Opinion of Christopher Hitchens

[Phony Moderate]

FF, for the most part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

[tpfkaw]

Mega HP neocon/bigot/prohibitionist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Filth

[afleitch]

A very intelligent man. The only problem, it is said that many people have with Chris Hitchen's argument re religion (which is the one that he is recently known for) is that it is given by Chris Hitchens. Only it is not; it is an argument made by countless people over centuries. It is not original but neither has it been successfully disarmed. When he argues as part of a team with different personalities this becomes move evident.

For the record the fact that his atheism is all he is known for (to the extent a topic about him appears on this particular board above others) is quite a pity. His earlier works are enjoyable.

[John Dibble]

I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I like him. I do tend to agree with him on the topic of religion. I think the reason that some people tend to dislike him so much isn't just his views, but rather the fact that he states them so unabashedly with no reservations whatsoever.

Mega HP neocon/bigot/prohibitionist.

Given his politics I can see the first, but for the second and third I can only say "what?" - I don't know of any views of his that I'd consider bigoted, and he's against the war on drugs so the third seems to be right out.

[afleitch]

I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I like him. I do tend to agree with him on the topic of religion. I think the reason that some people tend to dislike him so much isn't just his views, but rather the fact that he states them so unabashedly with no reservations whatsoever.

That's precisely it.

Religion is the topic he is most asked to debate about, ironically overwhelmingly by churches and theologians. He argues in the spirit of others before him; he takes no prisoners and makes the audience uncomfortable. That's his style; in the same way that his opponents appeal to different aspects of human nature such as fear of the unknown, or the self (or make appeals to a higher power). Richard Dawkins for example makes the same argument as Hitchens  but is more calm, often reserved. Sam Harris is more 'chummy.' Christopher Hitchens has a similar (though I find less grating) style of debate and fluidity of argument as his brother Peter. Peter Hitchens is in my opinion ten times as odious.

When he is asked to discuss other matters, particularly politics, socialism and the Middle East he is the same man; it just so happens that people who may disagree with his stance on religion rally round when he talks about foreign policy. The substance of his debate however is never found to be lacking.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

An extremely skilled polemicist. But that's more or less all he is. He's not as clever, profound or intellectually interesting as he likes to think. Far too frequently (and on a bewildering range of subjects) he has taken the position of the bigot and the bully; anyone who has the temerity to hold a view opposed to Hitchens or (heaven forbid!) to actively disagree with him is at best an idiot and is usually attacked as being utterly malign. Of course that's a fairly common trait of those who passed through youthful Trotskyism of one kind or another, but that doesn't actually excuse that sort of behavior.

That said, he's vastly superior to his brother who has all of his faults (though they manifest themselves differently, of course) and a few more on top. And is basically an out-and-out fascist.

[Gustaf]

I respect him more than most others of his ilk. But I don't really like left-winged intellectuals in general. They reek too much of hypocrisy, arrogance and narcissism for my tastes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I respect him more than most others of his ilk. But I don't really like left-winged intellectuals in general. They reek too much of hypocrisy, arrogance and narcissism for my tastes.

Hitchens hasn't been left-wing in any meaningful sense for a long time.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

An extremely skilled polemicist. But that's more or less all he is. He's not as clever, profound or intellectually interesting as he likes to think. Far too frequently (and on a bewildering range of subjects) he has taken the position of the bigot and the bully; anyone who has the temerity to hold a view opposed to Hitchens or (heaven forbid!) to actively disagree with him is at best an idiot and is usually attacked as being utterly malign. Of course that's a fairly common trait of those who passed through youthful Trotskyism of one kind or another, but that doesn't actually excuse that sort of behavior.

That said, he's vastly superior to his brother who has all of his faults (though they manifest themselves differently, of course) and a few more on top. And is basically an out-and-out fascist.

This. Oh, and I will also add that a lot of positions seem to have been reached at out of a desire to refute conventional wisdom regardless of what that conventional wisdom is. Why else does he hate Mother Theresa so much?

[John Dibble]

Oh, and I will also add that a lot of positions seem to have been reached at out of a desire to refute conventional wisdom regardless of what that conventional wisdom is. Why else does he hate Mother Theresa so much?

I think he likes to refute the conventional wisdom when he perceives it to be wrong, not just because he likes to refute it. As to Mother Theresa, if the things that he's criticized her for are true then there's plenty of reason to dislike her.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Oh, and I will also add that a lot of positions seem to have been reached at out of a desire to refute conventional wisdom regardless of what that conventional wisdom is. Why else does he hate Mother Theresa so much?

I think he likes to refute the conventional wisdom when he perceives it to be wrong, not just because he likes to refute it. As to Mother Theresa, if the things that he's criticized her for are true then there's plenty of reason to dislike her.

Perhaps. If there was some consistency to his criticism but I haven´t seen any. He just attacks conventional wisdom for the purpose of doing so.

[Person Man]

In an interview with Radar in 2007, Hitchens said that if the Christian right's agenda were implemented in the United States "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part."[55]

[John Dibble]

Oh, and I will also add that a lot of positions seem to have been reached at out of a desire to refute conventional wisdom regardless of what that conventional wisdom is. Why else does he hate Mother Theresa so much?

