What does Veeky Forums think of Christopher Hitchens? Was he just a pretentious contrarian worshipped by fedora tippers...

That's something an uncreative mind would assume yes

You have nothing original in your noggin, I am almost completely certain. If not, you have the perfect opportunity to prove me wrong by laying down some innovation from your thinking organ

I think you're intelligent enough to be able to discern what is or isn't fresh thoughts. It takes a keen mind to recognise. Dull world for dull people

hitchens was always a pretentious douche but I think it's just because he was brought up british and so it was a cultural thing that he didn't know anything about the actual world.

However, he did do that thing where he got waterboarded to see what it was really like and immediately after the experience said that he changed his mind on torture so at least he was an honest person. I don't know whether honest and ignorant makes you a virtuous person but whatever.

Very unoriginal

Was always a fan of hearing him speak, but i got halfway through Hitch-22 and couldn't finish it.

He was a Trotskyist.

Troskyi is probably the biggest farse of Western history. He was more worse than Stalin, he was the one who proposed the collectivization of agricultural labour, and he went beyond and even wanted the militarization of industrial labour, aka slavery.

He was a petty tyrant, a monster, but since he was a Jew and he socialized with Western artists and he lost the political struggle with Stalin he became a symbol of freedom. And Christopher Hitchens fell for it.

Frankly, I cannot respect someone who respects Trotskyi.

His brother is better.

Fresh off the boat, from reddit, kid? heh I remember when I was just like you. Braindead. Lemme give you a tip so you can make it in this cyber sanctuary: never make jokes like that. You got no reputation here, you got no name, you got jackshit here. It's survival of the fittest and you ain't gonna survive long on Veeky Forums by saying stupid jokes that your little hugbox cuntsucking reddit friends would upboat. None of that here. You don't upboat. You don't downboat. This ain't reddit, kid. This is Veeky Forums. We have REAL intellectual discussion, something I don't think you're all that familiar with. You don't like it, you can hit the bricks on over to imgur, you daily show watching son of a bitch. I hope you don't tho. I hope you stay here and learn our ways. Things are different here, unlike any other place that the light of internet pop culture reaches. You can be anything here. Me ? heh, I'm a judge.. this place.... this place has a lot to offer... heh you'll see, kid . . . that is if you can handle it.

i think his writing is intelligent but im easy to impress. i've read some of his lesser known essays and liked them

People forget Trotsky was just a petty mass-murderer. They act like he was a real player, but he wasn't. He didn't have the mind for politics, and couldn't play the game. He was just a tool, and he gets treated like a hero today simply for that reason. I firmly believe you could switch him with Adolf Eichmann and the end result would be the same. Just a sad husk of a man and an ideology who honestly deserved that ice axe to the back of the head. Pathetic.

Totally true, I have a lot of experience dealing with Leftists IRL and Trotskyists are the most dogmatic Dominicans I ever come across, I wouldn't trust them to run a post office

May have been a Diceman kinda thing where the line between him and his persona got blurred over the years.

His brother Peter is a far better debator and a superior writer. Seriously his columns are always crisp and fun to read, even if a I disagree with him on some things. Actually has a degree of humility about him which I can respect, unlike his brother

Christopher was a pseud.

He was eloquent but incredibly opinionated and seemed to go with his gut on everything instead of thinking things over.

For example, his unconditional opposition of Iran. He saw that Iran was anti-west (no shit) and ran with that to justify everything the west did against them, no consideration for historical context or nuance.

Similarly with his opposition to abortion. There are some very good arguments against abortion, but Hitchen's view was "it's wrong because it's obviously wrong" coupled with insulting people if they disagreed.

I think he was only interested in black and white issues where he could "win". The guy loved debating rather than seriously investigating and being open to different viewpoints.

Hitchens' position on Abortion happens to be the only thing I think actually makes sense. That thing will turn into a child unless prevented from doing so by external force. What other way do we define life? By some arbitrary list of functions?

read his hit-piece on the clintons

You sort of disappointed me right here

Hitchens was definitely a force for good.

I enjoyed hearing him talk, he was an extremely good orator and it was always apparent this guy was sharp as fuck. The best part is he was drunk half the times he appeared on TV and still demolished people in arguments.

I personally have borrowed some of his better points and internalized them for my own arguments.

More like Christopher "needs to get Hitched"ens

Seriously did this dude ever get laid lmao?

Definition of life has no bearing to the question on whether abortion is wrong or not.

Of course it does. If both sides agree that the unborn are human then the debate becomes whether or not its okay to kill an innocent human being. This is why most pro-choicers reject the biological definition and instead favor a purely philosophical definition of life because that's an argument they cannot win.

He's a clown

>life
>human being
>innocent
>wrong

Well he had like 3 kids

So it's a strong possibility

Peter > Christopher

Peter was a hopeless, tory reactionary who adhered to "compassionate conservatism" and whose greatest concern was that Britain was always being portrayed as the villain in historical movies. That's not an intellectual.

>hurr neither was his borther tho xd
>Peter wasn't a tory because even though he agreed with them on nearly everything, he said he wasn't one

Peter agrees with the modern Tory party on very little. According to him they're actually the biggest barrier to a political resurgence of conservatism in Britain because they prevent a genuinely conservative party from succeeding

>Peter agrees with the modern Tory party on very little, because he said so.
ftfy

He was yet another tory trying to distance himself from the ideological movement in action, in order to not have to apologize everytime it embarrassed himself.

Don't reply to me again.

*every time it embarrassed itself

I don't know how anyone can argue with you if you're determined to misrepresent people's beliefs. Peter is not a neoliberal, not a progressive, and not pro-immigration, therefore he is not a Tory in the modern sense.

