Talk:Christopher Hitchens

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Is there any reason why Hitchens is described as "conservative"? previous unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces

Variously the article has described him as "conservative", "neo-conservative" and not at all. Hitchens is very much a paradox, and I for one wouldn't like to try to pin down exactly which part of the political spectrum he fits into. Several areas at once, probably. I'm not convinced that conservative or neo-conservative are accurate. Perhaps we should discuss here exactly who thinks he's what and why File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Egads! Perhaps it's even possible that one cannot be neatly placed into a category of conservative or liberal? Whatever shall we do!? QNA 15:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou for your constructive and intelligent contribution to the discussion.File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:38, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

You want constructive and intelligent, you're in the wrong place. If you don't see the futility in trying to categorize someone into a neat little box, then I'm not sure what more I can say... Hitchens is a lovely example of a real person who can not be categorized so easily, and who will drive most of the people on this site insane. You'll gladly use his quotes that are critical of Michael Moore, yet you'll marginalize and condemn him because he is an outspoken atheist... he openly contradicts the fiction that this site is trying to perpetuate which is that conservative and young earth creationist (or at the very least fundamentalist Christian) are synonymous. That a little more constructive for you, skippy? QNA 15:46, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


LoL, you should get out more :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:56, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


Hitchens is certainly not a conservative--or if he is, not one of very old vintage. He is a supporter of the Iraq war, but that does not a conservative make. He's also a staunch critic of Reagan, Kissinger, etc., etc. I would put him as an iconoclast, an image he's worked very hard to maintain. As for the article, I would simply delete "conservative" and leave it at that.Reaganetics 16:43, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

My 2 cents - I agree with the above. He doesn't fit comfortably into liberal, conservative, or neocon, particularly as those labels have been defined here on CP. Labels ought to be deleted from the article; describe the stances he has taken and let readers decide what they think of him, free of preconceptions. Aziraphale 00:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT) <- needs change for a nickel...
  • Hitchens' self-describes as "Social-Conservative". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:45, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Maybe we could say "Hitchens is a self-described conservative". DanH 00:49, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

  • ROFL! He's a bit of an ass. Self-described human might be more accurate. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)


Hitchens is an interesting character; like many so-called "leftists" who one day grow up, Hitchens has become something of a neo-con, if "neocon" is defined a liberal mugged by reality. Hitchens mugging by reality apparantly even bagan prior to 9/11, but was even more solidified by that historic event. Hitchens does have one problem though, he went way to far out on a limb with Trial of Henry Kissinger, the matter was even pursued litigously, so while he'd like to say publicly, "I was an idiot, as is typical of youngsters and loud mouth liberals. I didn't really beleive any of that garbage, in fact, I didn't really even understand the issues. I just thought my job as a young loud mouth liberal was to slander people with outrageous accusations, and didn't think anybody would really be hurt by it. But now I'm grown up and see the world differently."
Unfortunately Hitchens can't say this, cause that would be an admission what he wrote and what he said decades ago was false and malicious, hence he'd get his butt sued bigtime, and loose in court bigtime. So, he's married to the sins of his youth and has to carry all that contradictary baggage, and try to make half-hearted attempts to say now that he still really meant it and beleives it.
This could be a lesson for students wishing to make a career in journalism. RobS 00:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
  • This is a lesson for all young people in general. We are all married to our pasts. One cannot wipe your past statements from reality like a hard drive.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

It's patent nonsense to describe Hitchens as a conservative. In this article he implies that he is a member of the ACLU ("In ACLU circles, we often refer to ourselves as "First Amendment Absolutists"). In another, he debates the Iraq War with other Slate contributors, referring to themselves as "Liberal hawks". And, of course, Slate is a liberal publication--Afi 16:43, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Ah, so his saracasm is lost on you too... --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:27, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Maybe there was in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, but I didn't detect any. There definitely wasn't in the "Liberal hawks" article because, well, how can you insert sarcasm in the title of the article you co-wrote? With seven other people? That's totally absurd and you know it. --Afi 10:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
By the way, I've got the full quote here to demonstrate the total lack of sarcasm in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article.

"Let me give another example of linguistic slippage. In ACLU circles, we often refer to ourselves as "First Amendment absolutists." By this we mean, ironically enough, that we prefer to interpret the words of the Founders, if you insist, literally. The literal meaning in this case seems (to us) to be that Congress cannot inhibit any speech or establish any state religion. This means that we defend all expressions of opinion including those that revolt us, and that we say that nobody can be forced to practice, or forced to foreswear, any faith. I suppose I would say that this is an inflexible principle, or even a dogma, with me. But who dares to say that's the same as the belief that criticism of religion should be censored or the belief that faith should be imposed?"

