Charlie Rose honors Christopher Hitchens
April 16, 2012 7:51 PM Subscribe
A Charlie Rose discussion about the life and work of author Christopher Hitchens with his friends and fellow authors: Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis, James Fenton & Ian McEwan. Also featuring past Hitchens appearances on the show. (1 hr SLVideo)
Also, mildly racist re: his comments about Michelle Obama.
Please. I'm not entirely sure you read TFA you linked to. If you clicked on the link that lead's to Michelle Obama's thesis, you would find it unreadable as well. I'm trying to read it now, and it is quite unbearable, and I'm only 5 pages deep. Perhaps you're seeing it as a cheap shot to link to her bachelor's thesis? I'm not sure why you think this is racist.
Anyway, I don't want to start a derail or anything, but you'd be hard pressed to find a person who never made any mistakes. Hitchens made more than a few, but too many here dismiss all of his arguments saying "but he supported the war on Iraq" or "Neo-Con this and that", and it's the pinnacle of the ad hominem argument.
If the argument is good, it doesn't matter who's making it.
Whatever. On preview, what The World Famous said.
posted by King Bee at 9:18 PM on April 16, 2012 [1 favorite]
Please. I'm not entirely sure you read TFA you linked to. If you clicked on the link that lead's to Michelle Obama's thesis, you would find it unreadable as well. I'm trying to read it now, and it is quite unbearable, and I'm only 5 pages deep. Perhaps you're seeing it as a cheap shot to link to her bachelor's thesis? I'm not sure why you think this is racist.
Anyway, I don't want to start a derail or anything, but you'd be hard pressed to find a person who never made any mistakes. Hitchens made more than a few, but too many here dismiss all of his arguments saying "but he supported the war on Iraq" or "Neo-Con this and that", and it's the pinnacle of the ad hominem argument.
If the argument is good, it doesn't matter who's making it.
Whatever. On preview, what The World Famous said.
posted by King Bee at 9:18 PM on April 16, 2012 [1 favorite]
Oh please, the Jeremiah Wright bullshit was all part and parcel of the right-wing "Ooga-Booga Black Muslim President" meme and Hitchens was more than happy to play his role in it. There's nothing ad hominem about holding him accountable for what he wrote since, ya know, he was a freaking writer (as he and his very serious friends like to remind us, ad infiitum).
As for Iraq, let's be clear -- Hitchens staked his career on being a neo-con cheerleader, and he was 100% wrong. It's not as if the neo-con stuff was just a light essay he wrote, comparable to his love of G.K. Chersterton and travels with his good buddy Martin Amis, it was obviously what he wanted to stake his legacy on. The atheism stuff was IMO an attempt at some sort of rehabilitation but the damage was done and he knew it more clearly than anyone else.
Sorry, but he pretty much killed his own legacy with rancor, blindness, and yes, slight touches of racism and a more obvious misogyny (Dixie Chicks are "fat slags" and all that).
Like I said, there were some things about him I liked but as the ghoulish (and strangely hyper-competitive) hagiographies continue to pile up it's clear that his shortcomings were numerous and his actual contributions were minimal.
"Letters To A Young Contrarian" is nice though.
posted by bardic at 9:41 PM on April 16, 2012 [4 favorites]
As for Iraq, let's be clear -- Hitchens staked his career on being a neo-con cheerleader, and he was 100% wrong. It's not as if the neo-con stuff was just a light essay he wrote, comparable to his love of G.K. Chersterton and travels with his good buddy Martin Amis, it was obviously what he wanted to stake his legacy on. The atheism stuff was IMO an attempt at some sort of rehabilitation but the damage was done and he knew it more clearly than anyone else.
Sorry, but he pretty much killed his own legacy with rancor, blindness, and yes, slight touches of racism and a more obvious misogyny (Dixie Chicks are "fat slags" and all that).
Like I said, there were some things about him I liked but as the ghoulish (and strangely hyper-competitive) hagiographies continue to pile up it's clear that his shortcomings were numerous and his actual contributions were minimal.
"Letters To A Young Contrarian" is nice though.
posted by bardic at 9:41 PM on April 16, 2012 [4 favorites]
For a man who didn't believe in Life After Death, Hitchens is annoyingly immortal.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:46 PM on April 16, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:46 PM on April 16, 2012 [3 favorites]
Gotta love when threads run like this. It's kind of like reading a music thread where the first comment is "your favorite band sucks".
posted by hippybear at 9:52 PM on April 16, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 9:52 PM on April 16, 2012 [4 favorites]
The atheism stuff was IMO an attempt at some sort of rehabilitation but the damage was done and he knew it more clearly than anyone else.
Yeah. So it should totally be dismissed as garbage, right? I mean, that's what you're saying, isn't it? That these things should be dismissed because the guy who made the arguments was trying to "rehabilitate his image"?
The great thing about true propositions is that it doesn't matter who utters them. It doesn't undermine them. They're still true.
posted by King Bee at 10:35 PM on April 16, 2012 [3 favorites]
Yeah. So it should totally be dismissed as garbage, right? I mean, that's what you're saying, isn't it? That these things should be dismissed because the guy who made the arguments was trying to "rehabilitate his image"?
