/lit/ - Literature

>>6303489
>Hitch crying because you guys don't like him


Are you calling me a fucking lefty?

>>6303504
I think /lit/ as a whole hates him, left or right. Only lost /sci/ people like him.

>>6303489
Hitch was pro-Iraq war and anti-Clinton (both of them), so you can see why those on the American left might have hated him. He also wasn't willing to give Muslims a free pass in the same way that many liberals do, so there's that.

>>6303489
As a leftist, I'd say his pseudo-intellectual anti-theism is much worse than his readiness to side with neocons as the lesser evil in a conflict with baathist/islamic fascists. But todays's left has its priorities completely messed up anyway, so obviously they'll be unfair.

>>6303520
I don't think being anti-Democrat is anything novel for the american Left

>>6303507
His opinions were on an issue by issue basis, and when you do that you're bound to be disliked by far left/right people.

>>6303522
Yeah, the left has no fucking clue when it comes to Islam.

>>6303507
Tbh, today's left is so far from being an actual political ideology, it's no wonder they hated a man who made at least a modicum of sense on some issues.

Plus once it's trendy to hate something on /lit/, or 4chan in general, not many will oppose, even if it's just to fit in.

Yeah, he also shat on Sean Hannity, let's not forget that. An absolute troll. And I would contend that his brand of anti-theism was not unsupportable. I'm a big fan.

>>6303489
i think the hitchster is pretty cool

but i also think today's left is garbage, so

>They still believe in the left right dichotomy

Oh, children. You still have much to learn.

Hitch let the boos and the money get to him, I think. He was never working class, but he at least was a good man once. It's tragic when a man turns. He turned. He sided with murderers and made money soap boxing for them.

>>6303656
I feel like you're in every thread

>>6303843
I am not.

In reality, what is in every thread is your subconscious begging you to break from the dualistic tendencies that plague the people of this world.

You know it to be a falsehood and yet you keep up the act without reason because ignorance is bliss and obtaining knowledge and work is hard.

I say this now, not only out of delight for my superiority but also, to aid you in your efforts of becoming somewhat intelligent.

>>6303489
He broke with the prescribed narrative, and thus committed a cardinal sin. Leftist tend to be more concerned with political orthodoxy that conservatives who can more often at least appreciate a good argument for its own sake even if they disagree with someone's conclusions. Leftists judge your intelligence based on your conclusions, and not necessarily your ability to defend them.

Hitchens gets respect because of his oratory. He had an exceptionable ability to turn a phrase, and maneuver through a conversation. It was simply fun to read his opinions, and to hear him speak.

An important thing to never forget with Hitchens is his admiration of Orwell. I think he saw himself as breaking with the left over Islamic terrorism similar to how Orwell broke with the left over the Soviet Union. There were plenty of left-wing people who supported the Iraq War (just look up liberal hawks) so it is not an outrageous position to take. You also have to look at history. He was against the Cold War Kissinger fuck-everything-up imperialism but he saw a shift starting during the first Bush administration. I also don't see why so many people align intervention in foreign affairs so much with the right. If you read his works and try to understand where he is coming from, he makes a very powerful argument for intervening in the Middle East. It is an anti-authoritarian position.

>>6303489
hes a sophist troll disguised as a "logical person"
he wrote for vanity fair

>>6303983
Um...ok? Do you have anything else useful to add?

>>6303489
>It's weird because he's so much more in line with what a member of a decent left-wing movement would be than the majority of leftists today.

And you don't think this just maybe might have something to do with why plenty of people on the left loved to moan about him? In general, people don't like being told that they are hypocrites or poseurs. This is doubly true among modern western "leftists", who tend to be weak pussies who are at best afraid to practice and at worst actively unwilling to even affect any position that doesn't boil down to "we should all be nice and accepting to each other :^)".

IIRC he dropped calling himself a Socialist, but continued calling himself a Trotskyist. How/why he do that?

>>6304110
I don't remember him talking much about being a socialist in his later work, though he'd occasionally discuss his Trotskyist/Leninist past. I've never had the impression he was much of a socialist in later years.

You can find recordings of him talking about his feelings about Trotsky, but most of what he ever discussed was that 1.) Trotsky would have been a better alternative to Stalin, and 2.) Trotsky was more intellectual than Stalin, which made him better but also less capable of taking control.

It's his infantile atheism.

>>6303526
>>6303520

>implying everyone on the American Left is a spinless liberal.

>>6304629
It is?

>>6303863

>all of this autism

Dude, everyone knows that the left-right devide doesn't exist in a literal sense. Hell, pressure anyone enough, and they'd admitt that the differences between left and right are arbitrary. They're just arbitrary labels we use to differentiate and see similarities with different political positions.

The only people who have a problem with it tend to either fascists or people who are tired of conservative-liberal bickering.

>>6304920
The reason liberals hate him? Yes, it is largely his Islamophobia in particular.

>>6303880

And some people determine intelligence dependend of rhetoric, like what you're doing right now. Hitchens words might sound nice and have a proper rythim to it, but that does not necessitate that the ideas he was trying to convey has any actual intellectual merit.

