Difference between revisions of "Talk:Christopher Hitchens"
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*Hitchens' self-describes as "Social-Conservative". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:45, 25 June 2007 (EDT) | *Hitchens' self-describes as "Social-Conservative". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 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) | ||
Revision as of 04:49, June 25, 2007
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...
Maybe we could say "Hitchens is a self-described conservative". DanH 00:49, 25 June 2007 (EDT)