The great thing about true propositions is that it doesn't matter who utters them. It doesn't undermine them. They're still true.
posted by King Bee at 10:35 PM on April 16, 2012 [3 favorites]
Well it does undermine them. If he can argue so forcefully for something that is just plain bullshit such as the Iraq war, it of course calls into doubt his arguments for the other matters he writes passionately about. No one takes any other person’s arguments without any context, it’s always been (and always will be) the case that the credibility of the person making the argument is considered.
Speaking as an atheist in the Hitchens/Dawkins mould myself.
posted by wilful at 11:14 PM on April 16, 2012 [4 favorites]
Speaking as an atheist in the Hitchens/Dawkins mould myself.
posted by wilful at 11:14 PM on April 16, 2012 [4 favorites]
There's also the irony of being an unrepentant smoker, talking about how he'd never stop smoking, bla bla bla, up until he actually caught cancer.
What was annoying about Hitchens is that is that he constantly claimed some kind of intellectual heft, but his ideas were not really that solid, he seemed like someone who cared more about emotional appeals then thinking things through, and he seemed like he cared more about having a different opinion then whatever 'conventional wisdom' was -- kind of a Dunning Kruger effect. Except he wasn't smart enough to understand this. Maybe he didn't understand the difference between his gut feelings and the results of careful reasoning.
Anyway, my experience is that people who consider themselves "Contrarians" are more interested in feeling smarter then other people then being right.
posted by delmoi at 11:24 PM on April 16, 2012 [5 favorites]
Gotta love when threads run like this. It's kind of like reading a music thread where the first comment is "your favorite band sucks".I don't know, do writers have a responsibility for the things their write? If a musician was all about promoting the Iraq War through their music, don't you think it would be noted upon here? Would someone like Ted Nugent be discussed solely in terms of his hair band music? (or whatever he played)
What was annoying about Hitchens is that is that he constantly claimed some kind of intellectual heft, but his ideas were not really that solid, he seemed like someone who cared more about emotional appeals then thinking things through, and he seemed like he cared more about having a different opinion then whatever 'conventional wisdom' was -- kind of a Dunning Kruger effect. Except he wasn't smart enough to understand this. Maybe he didn't understand the difference between his gut feelings and the results of careful reasoning.
Anyway, my experience is that people who consider themselves "Contrarians" are more interested in feeling smarter then other people then being right.
posted by delmoi at 11:24 PM on April 16, 2012 [5 favorites]
I used to get frustrated listening to his arguments: he seemed intelligent enough to make good arguments, but he preferred making cheap shots against his opponents and appealing to the audience for laughs and applause. This came through very vividly in a debate about theology I watched once: he introduced the Biblical story about Abraham being commanded to kill his son. "Oh," I thought, "He's going to get into the Socratic argument about whether things are good because God commands them, or whether God commands them because they are good; and he'll demonstrate that morality cannot depend on belief in a deity.
No. He raised the story in order to inform us that he would have said No to God. The audience liked it, but I don't think it really contributed to the debate.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:55 AM on April 17, 2012
No. He raised the story in order to inform us that he would have said No to God. The audience liked it, but I don't think it really contributed to the debate.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:55 AM on April 17, 2012
and his actual contributions were minimal
The Trial of Henry Kissinger was a worthy and needed criminal biography.
posted by clarknova at 4:14 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Trial of Henry Kissinger was a worthy and needed criminal biography.
posted by clarknova at 4:14 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
Well it does undermine them. If he can argue so forcefully for something that is just plain bullshit such as the Iraq war, it of course calls into doubt his arguments for the other matters he writes passionately about.
posted by wilful at 7:14 AM on April 17
This is simply false, and you should try to understand why. An argument stands or falls on its own. The identity of the person advancing an argument makes no difference to the robustness or otherwise of the argument itself. None. A person's track record at argument might well make us approach his future arguments with more or less careful scrutiny, but those arguments will not be undermined - or, indeed, bolstered - by the identity of the person making them. That is not how argument works. It might be how rhetoric works, but not argument. If you say, "This argument is instantly undermined because this person is making it" you're basically committing an ad hom fallacy.
You know, most of us reason poorly some of the time, brilliantly at other times and all points in between. Hitchens was way off base on Iraq. To suggest that this undermines anything else he argued is nonsense. His atheism-related stuff was generally pretty solid, and his regrettable bulldog stubbornness with his Iraq error doesn't alter that in any way at all.
posted by Decani at 4:41 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by wilful at 7:14 AM on April 17
This is simply false, and you should try to understand why. An argument stands or falls on its own. The identity of the person advancing an argument makes no difference to the robustness or otherwise of the argument itself. None. A person's track record at argument might well make us approach his future arguments with more or less careful scrutiny, but those arguments will not be undermined - or, indeed, bolstered - by the identity of the person making them. That is not how argument works. It might be how rhetoric works, but not argument. If you say, "This argument is instantly undermined because this person is making it" you're basically committing an ad hom fallacy.
You know, most of us reason poorly some of the time, brilliantly at other times and all points in between. Hitchens was way off base on Iraq. To suggest that this undermines anything else he argued is nonsense. His atheism-related stuff was generally pretty solid, and his regrettable bulldog stubbornness with his Iraq error doesn't alter that in any way at all.
posted by Decani at 4:41 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
There's also the irony of being an unrepentant smoker, talking about how he'd never stop smoking, bla bla bla, up until he actually caught cancer.