Also,
>implying I determine intelligence based on conclusions.

>>6304110
>>6304616

Because people tend to go to Trotskyism because they percieve that it's somehow more morally sound and anti-authoritarian than traditional Marxism-Leninism. What it produces is a liberal-mindset that leads to leniency toward reformism, an advancement of petty-bourgeois intellectualism, and as Hitchens showed, a tendency to puppet imperialism.

All of this, of course, ignores that Trotsky himself would have never argued for such things, ironically.

>>6304936
Only the devout ones. That's not a significant number.

"Infantile" Pff. No one's an argument against atheism so you project.
*hat tip hat tip hat tip hat tip* Nauseating children.

>>6304956
The atheism of the New Atheists is infantile. I'm not trying to argue against atheism, just its dumbest advocates.

>>6303520
>the American left

There's no such thing.

>>6304961
What the fuck is a new atheism?

Is the degrees you don't like?
Like "agnostic-atheism", an eight or nine out of ten, ten being stupidly sure there no god?

>>6303489
supporting iraq is unforgivable

He's a dead old white dude. The fuck you expect?

>>6304970
dat reading comp

Not new atheism, the New Atheists (a term for people like Hawkins, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris).

>>6304983
Dat reading comprehension.

There's nothing wrong with their arguments. All that I've been able to get out of you anons is that they are actively speaking out. This makes them "new" and somehow a bad strain. But even if one of them were a ten, a 100% absolutely no god/soul/afterlife type, so what? We have to put up with hundred percenter theists.

>>6305018

You're a leftist, right?

I'd recommend you too read this.

http://bennorton.com/what-would-marx-think-about-reactionary-new-atheists/


If you have the time (It's buy trots, but who cares), you should read this.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1009/newatheists.html

>>6304936
"Islamophobia" is just a red-herring that idiots use in an attempt to shut down arguments against the most backward, conservative, fascist, outdated and reactionary ideology today without posing any actual counter-argument.

>>6305024
>Were he alive today, what would Marx likely think about the reactionary, jingoist, imperialist so-called “New

Ahhgg!
"Jingoist and imperialist"? Bad start. Should have been honest and opened with *why* he thinks they're jingoistic and imperialistic. Just those thirteen words reveal the whole thing, don't they?

>>6305040

Just read the damn thing.*

If you want something more indepth, go for the second link.

(part 1) http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1007/newatheists.html
(part 2) http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1008/new_atheists_two.html
(part 3) http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1009/newatheists.html

*also, the words you mentioned link to other articles, which you can read if you want to know why.

>>6305053
>Marx insisted that atheism is irrelevant to socialism
Got it. I never mix the two. In hindsight the Russians should never have pushed the issue.
But that doesn't have anything to do with trying to raise awareness of faiths shortcomings in this cnetury. Allowing people to come out of the closet. People are still spooked about this topic. I have a friend who insists "you don't discuss religion or politics" That's the general opinion of Americans, except the rightwing religious *do* talk. Openly proselytize. It *is* detrimental to society. So why can't we speak? How is that too bold and to be mocked with hats and stupid labels?

If I were in public office, it would not be an issue to speak of. I would stay true to the 1st Amendment, but c'mon. A journalist, scientist, philosopher a magician or two in the private sector? Let them speak.

>what would [famous historical figure] think about [topical issue]?

Why should we assume their hypothetical opinions would be valuable? Sounds like idolatry to me.

>>6305037

Islam is a sprawling discursive tradition that encompasses countless ideologies. The problem with the essentializing view of the religion pushed by New Atheists isn't that this view is 'Islamophobic.' The problem is that it's reductive and fucking stupid. It starts and ends with the presumption that 'Islam' is something evil that makes people do mean things. The New Atheists have no real knowledge either of history or of the regional dynamics shaping currents events in places like the Middle East; they only consult 'history' and 'current events' to find examples that confirm their presuppositions. This amounts to ideological masturbation. The fact that their view draws its vitality from popular fears and prejudices is just icing on the cake.

>>6305112

Well, the point of Communist anti-theism isn't necessarily just to attack religion itself, but to attack the ideals and ideas within religion that are used to reaffirm social oppression and capitalist exploitation. The main problem with many Neo-Atheists isn't necessarily their rejection of God, but really their idealist perseption of historical phenomena (including religion) and the resulting elitist dismissal of the struggles of the working class.

>"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" -Karl Marx

Many painkillers nowadays are opiate derivitives. Religion within the context of class politics exists as a sort of painkiller, an opiate used to calm and settle the impoverished and the worker, in the face of day-to-day struggle. It's a false relief, like many, as it exists not to rid of suffering itself but just to dumb the pain, letting it continue. That's really the primary reason for leftist anti-religious principles.

As for openness, it's harder to be an open Communist than an open atheist.

>>6305167
True and true.

I still think it's good exposure. The ultimate aim is way off (if ever at this point) You know me and my gradualism.

