Farewell to Hitchens. Also, it’s hard to be against the left

Farewell Christopher Hitchens, I barely knew ye.

People in the skeptical blogosphere have been writing posts on this. One that caught by eye for it’s sheer vilefulness is, naturally, one by P.Z. Myers. The dark side of Hitchens.

It’s only fair to balance the light — Hitchens was a glorious writer and rhetorician, an advocate for atheism, and a brave human being — with the dark, and point out that there were subjects on which he was infuriating.

…

Alex Pareene brings up his peculiar misogyny and his support for war.

…

He promoted jingoistic violence as the solution to everything in the Middle East.

…

Hitchens was a complicated fellow: talented and intelligent, and on some subjects he was warm and humane and a true child of the Enlightenment. And on others, a bloodthirsty barbarian and a club-carrying primitive. At least in his final months it was the civilized and thoughtful humanist who emerged most.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/16/the-dark-side-of-hitchens/

A commenter, ikesolem, said:

Hitchens may have been a rhetorical genius, but when it came to the Middle East he was woefully ignorant, and acted as a swiller and regurgitator of neocon propaganda (as did the U.S. corporate media establishment).

A person with a dark side. A misogynist, a promoter of violence, a bloodthirsty barbarian and club carrying primitive. Ignorant, a shill for the neocons.

What all this noise really means, when you consider the ilk of the people who are saying it, is that Hitchens disagreed with the left on some things. The horror.

It’s hard to disagree with the left. I’d much prefer to disagree with almost any other group as you would simply have an easier life. That’s the way it is I guess. The reason why it’s hard to oppose the left is that their primary imputed motive to you, as a person who has different views, is that you do so because you are bad or have a defective character.

Hitch was always Hitch. Even when he was dying. He was, at no point, ever close to being characterisable as either a “bloodthirsty barbarian” or a “club-carrying primitive”. Primitives do not use words and rationale like he did. That’s kind of what makes them primitives. This is language that is so tortured and over-the-top that it could almost be called mendaciousness.

Hitch was Hitch. Sometimes he had opinions that differed from you. Deal.

Posted under: Politics, Skepticism, Religion
Posted on: Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:37 AM
« On being offended | Home | Please watch this club-carrying primitive »
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: TDOM on 12/18/2011 4:15 PM
    Gravatar
    "The reason why it’s hard to oppose the left is that their primary imputed motive to you, as a person who has different views, is that you do so because you are bad or have a defective character."

    At one point the character assassinations carried out by those on the left against rightwing extremists whose views had leaked into more mainstream society were somewhat justified. labeling racists, sexists, and hatemongers as bigots and exposing their bigotry was a valid and justifiable method for changing mainstream attitudes. However, the left, which can now be equated with feminism, has become just as racist, sexist, and bigoted as the rightwing extremists ever were. Their hatred is merely directed at differnt groups of people; white men and men in general. These days those on the left still love to trot out the derogatory labels to discredit those on the right whose points they cannot refute by other means, but unfortunately for them those same labels can be applied as easily to them as to those they argue against. the right may be populated with some racist, sexist bigots, but on the left, the racist, sexist bigots are also hypocrites. I do not care much for either.

    TDOM

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)

Please add 2 and 5 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”