I guess I fail to see the irony here. It's not like after he got cancer he went on an anti-tobacco warpath. I think the closest he got to saying anything close to this was in an interview with Anderson Cooper:
AC: So that question, "why me?", came across your mind?
CH: Well, you can't avoid the question, however stoic you are, you can only bat it away as a silly one. I mean, millions of people die every day, everyone's gotta go sometime. I came by this particular tumor honestly. If you smoke as I did for many years very heavily with occasional interruptions and if you use alcohol, you make yourself a candidate for it.
AC: You think part of that, the way you lived, is responsible for this?
CH: It would be very idle to deny it. And I might as well say to anyone who might be watching, if you can hold it down on the smokes and the cocktails, you might be well advised to do so.
AC: That's probably the subtlest anti-smoking message I've ever heard.
CH: Well, the other ones tend to be rather strident. And, for that reason, easy to ignore.
Sounds really just like someone's being honest about what he did and the way he lived.
posted by King Bee at 5:32 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
I guess I fail to see the irony here. It's not like after he got cancer he went on an anti-tobacco warpath. I think the closest he got to saying anything close to this was in an interview with Anderson Cooper:
AC: So that question, "why me?", came across your mind?
CH: Well, you can't avoid the question, however stoic you are, you can only bat it away as a silly one. I mean, millions of people die every day, everyone's gotta go sometime. I came by this particular tumor honestly. If you smoke as I did for many years very heavily with occasional interruptions and if you use alcohol, you make yourself a candidate for it.
AC: You think part of that, the way you lived, is responsible for this?
CH: It would be very idle to deny it. And I might as well say to anyone who might be watching, if you can hold it down on the smokes and the cocktails, you might be well advised to do so.
AC: That's probably the subtlest anti-smoking message I've ever heard.
CH: Well, the other ones tend to be rather strident. And, for that reason, easy to ignore.
Sounds really just like someone's being honest about what he did and the way he lived.
posted by King Bee at 5:32 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
it's the pinnacle of the ad hominem argument
Attacking someone for the specific content of the public statements they make is the exact opposite of the ad hominem argument.
posted by mediareport at 7:08 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
Attacking someone for the specific content of the public statements they make is the exact opposite of the ad hominem argument.
posted by mediareport at 7:08 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
It might be how rhetoric works, but not argument. If you say, "This argument is instantly undermined because this person is making it" you're basically committing an ad hom fallacy.
Hitchens wasn't producing philosophical arguments in his writing about Iraq. He was attempting to persuade; he was producing rhetoric.
Or put another way, "if you can hold it down on the credulity and the idolatry, you might be well advised to do so."
posted by notyou at 7:15 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
Hitchens wasn't producing philosophical arguments in his writing about Iraq. He was attempting to persuade; he was producing rhetoric.
Or put another way, "if you can hold it down on the credulity and the idolatry, you might be well advised to do so."
posted by notyou at 7:15 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
It might be how rhetoric works, but not argument. If you say, "This argument is instantly undermined because this person is making it" you're basically committing an ad hom fallacy.
Hmm, I think this critique depends on a distinction between rhetoric and argument that was just not actually present in Hitchens' work. The guy was a fantastic prose-writer when it came to persuasive argument – so it's fair to ask "am I being persuaded by his style and verve when in fact the factual basis for his position is questionable?"
posted by oliverburkeman at 9:42 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
Hmm, I think this critique depends on a distinction between rhetoric and argument that was just not actually present in Hitchens' work. The guy was a fantastic prose-writer when it came to persuasive argument – so it's fair to ask "am I being persuaded by his style and verve when in fact the factual basis for his position is questionable?"
posted by oliverburkeman at 9:42 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
The identity of the person advancing an argument makes no difference to the robustness or otherwise of the argument itself. None.
You live in a different world to the rest of us.
For most of us, reputation is very important. When Sarah Palin says something, I just ignore it - when Mr. Obama says something, I examine it with a great deal more care.
Certainly, the underlying truth or falsehood of the statement is independent of the speaker. But no human has the time to investigate every claim or argument made. We have to rely on reputation even just to decide what to read. Without some such rule, you're requiring me to give as much time to analyzing Fox News as Daniel Dennett.
There's a secondary effect that some people have done things so morally awful that even mentioning them degrades the conversation. I'm sure there are all sorts of robust arguments in "Mein Kampf" (it's quite likely Hitler's premises that are flawed, instead) but as everyone knows, bringing them up will simply terminate a rational conversation.
Knowing that Christopher Hitchens bent logic in order to advocate a murderous war that killed hundreds of thousands, I avoid quoting him on things where he might be correct. There are many other thinkers who have said similar things who do not have blood on their hands.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:45 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
You live in a different world to the rest of us.
For most of us, reputation is very important. When Sarah Palin says something, I just ignore it - when Mr. Obama says something, I examine it with a great deal more care.
Certainly, the underlying truth or falsehood of the statement is independent of the speaker. But no human has the time to investigate every claim or argument made. We have to rely on reputation even just to decide what to read. Without some such rule, you're requiring me to give as much time to analyzing Fox News as Daniel Dennett.
There's a secondary effect that some people have done things so morally awful that even mentioning them degrades the conversation. I'm sure there are all sorts of robust arguments in "Mein Kampf" (it's quite likely Hitler's premises that are flawed, instead) but as everyone knows, bringing them up will simply terminate a rational conversation.
