[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 13 KB, 183x270, hitchens123.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700039 No.2700039 [Reply] [Original]

how goes it, /lit/?

>> No.2700047

Be anally prepared
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsGUYnFAvdY

>> No.2700050

You're dead. Stay that way, asshole.

>> No.2700068

;3

>> No.2700071

Causally.

>> No.2700096

>>2700050
Were you hitchslapped in your formative years?

>> No.2700098

>>2700050
His ability to rustle jimmies from beyond the grave never fails to make me smile.

>> No.2700150

I liked that debate where he won.

Oh wait, he never did because he couldn't debate for shit

>> No.2700156
File: 31 KB, 470x400, fidel would like to say.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700156

>>2700150

>> No.2700158

>>2700150

I agree, he was a shit debater when it came to politics.

But to be fair, his opponents in most of his religious debates weren't really up to par either.

>> No.2700165

>>2700158
Fastest retard in the retard race?

>> No.2700166

>>2700150

>implying it's possible to lose against some dipshit like William Lane Craig

>> No.2700168

>>2700150
>>2700158
You clearly weren't watching his debates then.

>> No.2700174

>>2700165

Pretty much. I still think he's damn fun to watch, I don't mind me a good Hitchslap now and again

>> No.2700175

>>2700166

>WLC

Man just thinking of his face is humorous. He looks like he's wearing someone else's skin.

>> No.2700182

>>2700168

Or you have cast-iron confirmation bias.

>> No.2700186

>>2700175
>William Lan Craig could never win a debate, he had a funny looking face.
Hope you're never picked for jury duty.

>> No.2700187

>>2700186

His looks notwithstanding, the man couldn't win a debate for shit

>> No.2700190

>>2700187
Hitchens couldn't debate for shit. Sweating =! debating.

>> No.2700191

>>2700186

The sense never lie. Go away, Socrates.

>> No.2700196

>>2700190

Well he was practically an alcoholic. Scratch that, he was an Alcoholic.

>> No.2700197

>>2700182
That's a grade-a assumption there. It's also incorrect. Couldn't be fucked telling explain why though.

>> No.2700194

>>2700190

I agree, but he's at least a ladder-rung above Lane Craig

>> No.2700198

>>2700194
Lane Craig at least knew the subject he debated.

>> No.2700202

>internet pseudointellectuals trying to determine who's a good debater

As soon as Benny Profane shows up the thread immediately goes to shit...

>> No.2700207

>>2700202

Now, now. It's a trivial point anyway, no need to get flustered.

>> No.2700205

>>2700198

I'd say about as well as Hitchens did. Hitchens was an angry guy and a flamethrower but not the stupidest man on the planet. Far from a forward-thinking intellectual but not completely absent brain cells

>> No.2700215

>>2700205
>>2700207

You're right. Very trivial. This man's career is "trivial." Because "forward-thinking intellectuals" such as you are of course able to determine such things.

>> No.2700216

>>2700215

I'm not an intellectual, I hardly know what I'm talking about. Just having a conversation.

>> No.2700219

>>2700216

Well at least you're honest.

>> No.2700221

>>2700205
Lane Craig's a professor of philosophy. Hitchens got a third class bachelors degree from Oxford.

>> No.2700229

>>2700219

Always.

>>2700221

He just always struck me as a poor debater, though I haven't watched much of their scuffling since I got past my edgy new atheism phase. Maybe I'll have to give him another shot

>> No.2700232

>>2700221

>professor of philosophy

well that explains everything.

>> No.2700236

I felt bad for hitchens, really. Maybe it was the obvious health problems during his debates, or the fact that his writing "career" sucked, or hell, the fact that Peter Hitchens is his biological brother.

>> No.2700248

>>2700166
Hitchens has won plenty of debates, but against William Lain Craig he was curb stomped. Craig absolutely destroyed Hitchens using basic philosophy, Hitchens didn't even try to answer anything, he just went on with humorous musings and irrelevant anecdotal stories.

If any of the faggots had the slightest inkling of any philosophy, you could easily see Craig dominates more often than not in debates. That isn't to say I agree with him, but I won't say he sucks at debates just because I am not a Christian even when he is clearly winning them. People dismiss Craig when they can't follow his arguments because they don't understand the fundamentals of debate or philosophy. It rustle my jimmies seeing people dismiss him out of hand simply because he is a Christian.