Sorry if I came off overly defensive. Thanks for the link and talk.

>>6304616
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBcEybgiaMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66LC1ll6azI

I think he was only a socialist in his youth

>>6305125
Ironic given that late in life Hitch made a career out of basically saying how Jefferson and Paine would support Bush

>>6303489
Because the left is full of a bunch of cry baby sissies who get their feelings hurt and never let you forget it like a bunch of women

Is this news to you OP?

The left is full of pussies

Total complete pussies

They can't take a joke

They can't take criticism

All they can take are dicks

>>6305486

I cried when Christopher Hitchens died. Does that anger any of you?

>>6305132
>Islam is a sprawling discursive tradition that encompasses countless ideologies.

Why are all the countries in which it's in control so similarly oppressive, then? It sounds to me like you view it as a hollow shell that's capable of containing almost anything, but that's clearly not the case in practice. It is an ideology which regulates everything from what you're allowed to eat, which animals you're allowed to like and how you're supposed to wage holy war. Its tradition is also very outspoken about the need for political and legal Islam. I have a hard time understanding why this isn't, as you say, "something evil that makes people do mean things".

>>6305486

>everyone on the left are pussies

>>6305053
thanks for the links, was a nice read

>>6305532
>Stalin
>leftist
Murdering half your country just to maintain absolute control is inherently anti-revolutionary. Also being a general failure of a human being is also anti-revolutionary and conservative.

>We should kill those who violently enforce their ideology
ayy

>>6305486
Dayum, I really hope most right-wing people on /lit/ are like this.

Where is Popper when you need him?

>wrote mostly for left-wing media, defended the "left of liberal" perspective on mainstream news, opposed nearly every US intervention except Iraq, defended the October revolution and the leninist tradition, brought attention to many causes, etc, etc

These are mostly things that make one "left" from a right wing point of view. Pig disgusting counterrevolutionary OP detected and also explains why the left didn't embrace him, at least

>>6303489

What call itself leftism these days has little to do with actual left politics. It's race baiters and feminist. Hitches was first and foremost a white man. Second he was utilitarian consequentialist. Third he was numerically literate. The modern left is made out of barely literate affirmative action drones, concerned with identity politics, and blaming anyone who is successful for keeping them down. This all the while they occupy positions in supposedly racist organization well above their intellect level and achievements. The modern left has essentially become a right-wing parody. The right suffers somewhat the same symptoms because of their appeal to the hard Christian right, however they have far less to fear from their own kind then the left due to the nature of their politics.

Hitchens, like Harris are numerically literate, educated, and care about the truth.

>>6305556

>stalin
>not a leftist

the only people that actually say that are spineless liberals who whine and cry at the sight of blood.

>inb4 I'm not a liberal
>yes you are faggot

>>6305556
>Stalin
>murdering half of Russia
>a failure of a human being
>conservative
>anti-revolutionary

>>6305532
Stalin a shit

Why did that faggot Roosevelt have to give him all those early war tanks and trains and boots and bullets and radios and every other damn thing you need to run an army?
We should have let Hitler stomp on his rotting corpse before we entered Europe


But seriously
>implying there is any leftist equivalent to hardline Communists today
Heh

>>6305840
>the butcher of la cabana
>not a faggot
>tfw he's dead
Maybe you can buy a cheap T-shirt with his face on it

>>6304110

Trotskyism is the biggest anti-worker political faction over the last 50 years. Under the guise of anti-Sovietism, they have opposed and disrupted every movement that actually contains workers. They are fully on board with all identity politics rubbish and are almost uniquely composed of students/overgrown students. We used to joke that the only working-class person in a Trotskyist group is the police informant.

Besides, I don't see how Trotsky escapes criticism given he created the Red Army and only opposed Stalin when he turned on members of the Party.

What is interesting is how many ex-Trots become neo-con hawks

>>6305972

>implying I live in Europe or America

>>6306024
Wrong. Sparts are really vocal about Marxism vs. Feminism even though it's probably just Cointelpro.

>>6305972
Shining Path
Naxalites
etc.

>>6306038
>implying anywhere in the world would be brought down by the specter of communism if the Soviet Union had collapsed in the 40's
Just imagine a free and liberal Republic of China

We could have world peace

>>6305556
>when people attempt a communist paradise and fail they should be considered right-wing
>everything that fails is right-wing

>>6306083
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he wasn't a TRUE communist you counterrevolutionary reactionary SHITLORD!!!!!!

>>6306043

Trotskyites still see the family/masculinity as things to be deconstructed/undermined.

Trotsky wanted to destroy the family, although there may be some disagreements amongst contemporary Trots about how to best go about that, I don't mix in those circles

I think his position on Iraq had a lot to do with his past. In the early 80's when Argentina invaded the Falklands, the whole British left was against going to war. Except Hitch. He said Britain should go to war, not because "these islands are British" like Thatcher said, but because Argentina was a military dictatorship, and if Britain took the island back the dictatorship would fall. And that's exactly what happened. I think he saw the situation in Iraq similar, but failed to see that Iraq is a lot more compicated country to build any kind of democracy in, due to sectarianism, religious lunacy and cultural backwadness to name a few.