Knowing that Christopher Hitchens bent logic in order to advocate a murderous war that killed hundreds of thousands, I avoid quoting him on things where he might be correct. There are many other thinkers who have said similar things who do not have blood on their hands.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:45 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
> To say that Hitchens' positions on religion are undermined by the fact that he showed bad judgment elsewhere is problematic, to put it lightly.
Is this the way you really behave in your personal life? If you had an employee who stacked the cans on top of the eggs, wouldn't that later affect your decisions about what tasks to use him for? If your boss was constantly railing about "the Jews" would you really invite him to dinner with your black friends?
Part of the argument of modern atheists is "Good without God" - an argument I agree with. By arguing strenuously in favor of evil acts - that is, wars of foreign aggression - Hitchens undermined that argument as a tool for his use.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:59 AM on April 17, 2012
Is this the way you really behave in your personal life? If you had an employee who stacked the cans on top of the eggs, wouldn't that later affect your decisions about what tasks to use him for? If your boss was constantly railing about "the Jews" would you really invite him to dinner with your black friends?
Part of the argument of modern atheists is "Good without God" - an argument I agree with. By arguing strenuously in favor of evil acts - that is, wars of foreign aggression - Hitchens undermined that argument as a tool for his use.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:59 AM on April 17, 2012
> If I'm litigating a case with a lawyer who vocally supported the Iraq war, it would have no effect on my assessment of the arguments that lawyer makes in a brief about, say, California wage and hour law.
We're not talking about a professional who does something else on his days off. We're talking about Christopher Hitchens, professional writer. Some of his professional writings contain hate speech and logical fallacies. This calls his other writings into question.
Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said: "But no human has the time to investigate every claim or argument made. We have to rely on reputation even just to decide what to read," or mentioned that Hitler had no doubt many correct arguments.
So let me repeat. Clearly the truth or falsity of one argument made by an individual is logically independent of the truth or falsity of their other statements. But practically speaking, reputation is very important, simply to decide what statements deserve in-depth evaluation.
Each statement Sarah Palin makes is logically independent of the others - by your argument, each one needs to be taken individually, seriously, and evaluated, no matter how many other of her statements have been shown to be false.
Once I read Hitchens' writing about Iraq, I simply stopped reading him. His professional misconduct in that matter called all his writings into question.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:33 AM on April 17, 2012
We're not talking about a professional who does something else on his days off. We're talking about Christopher Hitchens, professional writer. Some of his professional writings contain hate speech and logical fallacies. This calls his other writings into question.
Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said: "But no human has the time to investigate every claim or argument made. We have to rely on reputation even just to decide what to read," or mentioned that Hitler had no doubt many correct arguments.
So let me repeat. Clearly the truth or falsity of one argument made by an individual is logically independent of the truth or falsity of their other statements. But practically speaking, reputation is very important, simply to decide what statements deserve in-depth evaluation.
Each statement Sarah Palin makes is logically independent of the others - by your argument, each one needs to be taken individually, seriously, and evaluated, no matter how many other of her statements have been shown to be false.
Once I read Hitchens' writing about Iraq, I simply stopped reading him. His professional misconduct in that matter called all his writings into question.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:33 AM on April 17, 2012
When reading a 9th Circuit opinion written by Judge Bybee, I don't call into question his reasoning based on his memo about torture. How's that?
Not very good. Of course you call his reasoning into question. You read the opinion v-e-e-e-ery carefully because you you've seen that his reasoning can go badly awry.
It's like Tony Romo. He can be putting up heroic numbers and making game winning plays all year, but late in the season and into the playoffs, you still get nervous.
posted by Trochanter at 11:10 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
Not very good. Of course you call his reasoning into question. You read the opinion v-e-e-e-ery carefully because you you've seen that his reasoning can go badly awry.
It's like Tony Romo. He can be putting up heroic numbers and making game winning plays all year, but late in the season and into the playoffs, you still get nervous.
posted by Trochanter at 11:10 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
> Nevertheless, if we objectively consider Hitchens' positions on one topic, we must not bring his reputation, personal merits, or arguments on other topics into consideration.
Why "must we not"? Who's setting these rules?
I'm an expert in a couple of fields. The way I got there was by being right almost all the time. I'm often very cautious when I express my professional opinion - people ask me why and I say, "Because I care about my professional reputation" - if I made some prominent mistake in public I would expect that people would take what I said less seriously.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose I started a sentence with "Sarah Palin said that...". Are you claiming that wouldn't disincline you to be deeply skeptical about the rest of the sentence - that you'd simply ignore the source and concentrate on the content?
I am, I suppose, an old-fashioned guy. I fully expected that when Hitchens and all the pro-war writers made grossly incorrect statements that were shown in the fullness of time to be utterly wrong, that they would lose reputation, that some of them might even admit that they were wrong, and the people who were right about the war would gain credence.
This is not what happened. Exactly the same people who promulgated lies and deliberate errors to get us into war, the Serious, Sensible People, are considered authorities today. The people who were completely right about the war were considered Not Serious then, and are considered Not Serious today.
In my better world, people would be held responsible for their statements. Wrong statements would lead to a loss of reputation; many wrong statements and their reputation would be in ruins, and no one would pay attention them on any topic.
In my world, Hitchens destroyed his reputation through lies and hate speech - his word, on any topic, is worthless to me.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:14 AM on April 17, 2012
Why "must we not"? Who's setting these rules?