Hitchens is irresistibly charming though, his articulation and eloquence are often mistake for being a good debater.

>> No.2700250

God, I hate tripfags. I still don't understand why Benny and Truman think it's hilarious to keep their trips so they can laud their supposed intelligence over every poster in every single thread ever.

>> No.2700252

>>2700250
I mean, this is /lit/ for Christ's sake.
However, I never liked Hitchens

>> No.2700254

So who is this Benny Profane?

>>2700205 This post was trying a little too hard and went a little too far. Is what he is usually like? Some sort of abatap-esque, anti Hitchens fanatic? I'm kind of unfamiliar with /lit/'s tripfags, sorry.

>> No.2700256

>>2700250
I don't think Benny does that, and Truman is just a showman. Stop being insecure.

>> No.2700261

>>2700254
*Is this what he is usually like?

>> No.2700263

>>2700256
>implying tripfagging doesn't destroy the entire point of 4chan i.e. total anonymity
That's why all tripfags are jerks.

>> No.2700264

>>2700254

I'm not anti-Hitchens, I kind of like the guy.

>> No.2700265

>>2700263
I totally agree, but that wasn't the argument you made before, which was shit.

>> No.2700267

>>2700263
dear God get over it already, you anti-tripcoders are like the conservative ideologues in America....deluded, ignorant plagues of society

>> No.2700268

>>2700267
>said the tripfag, with his trips, as he tripped on his trippy way

>> No.2700270

The most surreal Hitchens debate I've seen is probably the one about Jewish circumcision or, as Hitch called it, 'genital mutilation'.

>> No.2700271

>>2700268
exactly...i disagree with anti-tripcoders and express it to the fullest extent by putting it into practice. problem with that, scared nerd?

>> No.2700275

>>2700271
Not really. I don't really understand what there could be to gain from boycotting anonymity on an anonymous imageboard.

>> No.2700279

>>2700275
how is it intended specifically to be anonymous if I am using a name right now? a breach in the almighty system?

>> No.2700282

>>2700275
moot himself said that the reason anonymity is so centric to the site is that he is 'scared' of the progressively worsening, dystopian, nanny-state in which we live. Hence, in tripfagging, you spit in the face of moot's ideology and, ultimately, the purpose of the site on which you are currently posting. You're as bad as those WBC nuts.

>> No.2700287

>>2700279
Because they should be used to identify the OP and nothing more.

>> No.2700293

>>2700282
if you knew anything about basic social psychology, you'd know of the diffusion of responsibility that occurs when people are clustered but cloaked with anonymity. protip: bad things happen. with a name, you are upheld to the highest level of intellectual scrutiny(being held accountable for their words is not something desirable for the stupid or less informed among us, hence the anonymous-mongering)

>> No.2700299
File: 242 KB, 525x394, animal_collective.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700299

>>2700287
then they would change with every thread.

Look, i'm not going to wade into this shitty debate becauase it's pointless; tripcodes have been used on 4chan from it's beginning and no matter how hard you wish it's not going to change. Some people like being able to find their posts easier, collaborate with others over different threads and over many months (as is commonplace on /lit/) or build a reputation for their posts.

but please, take your shitty tripfag vs anon debates out of my thread and out of this board; we've been above that shit for a long time.

>> No.2700302

>>2700293
There are unwanted effects with both systems. Have you ever been on a forum with names? No one reads what's being said, it's all about who's saying what. Of course you get groupthink and the like more easily with anonymous groups, but you avoid what I've mentioned above. However, this debate is even more pointless than the phil on /lit/ one, so let's not get into it. moot's not going to change it any time soon.

>> No.2700306

>>2700293
Here we go.
>i'm losing the argument so here i go with the psych101 definitions for no raisins
1) The point in remaining anonymous is that you are not held accountable for what you say. By the same merit, if someone insists on keeping an identity, EVERYTHING they do is associated with that surrogate persona. Tripfagging and intelligence are not synonymous; just look at Jupiter.