>>6303489
>because you guys don't like him
I consider myself on the "left" (in the US there isn't really a real "left" but there is a liberal/left-of-center) and I love Hitch, personally. I particularly like his stance on abortion (that fucker was pro-life). I personally don't understand how anyone can call themselves a "humanist" or "liberal" and then support the right of women to abort.

It's even worse, because the only people who tend to be against abortion are crazy evangelicals. What a shame that abortion has been passed off as a "women's rights" issue and kids legitimately believe that nonsense.

Protip: you can't be a real feminist or even humanist and be "pro-choice"

The two are literally incompatible.

>>6306118

I agree with you to an extent but I don't see how Hitchens can be pro-life (or at least not pro-abortion) when atheistic morality mostly boils down to "muh feelings" or societal consesus. There certainly doesn't seem to be room for sacredness of life in a purely utilitarian calculation.

Was he just trying to be edgy again?

>>6306164
>when atheistic morality mostly boils down to "muh feelings" or societal consesus
Well even if that is the case, I think the point here is that, generally speaking, a big influence behind contemporary liberal ideology in the US is this sense of "secular humanism" (as well as this sort of rebirth or new age atheism, too) and I like how he held people accountable to that. If you believe human life and human dignity are important, than this nonsense about "well, it's not 'really' a human yet' is, well, nonsense. It doesn't make sense, it's even more intellectually dishonest to brand it as a "women's rights" issue instead of paying it the attention it deserves.

>Was he just trying to be edgy again?
What? The only "edgy" part about Hitchens was his attack against organized religion. His pro-life advocacy was just him not being a dumbass, and sticking to his convictions, and I think his support for the Iraq war was just common sense.

>>6306112
>if Britain took the island back the dictatorship would fall. And that's exactly what happened.
that has nothing to do with reality at all, the government was falling anyway. the only difference was that we lost more than 30% of the youth that was forced to go with less than a year of training and we could only discuss the issue years after democracy.
And those are out islands under any sensible account, not that there's any use in ahving them anyway.

>>6306181

Secular/liberal humanism seems to me to either be a reversion to Chritsian ethics (Chritsianity without God)- which I imagine Hitchens would oppose, or a simple kind of utilitarianism which I can't see justifying prohibiting abortion provided the child doesn't suffer. Even Marquis' pro-life argument is massively flawed.

The argument often comes down to showing what a fetus actually looks like at 24 weeks and using the resemblance to a born child to shock people, but this isn't based on reason and so is not an approach that Hitchens would value either.

In my view the only steadfast objection to abortion is the sacredness of life, whether that's a religious or post-religious view.

Hitchens' philosophy- breaking from all previous traditions, man as the only limit on himself, the absolute primacy of reason and rejection of all Christian dogma wouldn't seem to allow for any of that; that was why I was curious as to how he arrived at his view

I feel we're probably on the same page as I believe that the amount of abortions occurring is a tragedy

>>6306072

>implying I support revisionist China
>implying there would be no imperialist wars where countries fight each other because of competeting social interests because of communism
>implying that China would be a liberal republic under Chiang-Kai Shek

>>6306234
>The argument often comes down to showing what a fetus actually looks like at 24 weeks and using the resemblance to a born child to shock people
Whose argument? I never put that forward, Marquis didn't put that forward (I assume you're referring to his future of value approach), and I'm not putting that forward. Why would the way a fetus "looks" matter at all? No one is making this argument....

>In my view the only steadfast objection to abortion is the sacredness of life, whether that's a religious or post-religious view.
Exactly, and that's one of the tenets of humanism is focusing on the importance, specifically, of human life.

Hitchens explains his position on abortion in one of his debates (and a little in some of his writings with Vanity Fair). Essentially, he says that the concept of an "unborn child" is a real one, we know this isn't going to come out as a giraffe, and it's not like there is some magical moment when a fetus (sidenote: why do pro-choicers prefer to use the term "fetus" as if it proves their point of the child being a non-human? I don't understand that. "Fetus" is just another stage of human development along with infant, toddler, adolescent, etc.) becomes a "person."

The whole "pro-choice" argument never really makes much sense. The science isn't on their side and, more importantly, the philosophy isn't.

>>6306286

I gave the example of the picture of a unborn child at 24 weeks as an example of the kind of argument that Hitchens would likely eschew.

If a consensus exists that abortion is permissible and we can be sure that no suffering will occur, then what arguments could Hitchens give that abortion is still wrong? His argument that fetuses have person-hood which in turn provides rights, seems hard to justifying without invoking some a priori assumption (all human life is sacred/all persons have inalienable rights). I could accept a post-Christian humanist giving this argument, but how can someone who, as I said, rejects Christianity completely and places Man and his rationality at the centre of all things, do this? What rational arguments exist for this?