I'm an expert in a couple of fields. The way I got there was by being right almost all the time. I'm often very cautious when I express my professional opinion - people ask me why and I say, "Because I care about my professional reputation" - if I made some prominent mistake in public I would expect that people would take what I said less seriously.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose I started a sentence with "Sarah Palin said that...". Are you claiming that wouldn't disincline you to be deeply skeptical about the rest of the sentence - that you'd simply ignore the source and concentrate on the content?
I am, I suppose, an old-fashioned guy. I fully expected that when Hitchens and all the pro-war writers made grossly incorrect statements that were shown in the fullness of time to be utterly wrong, that they would lose reputation, that some of them might even admit that they were wrong, and the people who were right about the war would gain credence.
This is not what happened. Exactly the same people who promulgated lies and deliberate errors to get us into war, the Serious, Sensible People, are considered authorities today. The people who were completely right about the war were considered Not Serious then, and are considered Not Serious today.
In my better world, people would be held responsible for their statements. Wrong statements would lead to a loss of reputation; many wrong statements and their reputation would be in ruins, and no one would pay attention them on any topic.
In my world, Hitchens destroyed his reputation through lies and hate speech - his word, on any topic, is worthless to me.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:14 AM on April 17, 2012
Could someone maybe point me in the directions of good, factual critiques of Hitchens's writings on Iraq?
I just read his memoirs recently, and I think he makes a good case at least in broad strokes that his opposition to Saddam Hussein is pretty much of a piece with his earlier opposition to South American dictators in Chile and Argentina back in the 70s and 80s. That is, Husein was violently oppressive to his people at least as much as Pinochet was. Husein fully invaded a neighbor country in 1990. He used chemical weapons on the Kurds in northern Iraq around 1988. I'm largely a pacifist myself, but I would agree with Hitchens that we made a mistake in not finishing the job in 1991.
So, philosophically, to an extent I can't really disagree with him that Saddam needed to go, and it's good that he's gone. We can argue about the timing, we can argue about what evidence was presented to make the case, and I certainly have misgivings on both those counts. Really my biggest issue with it is that it took attention away from Afghanistan and Pakistan, which seem to be the bigger source of Islamist violence these days.
Incidentally, as I recall in the memoirs Hitchens does express some - not regret, but "annoyance" I suppose - that Bush and Cheney bungled a lot of things in the Iraq war.
posted by dnash at 11:21 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
I just read his memoirs recently, and I think he makes a good case at least in broad strokes that his opposition to Saddam Hussein is pretty much of a piece with his earlier opposition to South American dictators in Chile and Argentina back in the 70s and 80s. That is, Husein was violently oppressive to his people at least as much as Pinochet was. Husein fully invaded a neighbor country in 1990. He used chemical weapons on the Kurds in northern Iraq around 1988. I'm largely a pacifist myself, but I would agree with Hitchens that we made a mistake in not finishing the job in 1991.
So, philosophically, to an extent I can't really disagree with him that Saddam needed to go, and it's good that he's gone. We can argue about the timing, we can argue about what evidence was presented to make the case, and I certainly have misgivings on both those counts. Really my biggest issue with it is that it took attention away from Afghanistan and Pakistan, which seem to be the bigger source of Islamist violence these days.
Incidentally, as I recall in the memoirs Hitchens does express some - not regret, but "annoyance" I suppose - that Bush and Cheney bungled a lot of things in the Iraq war.
posted by dnash at 11:21 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
> The score is the score and is not revised based on past performance.
Fascinating. So you're saying that the past results from an athlete do not help predict their future performance.
Do you have any evidence of your hard-to-believe claim?
> You're in luck, because that's exactly what happened.
Name ONE writer who was discredited.
> > Exactly the same people who promulgated lies and deliberate errors to get us into war, the Serious, Sensible People, are considered authorities today.
> Really? Who, specifically, are you referring to?
Hitchens. Krauthammer. Noonan. Pretty well any Washington Post columnist. I could probably go on as fast as I could type...
Perhaps you are too young to remember 2002, when all the newspapers were covered with op-eds pushing the Iraq War. The very same people are still writing in the very same newspapers.
> But that does not affect the merits of the arguments themselves. It correctly affects your willingness to consider them.
For the THIRD time, I write:
"Clearly the truth or falsity of one argument made by an individual is logically independent of the truth or falsity of their other statements. But practically speaking, reputation is very important, simply to decide what statements deserve in-depth evaluation."
If Isaac Asimov wrote something (as non-fiction), I'm willing to uncritically accept it as an expert opinion. If someone asked me, "How do you know (some fact about history, science, etc) is true?" I would be willing to say, "I read it in Isaac Asimov." I consider Isaac Asimov an authority (though of course some of the science has become outdated).
If Hitchens wrote something, I cannot do that. Because of his poor history of accuracy and his lack of willingness to print corrections, I cannot accept any statement of his at face value. He is no longer an authority - his words do not carry the weight that those of an honest person do.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:40 AM on April 17, 2012
Fascinating. So you're saying that the past results from an athlete do not help predict their future performance.
Do you have any evidence of your hard-to-believe claim?
> You're in luck, because that's exactly what happened.
Name ONE writer who was discredited.
> > Exactly the same people who promulgated lies and deliberate errors to get us into war, the Serious, Sensible People, are considered authorities today.
