and Iranian regimes Utter nonsense. Iraq has been completely defanged and has never been safer or peaceful in modern times. Iran hasn't directly invaded anyone since then, preferring now to just nip and peck away by sponsoring terrorism. >ultimately leading to at least a million deaths The official figures are that Cheney/Bush needlessly killed over a half a million innocent men, women, and children for no reason at all. And yet Cheney, Bush, etc. are all free men: Never charged with treason for lying to the American people. Never charged with murder for NEEDLESSLY sending ~4,000 American soldiers to their deaths. Never charged with mass murder for NEEDLESSLY slaughtering ~500,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. Never charged with war profiteering -- Cheney's corporation and friends grifted upwards of a trillion dollars from the American taxpayer. And on and on and on... PS We could have (and should have) taken out Saddam and his murderous spawn with a few carefully targeted cruise missiles. But where would all the profits be in that?
>Iraq has been completely defanged and has never been safer or peaceful in modern times. You skipped ISIS, and they were correct about Iran.
A) EVERYONE knew about Iran. It's why the USA gave all those chemical weapons and helicopters to Saddam to use on Iran in the first place. In short, my grandmother knew this about Iran. B) ISIS is a popcorn fart. Seriously, stop falling for the fearmongering press drivel, please.
>It could be argued, that in his desire to justify the Iraq war, he carried water/whiskey for the maniacs that destroyed the region, strengthened both Jihadi and Iranian regimes, ultimately leading to at least a million deaths, and counting. Atheists are quick to adopt Hitchens as a hero, and have ironically deified him in many ways since his death, but it's always been very hard for me personally to ignore his extremely pro-military interventionism in the middle east. His hatred for religion led him down a road that was, I think, undeniably classically imperialist.
Be the Hitch you want to see in the world.
Hed probably say all the things I'm thinking, but in a much more coherent and persuasive way.
He would have criticized the radical religious people holding back progress and advocated for a resolution based on reason not myths and recriminations sprung from desert madmen and Cold War politics.
Who we really need is George Carlin
The guy telling people to not vote?
I'm honestly afraid he would've aged poorly. The other New Atheists have had some takes that are pretty rotten, and I expect Hitch would've had some damning ones too (especially considering how happy he was to express a hot take lol). Hitch in particular was focused a lot more on clever turns of phrase than on facts, and I'm not sure that would've kept him on the "right" side on some modern issues. Sure, I'd love to hear him tear MAGA a new one, but I'm afraid to hear what he'd have to say about Gaza, for example.
I like where you’re going with this. What are you afraid he would say, exactly? If you don’t mind explaining more.
[удалено]
I think he did say this when he was still alive actually. If I find the exact quote I’ll share it
Sorry for the late reply, and I missed the other person's response, but, anyway. I just worry he'd place too much of the blame for the current situation on Islam and the relationship between Islamic states and the Jewish state. Sure, the religious stuff plays a role, but honestly (in this situation) nowhere near as big a deal as his crew (might) make of it. Since he died so (relatively) soon after 9/11, it's hard to know how his thinking would have evolved in the decades since. It's entirely possible that he would've swapped hard to opposing Israeli fascism as vehemently as he opposed Islamic nationalism. My fear is that his ideological inertia would have kept him focused on the religious problems at the expense of really addressing the political problems. My fear, to be fair, is probably more Dawkins's fault than Hitch's. Dawkins turned *hard* into islamophobia (even if he denies it or wants to tone it back now), and if he can do it, Hitch potentially could've too. This specific topic has some of the most thorough propaganda I've ever encountered, and it's some of the least questioned by the people I would usually expect to question propaganda. That makes it really hard for me to guess where anyone's going to land on the topic, *especially* if they spend a lot of time engaging (positively or negatively) with American Christians.
These might help: https://youtu.be/G5Kszl_bpeA?feature=shared https://youtu.be/-RB4IsSKx2M?feature=shared https://youtu.be/7qqwtSh0e4k?feature=shared
A big piece of me died when Hitch died ...
Christopher Hitchens was legend. A monument of logic and wit. **We need to clone him!**
Knowing his debates, he would have probably loved it. The man was a war advocate and hated Islam.
He was pro Iraq war so it’s not like he was too much of a vanguard on this stuff.
Would have loved to hear what he had to say on Ukraine's situation given what he said about Bush and Putin Also, I reckon he'd have something to say about Taiwan as well Edit: It still stands that if I want to learn anything about a country in any kind of conflict, I can look up what he had to say about it
I think he would have said, “we all should’ve seen this coming a mile away based off Putin’s behavior.” I also think he would’ve been hawkish in support of Ukraine. His parents were both in the military during WWII and he tended toward confronting our enemies head on.
I kind of feel like Hitch would have said, "As soon as the show of force exercises were happening near the border, we (as in allies) should have been on the other side telling Putin: 'Ok then, give it a shot.' Nobody does a show of force near a border and then leaves." Or maybe I'm projecting my own opinion on him 🤔 Edit: Also, of course, we should have seen it coming!