He was using his membership as an example. If he was being super-subtle and injecting sarcasm into his article, he'd be purposefully sabotaging his point. Why? --Afi 10:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

If you think he's a conservative because he supports the War on Terror, you're being absolutely ridiculous. I know you enjoy the credibility of having the fifth most famous public intellectual in your camp, so to speak, but does that mean the other left-wing supporters of the War on Terror are conservative? What about Nick Cohen?--Afi 14:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
He is more accurately, a neoconservative. Jaques 16:02, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

As per Nick Cohen, merely being a critic of various elements of the Left does not make you of the Right. Hitchens is no 'neo-conservative', not at all. I would edit the article to remove it, but for some reason this article is locked. Actually, the more I look around here, I see a lot of locked articles? Why is that? BritLibDem 21:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

It's generally left-wingers who call Nick Cohen "right wing". Jaques 09:38, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Here's another article on how some former liberals are being labeled right-wing.Jaques 10:12, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Articles get locked due to vandalism. Bohdan 21:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • And here at CP, POV pushing and constant argument is another. Being contentious is another reason people are blocked. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:56, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

But isn't the point of a Wiki encyclopedia to reach some kind of CONSENSUS of opinion? Even if here on CP you'd prefer that to come from a small section of the population? Anyway, an illustration of this point is that I doubt you'll find anyone British - no matter how conservative (with a small 'c', of course) - who would call Hitchens a 'neocon'. And although it does indeed seem many have posted in agreement on this matter here, the article remains locked and thus the information cannot be added. I certainly support your ability to have the content as it agrees with you, but I doubt a public wiki is the right way for you to go about this if you're not prepared to allow public edits. My best to you all. BritLibDem 22:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

It's generally lefties who call Hitchen a neoconservative. Jaques 09:26, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
I'll stay out of this, as I don't know my British politics. I just wanted to answer your question about protecting articles. Bohdan 22:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Enjoy Houston, and your new firm! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Links

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, NEOCON
The Purest Neocon
Cindy Sheehan's Sinister Piffle

Hitchen Quote

"George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he -- and the US armed forces -- have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled." [1]


Not a conservative

I don't know how one should describe Hitchens' political stance, or even if there is a single category into which he fits, but he has expressly denied being "any kind of conservative". See the first 25 seconds of this video. Eoinc 17:23, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

More information in a Prospect magazine article about him.
Many of Hitchens's critics conclude that this is his way of saying he's a neoconservative. His reply is that he doesn't consider himself to be "any kind of conservative." He would rather just be called a human rights hawk. "There should be a word for people who believe US power can and should be used to oppose totalitarianism," he says. With no faith left in the French and Russian revolutions, or the proletariat, all that now remains is his idea of America as "the last revolution in town"—its spirit of liberty revived by the struggle to transform the middle east.
As a night with Hitchens threatens to break into morning, theories of how the neoconservative strain emerged from schisms within New York's anti-Stalinist left, become increasingly labyrinthine. "Does this mean anything to you?" he asks at one point. "It must sound like the dribblings of someone reminiscing about being governor-general of the Punjab."
RFayiz 07:05, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The article is to have to be reworded unless someone can show they are omniscient and KNOW the cause of his death

The article is to have to be reworded unless someone can show they are omniscient and KNOW the cause of his death. The article is going to have to some scholarly caution and not be so dogmatic about the cause of his death. Conservative 15:11, 18 December 2011 (EST)

I have reworded the part about his death to put it in less definitive terms. Feel free to improve further if you like. I don't believe someone should have to prove their omniscience before reporting someone's cause of death, as long as there is a reliable source to back it up (if that's what you meant). --AaronT 20:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
I listened to the CNN interview and Hitchens thought his heavy drinking and chain-smoking was the cause of his esophageal cancer. I clarified the article and said it was likely the cause of his death which is a reasonable approach. I also put down a third risk factor which involved another aspect of Hitchen's unhealthy lifestyle. Conservative 14:17, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Atheism and Hitchens' cancer

The section Atheism and Hitchens' cancer reads like an essay and has no source for one of its key claims. Conservative 21:21, 26 December 2011 (EST)

Agreed, the section is badly written, confusing and reads too much like dancing on his grave. In any case, Hitch wouldn't have been Hitch without all his faults, and the world would have been a poorer place. --DamianJohn 00:09, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I did remove this section but it was reinstated with no explanation. I don't really see it as appropriate to fill articles about individuals with speculation about whether the cause of there death was due to a particular belief. It would seem to make more sense to keep what are really general points about Atheism and health in, well, erm Atheism and health. Adambro 11:10, 10 January 2012 (EST)

I agree. These paragraphs are stupid, hate-filled and just plain embarrassing. I recommend their deletion. Esseph 12:04, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
I listened to the CNN interview and Hitchens thought his heavy drinking and chain-smoking was the cause of his esophageal cancer. I clarified the article and said it was likely the cause of his death which is a reasonable approach. I also put down a third risk factor which involved another aspect of Hitchen's unhealthy lifestyle. Conservative 14:18, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
It's these three paragraphs to which I object. They have no place in a biographical article. As it is, this article devotes more space to speculating as to the cause of his death than documenting his life. I'd delete them myself, but they seem to have been deleted and reinstated several times before, and I don't want to start an edit war. --Esseph 16:10, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Talk to those who have reinstalled the material. --Joaquín Martínez 21:20, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Now that I look, I see that one of those who reinstated this nonsense is Aschlafly, so I guess there's no point. --Esseph 09:15, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

Doug Wilson handed Hitchen's his head in an email exchange

Doug Wilson handed Hitchen's his head in an email exchange. See: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/10/dinesh-dsouza-interview.html and http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html Conservative 02:34, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Latest revision

"...in his own words, he supported the Iraq War simply because Iraqis were Muslim, which has been compared to endorsement of racially-motivated genocide." Can we get a citation for that? After reading several of Hitchens' books, that doesn't sound like something that he would say. -- JLauttamusTalk 22:54, 10 February 2013 (EST)

Personal tools