> Really? Who, specifically, are you referring to?
Hitchens. Krauthammer. Noonan. Pretty well any Washington Post columnist. I could probably go on as fast as I could type...
Perhaps you are too young to remember 2002, when all the newspapers were covered with op-eds pushing the Iraq War. The very same people are still writing in the very same newspapers.
> But that does not affect the merits of the arguments themselves. It correctly affects your willingness to consider them.
For the THIRD time, I write:
"Clearly the truth or falsity of one argument made by an individual is logically independent of the truth or falsity of their other statements. But practically speaking, reputation is very important, simply to decide what statements deserve in-depth evaluation."
If Isaac Asimov wrote something (as non-fiction), I'm willing to uncritically accept it as an expert opinion. If someone asked me, "How do you know (some fact about history, science, etc) is true?" I would be willing to say, "I read it in Isaac Asimov." I consider Isaac Asimov an authority (though of course some of the science has become outdated).
If Hitchens wrote something, I cannot do that. Because of his poor history of accuracy and his lack of willingness to print corrections, I cannot accept any statement of his at face value. He is no longer an authority - his words do not carry the weight that those of an honest person do.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:40 AM on April 17, 2012
Nonsense. You read every Circuit Court opinion ... a 9th Circuit precedent be disregarded on the grounds that Judge Bybee wrote the torture memo. Ridiculous.
Well friend, you started the lame courtroom analogy. Hitchens wasn't a jurist. He was a public commentator. You may be legally obliged to consider carefully what Bybee says on an issue he's legally engaged to decide, but you're not with Hitchens.
The correct conclusion to your analogy is that Bybee is disbarred for the torture memo, because respect for the quality of his reasoning is destroyed by it. And you're never legally obliged to listen to his opinions again.
posted by Trochanter at 1:12 PM on April 17, 2012
Well friend, you started the lame courtroom analogy. Hitchens wasn't a jurist. He was a public commentator. You may be legally obliged to consider carefully what Bybee says on an issue he's legally engaged to decide, but you're not with Hitchens.
The correct conclusion to your analogy is that Bybee is disbarred for the torture memo, because respect for the quality of his reasoning is destroyed by it. And you're never legally obliged to listen to his opinions again.
posted by Trochanter at 1:12 PM on April 17, 2012
How was Hitchens "discredited"? Did anyone stop printing his work? He continues to be one of the figureheads of the new atheism movement, and it's considered "rude" to point out his Iraq gaffes. His articles continued to be published in the largest periodicals in the world until the day he died.
> Ah. See, I thought you were asking about people who were discredited, not people who no longer have a career in writing. I'm going to assume that no rational person could possibly twist a line of reasoning the way you have unless they're kidding and assume that you're kidding.
Yes, I meant people who could no longer publish. Yes, I was serious.
Academics are discredited for poor work - what happens to them? Do they continue publishing? Do they get to keep their jobs in high-powered universities and research facilities (modulo tenure)?
Politicians are discredited - usually these days that means a sex scandal because no one cares if you start wars or that sort of thing - and they generally resign and leave politics.
I have no idea what you would mean by "discredited" where someone suffers not the slightest consequence in the real world. There's a big, big gap between "criticized" and "discredited".
(By the way, you're a very rude person.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:51 PM on April 17, 2012
> Ah. See, I thought you were asking about people who were discredited, not people who no longer have a career in writing. I'm going to assume that no rational person could possibly twist a line of reasoning the way you have unless they're kidding and assume that you're kidding.
Yes, I meant people who could no longer publish. Yes, I was serious.
Academics are discredited for poor work - what happens to them? Do they continue publishing? Do they get to keep their jobs in high-powered universities and research facilities (modulo tenure)?
Politicians are discredited - usually these days that means a sex scandal because no one cares if you start wars or that sort of thing - and they generally resign and leave politics.
I have no idea what you would mean by "discredited" where someone suffers not the slightest consequence in the real world. There's a big, big gap between "criticized" and "discredited".
(By the way, you're a very rude person.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:51 PM on April 17, 2012
Mike Daisy was discredited - he was forced to publicly apologize and has at least for the moment vanished from the media.
John Edwards was discredited - he was forced to publicly apologize for his actions and left politics.
Eliot Spitzer was discredited - he was forced to publicly apologize for his actions and left politics.
Misha Defonseca (a writer) was discredited. She was forced to publicly apologize and as far as I can see has not published again.
Now, please explain what happened to Hitchens - or any other commenter on, say, the Iraq war - that you could possibly describe as being "discredited".
(Do remember also that hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly because of the Iraq War.... something that puts Mike Daisy's lies or Spitzer's tarts into a very clear perspective...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:43 PM on April 17, 2012
John Edwards was discredited - he was forced to publicly apologize for his actions and left politics.
Eliot Spitzer was discredited - he was forced to publicly apologize for his actions and left politics.
Misha Defonseca (a writer) was discredited. She was forced to publicly apologize and as far as I can see has not published again.
Now, please explain what happened to Hitchens - or any other commenter on, say, the Iraq war - that you could possibly describe as being "discredited".
(Do remember also that hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly because of the Iraq War.... something that puts Mike Daisy's lies or Spitzer's tarts into a very clear perspective...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:43 PM on April 17, 2012
This is simply false, and you should try to understand why. An argument stands or falls on its own. The identity of the person advancing an argument makes no difference to the robustness or otherwise of the argument itself.