>> No.2700308

>>2700293
Can't the mods just ban this guy?

>> No.2700309

>>2700306
/v/irgin pls go

>> No.2700315
File: 15 KB, 258x270, i cant wait to be a fat piece of hamburger helper and write all this fanfic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700315

>>2700309
>implying i'm not a regular
Oh, wait, you wouldn't know that BECAUSE I DON'T USE TRIPS

>> No.2700321

>>2700306
>1) The point in remaining anonymous is that you are not held accountable for what you say.

I know. See >>2700293

>By the same merit, if someone insists on keeping an identity, EVERYTHING they do is associated with that surrogate persona. Tripfagging and intelligence are not synonymous; just look at Jupiter.

Again I clearly am aware of your fist "point", and I apply that philosophy when posting on here. I am aware that tripcodes and intelligence are not synonymous- neither is intelligence and anonymity, in any respect. But at least I have the backbone to take responsibility for my words.

>> No.2700325

>>2700299
>we've been above that shit for a long time
>we
>above
>truman thinks he can speak for /lit/
>implying he isn't a shitposter himself

>> No.2700335

>>2700321
>being held accountable for their words is not something desirable for the stupid

>not synonymous

But you just said it was.

>> No.2700340

>>2700325
jesus christ sniper fire.
you know that I don't intend to speak for the board; i'm just saying in my experience /lit/ hasn't really had this huge ongoing conflict between anons and tripfags as they have on other board.

>> No.2700339

>>2700325
He's far better than that benny douche.

>> No.2700345

>>2700321
>backbone
Fuck me, you're pathetic.

>> No.2700348

HEY TRUMAN~
You said last night (I think) that you were going to get drunk and read The Satanic Verses. I'm about to start it, and I'm wondering if you have music suggestions for superior aesthetic experience in literary consumption. Sage because metathread.

>> No.2700350
File: 16 KB, 216x216, sdfsdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700350

>>2700339

Where did I go wrong?

>> No.2700353

>>2700335
>>2700335

>is not something desirable

I was laying out possible explanations for the fervent and irrational anti-tripping we see, but in reality there seems to be no correlation, if anything your unfaltering "hivemind" attitude is getting the best of you

>> No.2700354
File: 724 KB, 350x262, welp.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700354

>>2700348
>reading anything from that coward, Rushdie

>> No.2700360

>>2700345
>lacks wit to even attempt to pose a coherent argument
>resorts to petty name-calling, not even in a funny or clever manner

>> No.2700361

>>2700360
>what is ad hominem

>> No.2700363

>>2700360
You're calling me witless, and yet you've contradicted yourself multiple times within your own posts?

>> No.2700367

you boys have yet to provide a concrete argument for anonymity
I'll be waiting

>> No.2700369

>>2700367
Oh boy, get a load of him now. He truly is stupid.

>> No.2700371
File: 31 KB, 390x263, truman_capote.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700371

>>2700348
hey bro.
the book is extremely weird, definitely not what i was expecting; shit's constantly oscillating from depressingly morbid to ludicrously hilarious.

i'd listen to some jefferson airplane or the doors, it takes place in roughly that time period anyway.

>> No.2700375

>>2700367
1) Because moot said that's why he made the site
2) Because the lack of a nominal label allows for uninhibited, and ultimately more truthful, posting (with a shitpost overflow here and there)
3) There is no need to have a trip. It does not supplement the discussion in any way.

>> No.2700378

>>2700375
To exemplify, I fucking hate Islam and Shariah, even though I've lived in Saudi Arabia for 10 years and come from a half-Turkish family. I would never be able to discuss that IRL. My anonymity allows me to disseminate information which would be difficult to discuss otherwise.

>> No.2700381

>>2700378
And without repercussion. It keeps the free free, and allows the stupid to be stupid, but that's the price you pay.

>> No.2700382

>>2700378

Tripfags are still technically anonymous in that sense, though, aren't they? I can speak of all kinds of things on here I wouldn't in real life, given that none of you know who I really am, tripcode or not.

>> No.2700386

>>2700382
But that information is still associated with your trip, i.e., your surrogate persona. You are no longer truly anonymous. Furthermore, say, somehow, your trip was associated with your real name. Then what?