>>6306342
>rejects Christianity completely
Yes, Hitchens does, but that doesn't mean he didn't think Christianity got certain things right. In his debate with Turek, he even comments that as one of the things he admires about the Catholic Church and what they got right.


And of course Hitchens supports the a priori assumption that all persons have inalienable rights. I don't know if maybe you just don't understand Hitchens very well or maybe you haven't read anything by him, but he certainly invokes that a priori. Humanism (which rests on that premise) is kind of his thing....


>that no suffering will occur
Why is that of any relevance? That's like trying to say the death penalty should be legal as long as it's "painless." The amount of pain the fetus encounters is irrelevant. Murder doesn't become legal simply because it's no longer painful. I fail to see your logic here, anon.

>>6303489
He is an abominable fuck. I wish i could rip him apart by way of two chains each attached to his cup and pot of tea.

>>6303973
that position is flawed. The antiauthoritarian view is true, there are hideous authoritarians over there, but the invaders dont really care about that, but about oil or whatever. So in the end its just going to switch one out for another, so unless that other is more prone to cause some kind of rebellion, which is speculation anyway, it just not a very good position to take.

>>6305979
ESTAS HABLANDO MAL DE CHE, PENDEJO? TE MATO, COMPAY, TE ENTIERRO HOY MISMO.

>>6306362

My point is that there is an incongruity somewhere here. The idea of Christian ethics without God is rather Nietzschean, the question remains whether these a priori ideas of the value of Human life can survive without God and without rational justification. If it is our duty to question everthing, why can we not question the essential values of person-hood? What purely rational reasons exist to defend it (yes and now we fall back to Hume, sorry)

Are you an atheist yourself? Do you not find it odd that practically the only people who argue consistently against abortion are the religious (exceptions being HItchens and Morrissey, not many people know but he is vehemently pro-life and has attended protests/marches) Could it be that religion, Christianity particularly, gives a far more convincing account of the value of life than non-religious ethics, which just seems to regard it as a basic belief and leaves it at that

Essentially Hitchens seems to be in favour of shining the light of his "reason" into all quarters, but still takes concepts such as "human decency", "human conscience", "value of human life" as given and in no need of being rationally justified.

This article explains things very well

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christopher_hitchens_lies_do_atheism_no_favors/

You did write like an angel,' Galloway screamed at Hitchens, 'and now you are working for the devil. Damn you and damn all your words.'


also, what did hitchens think of the USSR invasion of afghanistan? I suspect he would have supported it whole heartedly.

also, who gives a fuck about public intellectuals, they should all be done away with imo, they're not going to unionize my place of work are they

>>6303489

The left is basically a gigantic inquisition, always looking for heretics.

>>6305979
is
>Ernesto Guevara wasn't a hero and a symbol of dignity for the oppressed all around the world
the dankest meme of 2015?

>>6303489
this article is about essentially what you're talking about

http://platypus1917.org/2009/03/15/going-it-alone-christopher-hitchens-and-the-death-of-the-left/

Leftists are fucking morons that are happy for thousands to die, preventable deaths, as long as it doesn't seem directly linked to their country.

>>6306501

>>6306501
Neocons are retarded chauvinists who are convinced, against all evidence and history, that Papa America can fix everything with guns.

If only Hitchens were alive to see the chaos that toppling a major regional power brought in Iraq.

>>6306601
You think that would have stopped him from evangelizing for a full scale invasion of Syria, full reoccupation of Iraq, and probably war against Iran, too?

The guy was a lush sell out, he didn't fucking care about what was true or good at all

>>6303489
Hitchens' essays on politics and literature were great. They simply were.

It was sad to see him let such a tired argument consume the end of his life so thoroughly.

His beliefs changed with the facts, and that is admirable.

He never got caught up in the triangulating that so many others participate in to keep themselves in the good graces of the general populace.

Hitchens is a fantastic writer for people just beginning with the literary form of the essay or just the odd contrarian. He delivers some fantastic pieces and more importantly will point you towards some of the greatest english language writers of his period.

His talks on religion, evolution, creation, etc. are just tried. That conversation is old as Babylon and offers almost nothing of interest.

>>6306281
>motherfucking implying the motherfucking Republic of China isn't a free and liberal republic right now
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>6306618
Yes. I think he would have addressed his past mistakes as just that.
>he didn't fucking care about what was true or good at all
Says you.

>>6307024
Kind words, but–
>His talks on religion, evolution, creation, etc. are just tried. That conversation is old as Babylon and offers almost nothing of interest.
–is a little tiresome itself. Since non-faith isn't a religion, we don't get together much, and though our numbers are growing, we're still made to feel unwelcome, literally demonized by some. All religions have claimed at one point or another to be tolerant and peace loving. Well snicker about the new "church" or "faith" and accept them as you claim you accept your fellow theists.

>>6308360
>we're still made to feel unwelcome, literally demonized by some
self-victimizing atheists are almost as bad as self-victimizing Christians

>>6307024
Agreed. I loved his article in The Atlantic in which he "BTFO" Somerset Maugham.