That's only true if the argument itself can be mathematically verified. A mathematical proof would be true regardless of whether or not someone had submitted 100 incorrect ones. But, had they people might not be too interested in looking at it, since the would expect it to be a waste of time.
I don't think anything Hitchens ever said qualified as being "mathematically sound" in any sense, which that in terms of pure logic they were all false.
I guess I fail to see the irony here. It's not like after he got cancer he went on an anti-tobacco warpath. I think the closest he got to saying anything close to this was in an interview with Anderson Cooper:That was after he got cancer. I said hew as an unrepentant smoker before he got cancer.
Attacking someone for the specific content of the public statements they make is the exact opposite of the ad hominem argument.No, its actually an example of why "ad hominem" is a stupid rule when you're not talking about purely mathematical logic.
If I'm litigating a case with a lawyer who vocally supported the Iraq war, it would have no effect on my assessment of the arguments that lawyer makes in a brief about, say, California wage and hour law.And I assume you'd have no problem hiring a lawyer who'd lost every case he'd argued? Good luck with that.
posted by delmoi at 6:07 PM on April 17, 2012
Did no one actually watch the video? I really enjoyed it. It was a wide ranging and enjoyable discussion by Hitch's closest friends about what he was like as a person, a friend, a wit, an insulting jerk, a writer, thinker, how he lived his life and how he faced death.
One might almost be forgiven for coming away with the impression that there was more to Hitchens than just his position on the Iraq war.
Hitchens was a larger-than-life, unrepentant, anti-totalitarian leftist and all around gadfly. If Hitchens hasn't angered you at some point, you haven't read him widely enough. The same is true for people who haven't found some common ground with him.
He had friends on the left and right, and argued positions that don't map neatly on one side of the fuzzy ideological divison in America's narrow political spectrum. Unforgivable (apparently)!
For example, Hitchens opposed torture, capital punishment, warrantless domestic wiretapping, opposed the war on drugs, was vehemently opposed to religion, and a champion of science and reason. And he held opinions that would even brand him as Marxist. And yet much of his work (e.g. the bulk of his most recent book, Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens) isn't political but literary.
__________________________________
Condemning Hitchens for one or two issues (usually religion or Iraq) seems to say more about individual's own rigid political intolerance and/or thin skin than the quality and breadth of Hitchens' work as whole.
In a nutshell, that mentality is not entirely dissimilar to saying "Screw Thomas Jefferson and everything he ever did or said - he owned slaves."
But alas, Hitchens committed the apparently unforgivable sin ofopposing Saddam Hussein's murderous and crippling totalitarian regime supporting the war in Iraq, so he's frequently denounced, often superficially enough to suggest an intended audience prone to deep throated 'woofs' and fist-pumping.
But there's a reason why you seldom see a full and fair description of Hitchens reasons for supporting the war. The issue was never black and white. There were both good and bad reasons to support and oppose the war. But nuance is boring, and consistency of principles is usually incompatible with party affiliation so it's much easier to score points off Hitchens with strawmen and guilt by association than faulting him for his consistent anti-totalitarian principles.
A bit ironic, too, to see a Bush-like "you're either with us or against us" litmus test being employed in such a bullying, politically and intellectually dishonest way. Or have we missed the categorical and unqualified repudiations of the majority of Democrats who voted for the war, like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Jon Edwards, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry?
Ah... but they had the good political sense to position themselves to exploit any outcome: express revervations, vote to authorize it, and be willing to change sides if things go badly. Politics trumps principles. And now this revisionist political history is being administered (inconsistently, it should be noted) as a kind of loyalty test that Hitchens obviously fails. Any mention of his name summons a mindless, McCarthesque mob moaning about the war like leftist zombies"braaaaaaains" "Iraaaaaaaaaq". Like the moral of any good ABC Afterschool Special, I think we found out who the real monsters are. :)
But seeing how subtlety may not be everyone's strong suit, let's reverse the game (of ignoring some of the agreeable principles behind Hitchens' support of the war, never mind the totality of his career) and let's instead cherry-pick only negative motives for why people opposed the war. Might we not then safely infer that opponents of the war were unrepentant supporters of Saddam Hussein? That, by extrapolation, they supported the continuation of the regime that gassed the Kurds, massacred 250,000 'Marsh Arabs', supported terrorism (Hamas), and manipulated UN sanctions such as to contribute to the death of perhaps 600,000 children? If so, would we also not be equally justified in writing them off as human beings and breezily dismissing everything else they've ever said or done, including things we might otherwise agree with? Oh, and while we're at, let's not forget to heap scornful contempt on their unimpressive intellects, too! (and check back later for tasteless mockery of their deaths!)
But of course that too would be absurd, unfair, intellectually dishonest, and perhaps even a bit petty and lazy. (I told you I wasn't going for subtlety).
Anyhoo... great video.
posted by Davenhill at 6:10 PM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
One might almost be forgiven for coming away with the impression that there was more to Hitchens than just his position on the Iraq war.
Hitchens was a larger-than-life, unrepentant, anti-totalitarian leftist and all around gadfly. If Hitchens hasn't angered you at some point, you haven't read him widely enough. The same is true for people who haven't found some common ground with him.
