RIP Christopher Hitchens

[BellaBellucci]

His politics aside, any day we lose another intellectual maverick is a bad day. RIP

~BB~

[trish]

His politics aside, any day we lose another intellectual maverick is a bad day. RIP

~BB~

I'm not so sure about that.

[Prospero]

The point about his support for the invasion of iraq (which I strongly disagreed with as well) was that he was not afraid to change his previously held view - he was not afraid to nail his colours eloquently and publicly to the mast realising that this would infuriate many of those who had previously admired him. He did not toe any party lines. He was often hugely wrong but always had plenty of arguments at hand to justify his position. He was eloquent and argued rather than quietly held back or acquiesced.

[BellaBellucci]

I'm not so sure about that.

OK. Maybe you're right.



But seriously, I'm down with anyone who challenges the establishment. Who would expect any different from me?

~BB~

[trish]

OK. Maybe you're right.

.....

[loveboof]

Hitchens was an eloquent hypocrite, a man who wanted Kissinger put on trial for crimes against humanity, but who supported the violence of regime change in Iraq.

Some lives, it seems, are worth trashing -as long as its not his, or his friends and neighbours lives. Human rights, for Hitchens, are not universal, but a matter of selection -I think we are supposed to be grateful that this pompous, self-appointed judge of humanity decided, after 2001, that certain people only exist to be blown up by Hitchens and his friends.

That Hitchens should have believed that revolution from above, organised by elites - most of whom bear a not-so-startling resemblence to him- is preferable to popular revolutions from the base upwards is typical of someone whose politics was spawned in the sewer of Leninism -his hypocrisy was thus not exposed in his support for regime change in Iraq, but the attempt to prosecute Kissinger -intellectually, they became soul mates. [...] but mercifully for them, Hitchens was, and remains, an irelevance.

Hitchens' support for the regime change in Iraq was certainly one of his more contentious beliefs (especially in England), but I think it is quite contrary of you to compare his support in this matter to Kissinger whilst simultaneously speaking of his irrelevance. This assumes an acknowledgment of the differing levels of impact the two men could have, and as such it is not even close to a level playing field for hypocrisy. Can I support one war, whilst condemn another? Of course I can. Can I condemn violent actions, and still consider violence necessary on occassion? Yes.

I wholly disagree with your assessment of his selectivity in human rights too! He was not an apologist in the case of morality; and although his assertions on various individuals such as Kissinger or Mother Teresa can appear mean spirited or spiteful, he always argued from a position of morality (relative as that may be).

He could be accused of pomposity or superciliousness, and you are free to endorse such opinions, but he was at his heart a humanist - in all his beliefs.

Edit:

The point about his support for the invasion of iraq (which I strongly disagreed with as well) was that he was not afraid to change his previously held view - he was not afraid to nail his colours eloquently and publicly to the mast realising that this would infuriate many of those who had previously admired him. He did not toe any party lines. He was often hugely wrong but always had plenty of arguments at hand to justify his position. He was eloquent and argued rather than quietly held back or acquiesced.

This is very true Prospero.

[BellaBellucci]

He could be accused of pomposity or superciliousness, and you are free to endorse such opinions, but he was at his heart a humanist - in all his beliefs.

As someone who tends to be perceived in much the same way, I can't wrap my head around the fact that he wasn't an Aquarius.

http://zodiac-signs-astrology.com/zo...s/aquarius.htm

Say what you will about astrology, but I always felt that my sign sums me (and him) up very well.

~BB~

[needsum]

you're an aquarius! No wonder I dig you so....

[BellaBellucci]

you're an aquarius! No wonder I dig you so....

Thanks. And it turns out he was an Aries, so that makes a bit more sense.

~BB~

[loveboof]

As someone who tends to be perceived in much the same way, I can't wrap my head around the fact that he wasn't an Aquarius.

http://zodiac-signs-astrology.com/zo...s/aquarius.htm

Say what you will about astrology, but I always felt that my sign sums me (and him) up very well.

~BB~

lol. I'm sure everyone is aware of how I feel about astrology from your other thread