Here it is: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/05/poor-old-willie/302935/

>>6308749
>self-victimizing
I'm not samefigging my posts in order to have arguments around here.

>>6308800
lol

>>6308749
>>6306601
>>6304629
>>6304936
>>6304961
>>6304983
my posts
you insufferable retard

>>6305531
>the state of turkey which is incredibly islamic has had more female heads of state than the united states

you need to stop pretending ur not racist bub

>>6308823
lol, turkey is built on the rejection of its islamic roots

>>6308823
>defending the state of women's rights in Turkey
The Leftist dilemma between being called racist or sexist where Islam is concerned will never stop being amusing

>>6308833
Bullshit m8. It's secular the way the US is secular, we aren't talking about Norway here

>>6308841
> It's secular the way the US is secular
You mean, very?

The United States and Turkey are both secular states that have significant religious majorities. They are still secular states, just not largely secular peoples.

You need to read about Ataturk and Turkish history. The guiding principle of the creation of the Turkish Republic was "Go West." Ataturk was deeply committed to turning Turkey into a modern, secular, Western country. Erdogan has betrayed those principles, but a secular state is as much a part of the fabric and history of Turkey as it is in the U.S. and any other modern western country.

>>6303489

I just think he obsessed over religion while there was far more to address than just that.

I mean I don't (want to) understand why the left feels like religion all of the sudden deserves a place in the world, coming from a tradition that loathed its existence.
But whatever, I think not being tagged a racist is a big part of that.

He had a good sense of wit breaking it down, but it's no big accomplishment.
I do think that the left underestimates the problem religion poses in and of itself.

Dawkins when he's talking about evolutionary biology > Hitchens > shit > Dawkins when he's talking about anythine else > Dennett > Harris

>>6309092
Harris talking about neuroscience isn't bad.

>>6309108

>atheism is the martial art of the mind

Jesus fucking Christ, I'm dying.

>>6303489
George Galloway described him best as a butterfly who regressed into a caterpillar. He was much more commendable in the 80's and 90's before he did a massive 180 and became indistinguishable from neocons.

He will remembered for the man he became, not the man he may have once been. It is not unfair, he made those decisions, and history will judge him for it. That is the most fair thing there can be.

>>6303522
You're an idiot, you realise that ba'athism is the antithesis to islamic fascism? His policy of opposing them is what allowed islamists to gain power. But no, go ahead and group all foreigners in one basket.

>>6309443
>ba'athism is the antithesis to islamic fascism
>antithesis
That's like saying national socialism is the antithesis of clerical fascism, complete nonsense. They're different in regard to religion, but being an antifascist still means fighting them both.
beji kurdistan
am yisrael chai

>>6309112
the best part of that pic is the couch bucket

>>6309455
so you support Jewish fascism? There goes your opinion in the trash. Ba'athism is not fascism, all it is is a desire to see the Arab world united as one secular, nationalist state.

>>6309470
>so you support Jewish fascism
No, I support jewish democracy.
Do you support what Saddam did to the kurds, baathist scum?
>Ba'athism is not fascism, all it is is a desire to see the Arab world united as one secular, nationalist state.
National Socialism is not fascism, all it is is a desire to see the german people united as one secular, nationalist state. See how this works, fucking magic! Now the nazi takeover of (clerical fascist) Austria becomes an act of anti-fascist liberation, pure magic!

>>6309483
Wow, you actually think Israel is a democracy. Sure is democratic how they demolish houses in the west bank? Let me guess, you're Jewish?

And comparing ba'athism to national socialism is ad-hominem. There is literally nothing wrong with seeing the Arab world united. The only people who would be against that are people who don't want the Arabs to be strong and united, but want them to remain divided and weak.

>>6309438
>George Galloway described him best as a butterfly who regressed into a caterpillar.
Aw the real quote was so great. He said he turned into a slug, because all a slug leaves behind him is slime.

>>6304965
wut

>>6303522
>pseudo-intellectual anti-theism

You haven't read anything from Hitch at all have you? He was probably the most knowledgeable public intellectual of them all.

I guess you're one of those Chomskyites.

>>6303489
At least the best Hitchens is still alive

but of course, monsieur, the left is never fair. you are talking about a political category that includes mortal enemies, everyone from ultraleftists to francois hollande, lol. and as for that darling trotskyite, and marxist, hitchens, i would say he is the mirror image of his enemies, leftists like richard seymour for example, or the SWP(UK).

having spent the majority of a life as a far left trotskyite wanker and become bored and cynical, i too would've sweeped rightward and shocked and awed the small brains there with a decent and brazen defence of imperialism and 'the west' for some new friends and ducats. the man knew how to turn stale ideological subtleties into cash.

>>6309836
Democrat party is not particularly left in a global context

>>6309981
That's like saying "yeah we lost George Harrison but we've still got Ringo!"

>>6310370
Exactly, Ringo was always good for a laugh

>>6303489
i think the left has become very ad hominomy lately(ok, whatever passes for left these days).