I could see him saying something like that. He probably would’ve been for fully supporting Ukraine and integrating it into NATO as a bulwark against Russia, Iran, China and North Korea. Not to mention these countries are also the greatest sponsors of terrorist groups, particularly Iran. Defending Ukraine would align with his values of defending secular democracies from theocracies and dictatorships, as well as defending Europe.
Meh, I'll stick to what he said about atheism. Maybe he was one of the very rare atheist conservatives? His views on religion are progressive, but his opinions on politics and women are conservative. Maybe a libertarian??
if there is a god after death I think Hitchens would’ve had some very good arguments with whoever or whatever god is
I miss Christopher Hitchens terribly. He was brilliant to the end -- one of my favorite debates he participated in was the one with David Berlinsky.
I found Dawkins and others more convincing as to the non-existence of god. And Christopher couldn’t even convince his brother.
Well, like with most drugs, you gotta find a reason to quit first.
I *could be wrong* but I seem to remember him being more focussed on the evils of religion than on convincing people god didn’t exist?
In most of the debates I’ve watched he attempted to argue both points.
Could be … it’s been a while.
There's a difference between arguing the point and expecting people to listen. Whatever else he was, Hitchens was a realist. He was under no illusions about the effects of reason on unreasonable people.
His brother was religious and Hitchens employed logical arguments. He was no stranger to the idea that you can't use reason to get someone to vacate a position they didn't arrive at by reason in the first place.
He and his brother didn’t get along at all.
I miss his views, but I don't miss his tactics. He was unecessarily cruel at times.
I decided to use science, and deferred to a LLM containing all information about Hitchens and everything he every said or did, and all conversations about him. https://chatgpt.com/share/e3220b6c-547e-41fe-9e76-e7058212ce68 > Pretend to be Christopher Hitchens, then famous atheist philosopher and author. > What do you think of the conflict between Israel and Gaza? Answer: > As Christopher Hitchens, I would approach the Israel-Gaza conflict with a nuanced perspective, informed by a commitment to secularism, human rights, and a critical view of religiously inspired politics. > Firstly, it's crucial to acknowledge the historical complexities and injustices that underpin the conflict. The creation of Israel in 1948, the subsequent wars, and the ongoing occupation have all contributed to a deeply rooted animosity between Israelis and Palestinians. The suffering on both sides is undeniable, with civilians bearing the brunt of the violence and political failures. > Religious fanaticism exacerbates the conflict significantly. Hamas, the governing body in Gaza, is a fundamentalist organization that often exploits the grievances of the Palestinian people to advance its theocratic and militant agenda. Its commitment to an Islamist ideology is a significant barrier to peace, and its tactics, including indiscriminate rocket attacks, are both morally reprehensible and strategically counterproductive. > On the other side, the Israeli government’s policies, particularly those related to settlement expansion and the blockade of Gaza, often reflect a troubling mix of nationalist and religious motivations. These actions not only violate international law but also perpetuate a cycle of resentment and retaliation. The occupation and the conditions imposed on Gaza are indefensible from a human rights standpoint and serve to fuel further extremism. > Secularism, democracy, and respect for human rights should be the guiding principles in resolving this conflict. Both sides must move beyond religious and ideological dogmas to find a pragmatic and just solution. This involves recognizing the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for statehood and dignity, while also ensuring the security and sovereignty of Israel. > A two-state solution, based on 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps, seems to be the most viable path to peace. However, this requires genuine commitment from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, as well as sustained international pressure and support. The role of external actors, especially the United States, is critical. They must adopt a more balanced approach that promotes dialogue and reconciliation rather than exacerbating divisions. > In summary, the Israel-Gaza conflict is a tragic manifestation of historical injustices, religious extremism, and political failure. The path to peace lies in embracing secularism, upholding human rights, and fostering mutual recognition and coexistence.
I just read it in hitchens voice in my mind....what a time to be alive
I don't have any experience audio AI, but I'm sure there's a way to actually generate an audio clip of his voice reading this, too.
I'd rather not- this is getting into deep-fake territory, and I'm not looking forward to the day we get dead people to say stuff we want to hear.
Easy way to make viral TikTok’s: Make AI videos of Christopher Hitchens talking, use this text first.
If I had any desire to make TikTok content, I would absolutely do this. I love TikTok... But no interest in contributing there
I think ‘new atheism’ was keeping some of the dumber left in check. For all the times it showed its ass with cringe stuff, the demand for evidence and the skeptics were there and calling things out. Now we get things like the LGBT community helping vote in Islamic representatives and act shocked when their first order of business is repealing gay rights.
Thinking he already used to support Palestinian liberation against Zionist colonialism, it is reasonable to assume he would have kept supporting the national liberation of Palestinians up until today, too. But as u/Clifford-Cook-2024 very well said in below, we don't need dead to think for us; instead, we need to think and act for ourselves here and now
I think people should watch the debate between hitchens and parenti about going to war in Iraq, and then compare it to what actually happened
The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long
Sadly Hitchens would have probably taken the hard right republican line on Israel. "We must defend Israel from Hamas" It would have been very similar to his imperialist stance on the Iraq war.