He had friends on the left and right, and argued positions that don't map neatly on one side of the fuzzy ideological divison in America's narrow political spectrum. Unforgivable (apparently)!
For example, Hitchens opposed torture, capital punishment, warrantless domestic wiretapping, opposed the war on drugs, was vehemently opposed to religion, and a champion of science and reason. And he held opinions that would even brand him as Marxist. And yet much of his work (e.g. the bulk of his most recent book, Arguably: Essays by Christopher Hitchens) isn't political but literary.
__________________________________
Condemning Hitchens for one or two issues (usually religion or Iraq) seems to say more about individual's own rigid political intolerance and/or thin skin than the quality and breadth of Hitchens' work as whole.
In a nutshell, that mentality is not entirely dissimilar to saying "Screw Thomas Jefferson and everything he ever did or said - he owned slaves."
But alas, Hitchens committed the apparently unforgivable sin of
But there's a reason why you seldom see a full and fair description of Hitchens reasons for supporting the war. The issue was never black and white. There were both good and bad reasons to support and oppose the war. But nuance is boring, and consistency of principles is usually incompatible with party affiliation so it's much easier to score points off Hitchens with strawmen and guilt by association than faulting him for his consistent anti-totalitarian principles.
A bit ironic, too, to see a Bush-like "you're either with us or against us" litmus test being employed in such a bullying, politically and intellectually dishonest way. Or have we missed the categorical and unqualified repudiations of the majority of Democrats who voted for the war, like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Jon Edwards, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry?
Ah... but they had the good political sense to position themselves to exploit any outcome: express revervations, vote to authorize it, and be willing to change sides if things go badly. Politics trumps principles. And now this revisionist political history is being administered (inconsistently, it should be noted) as a kind of loyalty test that Hitchens obviously fails. Any mention of his name summons a mindless, McCarthesque mob moaning about the war like leftist zombies
But seeing how subtlety may not be everyone's strong suit, let's reverse the game (of ignoring some of the agreeable principles behind Hitchens' support of the war, never mind the totality of his career) and let's instead cherry-pick only negative motives for why people opposed the war. Might we not then safely infer that opponents of the war were unrepentant supporters of Saddam Hussein? That, by extrapolation, they supported the continuation of the regime that gassed the Kurds, massacred 250,000 'Marsh Arabs', supported terrorism (Hamas), and manipulated UN sanctions such as to contribute to the death of perhaps 600,000 children? If so, would we also not be equally justified in writing them off as human beings and breezily dismissing everything else they've ever said or done, including things we might otherwise agree with? Oh, and while we're at, let's not forget to heap scornful contempt on their unimpressive intellects, too! (and check back later for tasteless mockery of their deaths!)
But of course that too would be absurd, unfair, intellectually dishonest, and perhaps even a bit petty and lazy. (I told you I wasn't going for subtlety).
Anyhoo... great video.
posted by Davenhill at 6:10 PM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]
Yes, I watched the video. The conversation got derailed when the first comment talks about how all the guys in the video are twats because Hitchens supported the Iraq war and is apparently a racist for posting a link to Michelle Obama's thesis.
That was after he got cancer. I said hew as an unrepentant smoker before he got cancer.
Again, irony is usually when there is a difference between what is supposed to occur and what actually does occur. The guy who smoked and drank a lot got cancer. That's expected. Afterward, he tells folks they might want to hold back. Also expected.
If you watched the video, you'd see that he was also asked if he regrets the smoking and drinking himself; he says he doesn't.
Again, don't see the irony at all.
posted by King Bee at 6:22 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
That was after he got cancer. I said hew as an unrepentant smoker before he got cancer.
Again, irony is usually when there is a difference between what is supposed to occur and what actually does occur. The guy who smoked and drank a lot got cancer. That's expected. Afterward, he tells folks they might want to hold back. Also expected.
If you watched the video, you'd see that he was also asked if he regrets the smoking and drinking himself; he says he doesn't.
Again, don't see the irony at all.
posted by King Bee at 6:22 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]
"To say that Hitchens' positions on religion are undermined by the fact that he showed bad judgment elsewhere is problematic, to put it lightly."
Didn't say that. I actually agree and admire his writing on atheism.
Just saying that his chickenhawk cheerleading for the occupation of Iraq makes him a monstrous shitbag. Forever.
posted by bardic at 8:52 PM on April 17, 2012
Didn't say that. I actually agree and admire his writing on atheism.
Just saying that his chickenhawk cheerleading for the occupation of Iraq makes him a monstrous shitbag. Forever.
posted by bardic at 8:52 PM on April 17, 2012
« Older Biden gets the Bad Lip-Reading treatment | Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice, ...... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Loved Hitch on religion and hypocrisy in general, but it was painful to see him play the useful idiot for the neo-con project of never-ending war against brown people/"terrorism." Also, he was a Clinton-hater before hating on Clinton was cool.
Also, mildly racist re: his comments about Michelle Obama. Incredibly misogynist comments about Hillary to boot (i.e., Hillary could only ever be Bill's wife, not a successful political figure in her own right).
R.I.P. and condolences to his family, but all of his friends falling over themselves to say how close they were too him? What a pack of twats all around. And a perfect example of how fucked our media and journalism have become (it's not what you know, it's who you know and how "serious" D.C. media insiders decide you should be taken).
posted by bardic at 8:22 PM on April 16, 2012 [6 favorites]