There's also trends of dismissing entire bodies of work because of one thing among them.

Another example I think is germaine greer(or whatever its prenouced). I don't like her opinion on trans people, but I've seen a lot of femminist say that anyone that doesn't toe the line on trans people isn't a real femminist.

So you know, they basically dismiss the first two waves of their movement like that.

I imagine a similar situation is happening with hitchens, his work can't be good because he supported the iraq war. It's a good way to argue because you don't have to read his argument, his conclusion is just wrong who needs to read anything.

>>6308787

It is a good one.

I'll probably get some flack for the comparison, but I feel that Hitchens is like a Nietzsche in regards to his literary role.

They both were dynamite. They specialized in systematically and elegantly tearing things down in a big way. While, obviously, Hitchens didn't go as far down the rabbit hole as Nietzsche.

Hitchens' polemics are just damn good. I cannot think of anyone that comes close in terms of the form of the polemic essay.

>>6309490
>Wow, you actually think Israel is a democracy. Sure is democratic how they demolish houses in the west bank?
Wait, democratic nations don't demolish houses? Why don't you find some elderly citizens of Hiroshima or Dresden and ask them what democratic nations are capable of?
>Let me guess, you're Jewish?
You guessed wrong. Let me guess, you're an antisemite.

>There is literally nothing wrong with seeing the Aryan race united. The only people who would be against that are people who don't want the Aryans to be strong and united, but want them to remain divided and weak.
See how this works?

>>6309854
>I guess you're one of those Chomskyites.
Dude I approved of Hitch's stance on the war on terror in that post, how does that compute?

>>6310395
>No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight.
It's funny how false this is, her book has as much study on the topic of transexuals as the regular shitposter in /lgbt/

>>6311065
oh yeah I dont like it at all, its dumb at its best, but ya see the point. That doesn't make her a non femminist

>>6311049
Israel is non-democratic for many other reasons than home demolition. Liberal democracies do not discriminate against ethnic minorities (http://www.adalah.org/en/law/index).). They do not administrate 4.5 million people in occupied territories and deny them any say in the government that dictates their lives.

>>6311869
Also, your analogy of the United States' targeting of civilians in WWII is retarded. The Palestinian territories (in the case of home demolitions, the West Bank) are not a foreign country that Israel is at war with. Israel does not recognize a Palestinian state and keeps them in a state of limbo.

The Untied States destroying foreign cities is an atrocity, but it is not undemocratic to commit atrocities in war. It is undemocratic to commit atrocities against the people you are responsible for administrating, especially when those people are given no say in their governance.

>>6306185
>And those are out islands under any sensible account, not that there's any use in ahving them anyway.

Oh boy, that old chestnut.

>>6311779
No, of course. You could be openly against Adorno and still be part of the frankfurt school, no movement is so tightly controlled outside of practical politics.

>>6313247
it's cool, i don't care and laugh at the people who get tattoos like "las malvinas son argentinas". but it's our territory and you barely use them, it's silly to have declared colonies in africa, asia and central america, but those are for some reasson okay? it's bullshit, but I know you find them just as useless as we would so it's all cool.

>>6303489
No.

>>6313268
>but it's our territory and you barely use them
>our territory

No animosity intended, but humour me and explain how it is sovereign territory of Argentina for the umpteenth time.

I think OP's picture is hauntingly beautiful and sad.

>>6313367
Yeah.
Maybe I'm projecting, but you really can't see much from his brothers pics.

neo conservatism has a strong Christian fundamentalist base

>>6305979

I hope your not from some country that gave Batista regime thugs amnesty

>>6303983
Vonnegut wrote for playboy

>>6305556
>muh 5 million billion trillion jillion rillion willion dead
>s-service told me so
>and mao kill even more!!!

>>6306072
Now this is ideology

>>6303863
How do I transcend the left right dichotomy? What terms should I use to describe a mans politics?

>>6313460
>How do I transcend the left right dichotomy?
You can't. You either go Left or you go backwards.

>>6306439
>salon.com

>>6313449
You are literally using a /pol/ meme. Good job commies.

>>6313449
How many million did Stalin kill?

>>6313479
Surely its reached a billion by now.

My fav hitchens video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

>>6313479
Stalin didn't kill any millions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union#Population_2
Stop using Cold War "statistics"

>>6313482
It was a simple question

Why can you not answer it?

>>6303489
I like him. Not really much of a Marxist either. The butthurt he could generate combined with his education and eloquence sold me.

>>6313499
The holocaust didn't happen

>>6313499
>Literally contradicting official Soviet records
After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – for a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[54]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Stay desperate red faggots

>>6313415
Thank you based CIA fotr taking that faggot out

>>6313510
No, it did. It's very well documented. You seem to be attempting a false equivalence.

>>6313460
Its equivalent to transcending the white/black dichotomy (we won't include other races, because who needs them). Most individuals are mixtures of races, and even those of a specific race have geographic-specific genetic variations. Race as a defining characteristic could then be seen as falsehood, but this would be a poorly though tout idea. Race is still a useful shorthand/simplification when one doesn't need to get into very gory detail.