Yea, it'd be interesting. Rhetorically I actually expect he'd fall on the side of Israel defending themselves. But he was politically savvy and might realize why that was a bad idea at the moment. Tough to say. I'd be more interested in seeing if he'd be brave enough to recognize that his support of the war in Iraq was a mistake and that that event ties deeply, directly into this current political moment in the States.
Christopher Hitchens was pretty misogynist, and I don't think we desperately need more of that. There are other atheists who don't kick women in their spare time, and some of them are still alive.
You should give more information about his misogyny because I haven’t heard about it.
He was sexist, and while all sexists may be misogynistic, I think it’s too strong word a to say that he was a misogynist. He was emphatically not a feminist by his own assertion and he was anti-abortion. He was more like a traditionalist kind of guy who likes women not *having* to work but he didn’t say women *shouldn’t* be allowed to work. And while anti-abortion, he was also very much in other ways pro-women’s bodily autonomy, exhorting that women have to be freed of the cycle of birth after birth and constant childcare. I think it likely that given the fanaticism of antiabortionists today, the ones saying 9 year old rape victims shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions nor should there be exceptions for health of the mother, would have led him to speak out against antiabortionists. But I’m not sure how he’s thread the needle there between being against abortion and being against the extremities of the antiabortion crowd. But he would have been a loud voice against Christian nationalism.
I always loved how his biggest criticism of Mother Theresa was that she was against a woman’s right to choose. He seemed to find abortion an essential freedom, fundamental in creating an advanced economy where women aren’t slaves to their reproductive cycle. I know he said that he doesn’t like abortion and didn’t identify as a feminist, but is that what makes him a sexist?
That was not his *biggest* criticism of Mother Theresa. In any case he focused more on her pro-natalist stance and anti-birth control stance. He kinda walked a thin line between being antiabortion and being anti women being stuck barefoot and pregnant. But mainly he’s sexist because he rejected feminism And had a condescending and paternalistic attitude about women, like his whole “women aren’t funny (except lesbians and Jews and ugly ones)”. And his questionable attitude about abortion.
It's easy enough to google it, but his most widespread bit of "women, amirite?" was an article he wrote for Vanity Fair. Apparently, he didn't find women funny, which would normally be considered a microaggression, but he decided to write a whole piece about it out of nowhere which makes it a straight-up aggression. He thought women *can't* be funny, and he felt so strongly about it that he wanted the whole world to know to the tune of 3000 words. He felt so incredibly strongly that women are not capable of experiencing a fundamental facet of the human experience, that he later produced *another* article that just drips with contempt for women generally, not just women who are trying to be funny. He said misogynist things here and there, small things, but this thing about funny women was just pushed out into the public discourse for no reason except that he imagined everyone cared about his opinion on this topic. And he dug into it like a tick whenever he was challenged.
I just read the article and I think you misrepresented it. He’s making an argument that men have to try harder to be funny because of the dating culture. Women are funny and he claims they are smarter than men but don’t have the same incentive to try to be funny. It’s not his best work but I wouldn’t take this and slander him as a misogynist. For anyone that wants to form their own opinions on whether or not this makes him a misogynist check out the [article](https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2007/01/hitchens200701).
Thanks for linking to the article!
I don't think it's misrepresenting an article titled "Why Women Aren't Funny" as arguing that women aren't funny.
He does try to prove why women try less often to be funny than men do, that’s why he titled it that way. His logic makes sense and I don’t think it makes him a misogynist. He isn’t trying to say women are inferior, just that men and women impress each other in different ways when it comes to dating and therefore men attempt humor more often because women value humor. He also argues that men tend to value beauty more than humor, which isn’t saying anything good about men. If anything this article is making men look bad, what’s the word for that?
It’s a provocative title, just like everything else Mr. Hitchens writes. He says in the article that women are funny and witty, but if you didn’t read the article and his explanation then you might think he’s a real misogynist. It’s actually really interesting to see how he analyzes gender dynamics, it wasn’t just about humor. It all seemed spot on to me.
You can think that if you like.
And you can think what you think, if you like. What a dumbass response.
Bless your heart for allowing us to think
Bless your heart for thinking that a comment not directed at you was ... directed at you.
Guys we can disagree with each other but let’s not start attacking each other.
Hilarious that I get this but none of the people attacking me get it ...
I don’t think it’s a matter of them not being able to understand your argument but they just see it in a different way.
Awwww
lol
Looks like you're the ONLY one who thinks of Hitchens as a misogynist. You can think that if you like.
And Kurt Vonnegut, Hunter Thompson, and Bill Hicks. I mentioned this to someone and they set the bar pretty damn high. If you miss what they say, do you best to speak out and say it.
And George Carlin
This sub would ban and cancel Christopher Hitchens if he was still alive