I think he likes to refute the conventional wisdom when he perceives it to be wrong, not just because he likes to refute it. As to Mother Theresa, if the things that he's criticized her for are true then there's plenty of reason to dislike her.

Perhaps. If there was some consistency to his criticism but I haven´t seen any. He just attacks conventional wisdom for the purpose of doing so.

For example ... ?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

HP

[Torie]

I am very fond of Hitch, and admire him (despite some character flaws, and of course some political/aesthetic positions with which I disagreed, but over time, our two ships moved towards each other to the point where they came to being within visual sight of each other really), but the man - beyond brilliance - and an erudition that easily laps mine - had honestly and courage, and those are the two virtues that have the most currency with me - going away). I am very saddened that the odds are high that I will not be able to savor many more of the insights of his mind, always elegantly communicated.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He's an anti-Christian bigoted asshole (he goes beyond simple atheism, he resembles pre-banned Einzige for the most part) and an awful neocon enabler to boot. For f**k's sake, he's one of those clowns who supported Bush in 2004 because of the "War on Terror" and all that nonsense, like Bush was even strong on that front. I don't see how anyone can like him unless they are anti-Christian enough they'll take a liking to any hardline anti-religion babbling idiot. He is useless and not worth any attention.

[Torie]

I am not anti Christian BRTD, nor anti theist for that matter. I am a mere non-theist. Hitch is far more complex than what you portray in any event as I see it.

[Gustaf]

I respect him more than most others of his ilk. But I don't really like left-winged intellectuals in general. They reek too much of hypocrisy, arrogance and narcissism for my tastes.

Hitchens hasn't been left-wing in any meaningful sense for a long time.

Define meaningful sense?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I respect him more than most others of his ilk. But I don't really like left-winged intellectuals in general. They reek too much of hypocrisy, arrogance and narcissism for my tastes.

Hitchens hasn't been left-wing in any meaningful sense for a long time.

Define meaningful sense?

Well, it's like pornography, isn't it? I know it when I see it.

[Gustaf]

I respect him more than most others of his ilk. But I don't really like left-winged intellectuals in general. They reek too much of hypocrisy, arrogance and narcissism for my tastes.

Hitchens hasn't been left-wing in any meaningful sense for a long time.

Define meaningful sense?

Well, it's like pornography, isn't it? I know it when I see it.

Unfortunately, this isn't the Supreme Court. I'm using the same definition to reach a different answer.

I would like to note though that I never said left-wing. I said left-wing intellectual. And I didn't mean a left-winger who is intellectual or an intellectual who is left-wing, but a "left-wing intellectual" (tm). And that's what I consider Hitchens to be.

[patrick1]

Lean FF.  He is undoubtedly a blowhard, but I found him engaging and more importantly, humorous. I also agree with Gully that, imo,  he was frequently contrarian for its own sake.

I found this video of him the taking the piss on the female gender's comedy skills pretty humorous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA

[afleitch]

I respect him more than most others of his ilk. But I don't really like left-winged intellectuals in general. They reek too much of hypocrisy, arrogance and narcissism for my tastes.

Hitchens hasn't been left-wing in any meaningful sense for a long time.

Define meaningful sense?

Well, it's like pornography, isn't it? I know it when I see it.

Unfortunately, this isn't the Supreme Court. I'm using the same definition to reach a different answer.

I would like to note though that I never said left-wing. I said left-wing intellectual. And I didn't mean a left-winger who is intellectual or an intellectual who is left-wing, but a "left-wing intellectual" (tm). And that's what I consider Hitchens to be.

I would agree. Stripping down 'left v right' to economics, there is no doubt that Hitchens is economically left wing and any temperance in his economic views merely echoes those taken by most other intellectuals and practical socialists.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Unfortunately, this isn't the Supreme Court. I'm using the same definition to reach a different answer

Actually I'd not been off a train long and was looking for a cheap answer...

But, basically, I don't consider Hitchens to be on 'the Left' for a couple of reasons that I'll now fail to explain very well.

Fundamentally Hitchens stands for a certain sort of establishment (as in the highly specific context of 'literary establishment'; see also tossers like Martin Amis) liberalism (which is in practice highly conservative, at least in its position within intellectual tendencies) and that's not something that I would ever consider to be left-wing in a meaningful sense. Even the contraryism noted earlier fits into that pattern quite clearly, though not nearly so much as his tireless defence of a certain ideal of Western values. He's not strayed far from this territory for a very long time, whatever his views on issues outside the remit of that intellectual territory might be.
Hitchens, of course, has a great deal of left-wing baggage (as noted earlier his more unpleasant intellectual habits are clearly influenced by his time as a youthful Trot, and then you also have his things for Orwell and Marx), but then so do/did the neoconservatives. Unlike them, though, he's not actually crossed over to the Right and if what is not Right is Left, then he must be considered as Left. But I would always demand a little more than that.

Ramble, ramble, ramble.

[Person Man]

I respect him more than most others of his ilk. But I don't really like left-winged intellectuals in general. They reek too much of hypocrisy, arrogance and narcissism for my tastes.

Hitchens hasn't been left-wing in any meaningful sense for a long time.

Define meaningful sense?

Well, it's like pornography, isn't it? I know it when I see it.

You mean obscenity? ...and I agree. "Left" and "Right" is in the eye of the beholder....to a point.