Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Christopher Hitchens

2007-07-19T02:04:15Z

BritLibDem:

Is there any reason why Hitchens is described as "conservative"? previous unsigned comment added by [[User:The Four Deuces |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 [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|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!? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 15:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your constructive and intelligent contribution to the discussion.[[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|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? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 15:46, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

:LoL, you should get out more :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|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.[[User:Reaganetics|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. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT) ''<- needs change for a nickel...''

*Hitchens' self-describes as "Social-Conservative". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:45, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

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

:*ROFL! He's a bit of an ass. Self-described human might be more accurate. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk: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. Soooo, 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. [[User:RobS|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. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

It's patent nonsense to describe Hitchens as a conservative. In [http://www.slate.com/id/2161171/ 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 [http://www.slate.com/id/2093620/ another], he debates the Iraq War with other Slate contributors, referring to themselves as "Liberal hawks". And, of course, Slate is a liberal publication--[[User:Afi|Afi]] 16:43, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ah, so his saracasm is lost on you too... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk: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. --[[User:Afi|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? --[[User:Afi|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?--[[User:Afi|Afi]] 14:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::He is more accurately, a [[neoconservative]]. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:02, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Good point. Done. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:11, 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? [[User:BritLibDem|BritLibDem]] 21:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Articles get locked due to vandalism. [[User:Bohdan|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. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:BritLibDem|BritLibDem]] 22:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Christopher Hitchens

2007-07-19T01:22:26Z

BritLibDem: not a neocon

Nick Cohen

2007-07-19T01:08:43Z

BritLibDem:

[[Image:415073147 62559f65d9.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Nick Cohen''' is an English columnist for the British Observer newspaper and New Statesman magazine, and also often write op-eds for the London Evening Standard and New Humanist.

His newest book ''What’s Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way'', published in 2007, tells the story of "how the liberal-Left of the 20th century ended up supporting the far Right of the 21st" and asks "why is it that apologies for a militant Islam that stands for everything the liberal-Left is against come from a section of the Left?"

==Books==
:''Cruel Britannia'' (1999)
:''Pretty Straight Guys'' (2003)
:''[http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/product-description/0007229690/ What’s Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way]'' (2007)

==See also==
*[[David Aaronovitch]]

==External links==
*[http://www.nickcohen.net/?page_id=5 Nick Cohen's personal site]
* [http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/07/writers_choice_.html "Nick Cohen on Terror and Liberalism"]

[[category:authors]]
[[category:journalists]]

Nick Cohen

2007-07-19T00:56:11Z

BritLibDem:

[[Image:415073147 62559f65d9.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Nick Cohen''' is an English columnist for the British newspaper Observer and New Statesman magazine, and also often write op-eds for the London Evening Standard and New Humanist.

His newest book ''What’s Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way'', published in 2007, tells the story of "how the liberal-Left of the 20th century ended up supporting the far Right of the 21st" and asks "why is it that apologies for a militant Islam that stands for everything the liberal-Left is against come from a section of the Left?"

==Books==
:''Cruel Britannia'' (1999)
:''Pretty Straight Guys'' (2003)
:''[http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/product-description/0007229690/ What’s Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way]'' (2007)

==See also==
*[[David Aaronovitch]]

==External links==
*[http://www.nickcohen.net/?page_id=5 Nick Cohen's personal site]
* [http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/07/writers_choice_.html "Nick Cohen on Terror and Liberalism"]

[[category:authors]]
[[category:journalists]]

Talk:Nick Cohen

2007-07-19T00:55:14Z

BritLibDem: thanks for the invite

In fairness to our friends on the other side of the Atlantic, we ought to point out that Nick Cohen would never, ever be thought of as the equivalent (politically, economically or morally) of an American "neo-conservative" here in Britain. It is typically American and politically naive to assume that somene is a neocon, simply because he writes books and articles condemning Tony Blair's New Labour Party. If you knew anything, you'd know that most on the political left in the UK complain about New Labour, whom they see as having moved so far to the Right that they are no longer Left, and usually the further 'Left' they are, the more they complain. The fact that Roy Hattersley, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Harold Pinter and the like are quoted on his site as being enormously admiring of his work should have informed you, but of course you just took the simplistic view of things, as usual.

Your rules do not apply ouside your own country, I'm sorry. [[User:BritLibDem|BritLibDem]] 20:26, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:You may wish to use your knowledge to put constructive edits into the article and help to give a fuller understanding for our readers. I think you may find it to be more rewarding than statements like "If you knew anything" that serve no apparent positive purpose. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the invitation to edit - I was hesitant, as CP seems a rather terrifyng place. I'll make one or two little changes then. [[User:BritLibDem|BritLibDem]] 20:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Nick Cohen

2007-07-19T00:26:41Z

BritLibDem: Your rules do not apply here.