>Don't reply to me again.

Make me.

>He didn't have the mind for politics

I'm not too familiar with his work. He was erudite and displayed a comfort with speaking that is enviable. The few essays I read I have liked. I believe he had a talent for writing but I feel like he coasted on being able to write well without thought. There have been a couple of times reading his essays that I feel like it could have been shortened considerably. Is this something that is common in his works? How is Peter in comparison?

If you knew anything about Russian Revolutionary Era Politics you'd know that was correct. Trotsky would be routinely outmanoeuvred by Stalin and his allies again and again after Lenin's death because of his refusal to engage in politics and intrigue.

Peter's main crusade for thebpast 10 years has been to destroy the Tory party. If anything he's closer to small c conservative parts or Labour from the 1970s

Your post shows you know literally nothing about Peter's philosophy, his view is the opposite of compassionate conservatism

He's a kinda weird Trotskyist neocon.

Maybe he sucked at politicking, but he stuck to his ideals (global communism) which is what got him killed.

When you're young you think Christopher was right, when you get older you begin to realize his brother is actually correct.

>be outspoken atheist and publically mock god
>get ass cancer and die
>convert on deathbed
pottery

This

The whole "convert on deathbed" spiel is a particularly pathetic variation of slander: the accused cannot defend against it and the stain on his credibility can never be removed.

In regards to Hitchens, it has been "debunked".
He was a somewhat educated rabble-rouser and as such a necessity of his time.
Have yet to find anything original and profound written by him. Not holding my breath, here

This desu senpai

Sadly Peter didn't stand a chance in becoming as wildly published, he was literally targetted by the Blairite establishment for criticizing "New Labour".

>Or did he actually offer an insightful view into religion and global politics?
What, when he poses for photos with that facial expression? Obviously fucking not. I'm surprised he didn't request to be wreathed in shadow.

youtu.be/E9TMwfkDwIY
What did he mean by this? No seriously, what did he mean?

Let's put it this way, people were denying his conversion literally minutes after his death; before claims of any conversion even arose.

True, but I believe his popularity and approval now is gradually increasing. With conservatism becoming the new rebellious movement, he will only rise in prominence.

i think hitchens owes his popularity to the fact that he's sort of what i imagine sweaty internet atheists want themselves to be

so hitchens was an incredibly smart dude, it wasn't uncommon for him to be the smartest guy in the room to be honest, and he had this smug edginess about him that would be really appealing if you're some 14 year old dweeb raised on anime

like i wouldn't say he was really that great of an academic or philosopher or anything but yeah he was pretty stellar as far as what he did which was basically just mocking shitty people for being shitty

incredibly smart is a bit generous...he was a great speaker but not really a thinker. He'd prob agree

He had a child's understanding of theology and all his arguments rested on the presumption that realism is true, which we know it's not.

Absolutely based. I'm a Catholic btw.

He was a writer looking to make a living. When he realized that 'saying edgy shit about religion' = 'fedora wearers pay for it' he created a money-making machine.
He didn't care that he stances were nonsensical because the people paying his mortgage didn't care. He didn't care if he was annihilated in debates because he got paid no matter what.

You want to remove religion from a position of power, where it is dangerous and irrational. But to uproot it entirely...that's a cultural death of sorts, it's sad, like a species going extinct. There is value in religion as a quaint sort of curiosity, but not as a guiding system for people's lives.

Seemed obvious to me user.

>realism is true, which we know it's not.
>u can't no nuffin'

>9/11
>arbitrary circumstance
actually kill yourself

Hard to get worse than a neocon jew atheist, but he did it.

there's nothing wrong with being a neocon

the current political climate is proof he was ahead of the curve

>tfw you know every single one the naysayers in this thread would be demolished in some hypothetical conversation between them and Christopher Hitchens and walk away another shameful and irrecoverable victim of the 'hitchslap'
feels good

>people on this board unironically use the term 'hitchslap'

youtu.be/mQorzOS-F6w

agreed fucking socailist scum

>Name an action or a statement that can be performed by an believer that couldn't be performed by an atheist.

Pretty original i'd say.

If you can come up with something that original in your lifetime, i'll be your willing slave for eternity.

Biggest influence for me when I was a teenager.

God Is Not Great is okay, but fairly dry, his collection "Argumentaly" is fantastic and I suggest anyone read it.

His books/documentaries on Killinger, Mother Theresa and media of days following Princess Dianna's death are worth investing your time.

Disagree with his justification of the Iraq War, but theyre not without their merits

He'd be glad he died when he did, for I think if he couldve seen the last election he probably wouldve downed an entire bottle on air.

Have you read his Minority Report column from the 1980s TIME magazine ? They're brilliant. They should be available on Google if you look hard enough.

Thinking of buying Arguably. It has some of his 1980s essays i hear.

I understand where the word comes from you dumb redditor pos

Back to Ręddít pls

>there's nothing wrong with being a neocon
Nothing wrong with warmongering, sure.

>Of course it does. If both sides agree that the unborn are human then the debate becomes whether or not its okay to kill an innocent human being

The debate is (or at least should be) about the extent of control people legally have over their own bodies. Life doesn't come into it.

The government already restricts other peoples bodies without controversy when it comes to the killing of other innocent human beings. Why should we treat this issue any differently?

Does the fetus get any legal control over its body?

He was great.
Notice how everyone here who is butthurt, is that solely because of muh atheism, completely disregarding his opinions on other matters.

That said i often disargreed with him, but his reasoning was always usually interesting.

>i often disargreed with him, but his reasoning was always usually interesting.
So you think he was usually wrong, but like how he thought?!

wrong! (((neocons))) are first out the helicopters

George bush did nothing wrong