>>6304942
Merit>rhetoric>>conclusions. And yes, I do agree with you that a lot of Hitchens is bullshit.

>>6305629
What do you think should be the base for the modern right wing movements?

>>6313513
Unfortunately that is a poorly cited wiki-post that doesn't actually describe whom is being talked about (does it include Nazi soldiers and collaborators during the War, for example). But even if we assume its numbers are correct this is 1) entirely different from the 8-40 million that is usually claimed (certainly far less than half of the entire USSR) 2) proportionally extremely small given the entire population of the USSR. Sounds like you're trying to back-peddle to me.
>there is no wiki article for "mass killings under capitalist regimes"
Hm.

>>6313506
I don't think anyone has the answers to that, and I'm no Stalin apologist, but the numbers have been inflated for political purposes.
Russia fought a war with some Nazi, famines killed some people, he moved some Chechens our of Christian-ville rather crassly. Eliminated Trotsky I hear. Not my favourite person, but he was nothing compared to Hitler. Authoritarian not totalitarian.
And >>6313544

>>6305249
>>6305167
>>6305532
>>6313449
>>6313472
>>6313544

I'm really glad that if a "revolution happened" It would be made up of occupy wall-street faggots. If they went full nigger like Ferguson on a grand scale, the most armed society in the world would genocide the pinko scum.

>>6313544

>Soviet documents released after the Soviet Union collapsed have a political bent
Were the Soviets trying to make the Soviets look like bad guys?

>does it include Nazi soldiers and collaborators during the War, for example
are you saying the executed German prisoners of war?

>proportionally extremely small given the entire population of the USSR. Sounds like you're trying to back-peddle to me.
So you're saying because the USSR had such a large population it is acceptable to kill a minimum of 8 million people?

What have I back peddled?
I asked a question

>> there is no wiki article for "mass killings under capitalist regimes"
There was one at one point
It was deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's standards

It wasn't deemed worth having

>>6313579
>Were the Soviets trying to make the Soviets look like bad guys?
You didn't cite the Soviets. You cited a wiki-article citing a man claiming to cite the archive in information that doesn't even reflect the article's claim.

>are you saying the executed German prisoners of war?
We're starting to reveal your true colors, aren't we.

>So you're saying because the USSR had such a large population it is acceptable to kill a minimum of 8 million people?
We already went over that even 8 million is beyond the pale. And again with this misleading language. I forget what it's called, trying to lead yourself to a certain conclusion. It's certainly ideological.

By the way, you know that image pre-dates the "Holodomor" right?

>>6313579
So how did the population of the USSR grow uninterrupted before and after the WW2 with Stalin killing the 80 million? Or, 40 million? Er, 15 million?

>>6313577
Are you happy with the status quo?

>>6313745
I'm happy with my life in particular. I have a very high standard of living, life is good. If you are talking about government, then no.

That said, I'll side with most against pinko scum.

>>6311869
>Liberal democracies do not discriminate against ethnic minorities
They very often have, actually.
>They do not administrate 4.5 million people in occupied territories and deny them any say in the government that dictates their lives
That's what occupation means retard, no occupying power ever has given the inhabitants of the occupied territory the vote, as that would be an annexiation, not an occupation.
>>6311900
So, you are saying that the west bank ks part lf Israel? Didn't know you were some hardcore settler zionist, because literally no one else sees it that way. And obviously, counter-insurgency on occupied territory follows pretty much the same laws as does conventional warfare on territory controlled by the enemy.


Apart from that
>a baathist trying to lecture me on democracy
>implying you even know what that is
Kek

>>6313613
>You didn't cite the Soviets. You cited a wiki-article citing a man claiming to cite the archive in information that doesn't even reflect the article's claim.
>le wiki article cites a book citing soviet records
>I WONT ACEPT IT I DONT LIKE IT

>We're starting to reveal your true colors, aren't we.
Oh gosh darn it, you caught me
I'm not an international Socialist time a national Socialist because I don't like the Soviet Union executing prisoners of war in violation of the Geneva Convention
Oh woe is me. I have been found out

Because as we know every German soldier ever captured was a card-carrying member of the SS Who spent two Saturdays bashing baby jew skulls in against rocks

Clearly this is justification for executing, protected under the law, prisoners of war

>We already went over that even 8 million is beyond the pale. And again with this misleading language. I forget what it's called, trying to lead yourself to a certain conclusion. It's certainly ideological.
Fine then faggot

Tell me how many he killed?
Or are you so delusional if you think you killed no one?

>>6313618
I just asked how many he killed
That doesn't mean the birthrate is outdone by the death rate

>>6314687
>time a national Socialist

I'm an national socialist
Fucking autocorrect

Excuse my mistakes I'm on mobile

>>6305840
>tfw based Mike Hoare whipped his black Argentine ass all throughout the Congo

>>6314844
>tfw no Mad Mike shirt to piss liberals off