>> No.2700388

>>2700375

>1) Because moot said that's why he made the site

So his philosophies define your opinion? Because that is the original "intent" of the site, does that not mean modifications can be useful or good?

>and ultimately more truthful, posting

Yes, having all responsibility removed from you sure promises meaningful content.

Hey, why do philosophers, writers, and scientists include their names on publications? Don't you believe that they, too, should remain anonymous?

>3) There is no need to have a trip. It does not supplement the discussion in any way.

Weak. I can argue "There is no need to be anonymous. It does not supplement the discussion in any way."

>> No.2700395

>>2700386

In my case, I don't really care, I never have much to say I wouldn't just say anyway.

>> No.2700405

>>2700388
1) If moot didn't have concerns about online anonymity, then you wouldn't be posting right now.
2) What the fuck is your point? Who the fuck are Acton Bell and George Eliot to you?
3) I should have said: it hinders the discussion. The tripfag becomes the centre of attention; if he happens to be a shitposter, it derails the thread. People harbour hatred for tripfags because they are ostensibly histrionic enough to bother with a trip. You are anathema, and you love it.

>> No.2700407

>>2700388
Way to intentionally omit the last part of the greentext on the first point, btw. Just because you ignore someone's point, doesn't make it non-existent.

>> No.2700421
File: 70 KB, 452x302, oooooooooooo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700421

>>2700405
>too beta to have a name on an insignificant imageboard
>"you're just one of those show-off guys....in fact, you have histrionic personality disorder!! yeah!!"

Yes, I recognize George Eliot for her work, both as a categorical tool (how else would we distinguish between pieces of literature without author names, inevitably titles are used more than once) and because I appreciate her individual self for producing that particular intellectual work. I believe anons are hypersensitive to the judgement of others, and thus lack the balls to associate their posts with a recognizable title.

>> No.2700436

>>2700421
3/4 of that post was ad hominem
As for the rest:
What the fuck do you mean by:
>categorical tool
>individual self

Do you even speak English? The parentheses don't clarify anything.

>> No.2700447

>>2700436
>calls ad hominem
>uses ad hominem

whatever, I am truly wasting my life away by arguing so I'm going to sleep. take care.

>> No.2700900

what did you guys do to my thread

>> No.2700926

>>2700900
you're a tripfag that attracted some tripfaggotry
whodathunk?

>> No.2700942

Hitchens lived a life that children want to live when they see what their idols did. Orwell drank and therefore Hitchens decided to become an alcoholic. Ultimately Hitchens brought nothing new to the table and was a moderately half decent writer at best. His drawl is so pseudo-intellectual it's ridiculous.

>> No.2700958
File: 46 KB, 472x472, dubs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700958

>i'm not a tripfag
>i'm a dubfag

>> No.2700959

>>2700150
those debates are facile careerist bullshit. literally the only reason to do it is to promote a new book or because you're getting paid by the convention organisers. it doesn't make a difference to anyone because no one approached it with an open mind

>> No.2700961

>>2700187
he did win countless times but not without deceit.

>> No.2700962

>>2700942
he was one of the best journalists we've ever seen. even his enemy theists admit that. stop trying to be edgy

>> No.2700963

>>2700962
No, he wasn't. When your fan-boy attitude has 'run out' you will realise what a drawling, pseudo-intellectual fucking cunt Hitchens is.

>> No.2700978
File: 64 KB, 700x700, psychoanalysis-in-stream-of-consciousness-writing-session.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2700978

Alright, for all of you claiming the four horsemen to be shit debaters - show me the good ones. For you to reckon their ability as debaters, you must surely know of better ones.

And why wouldn't christians send someone better? Every single time, they get their ass slapped by thee four guys - yet I always find you complaining about their lack of intellect, and ability to debate.

>> No.2701001

>>2700963
Accusing your opponents of mindless fandom is simply a disguised straw man approach to the argument.
I simply judge prose how I see it and his was beautiful.
He made connections no one else could because he wasn't afraid to make a point no matter how unpopular it might be.
He was a strong ethical figure and followed those simple ideas to the letter and it led him to some carefully considered insights.