In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011

by tieistoowhite • 15 years ago

669 218 15 years ago

vanityfair.com

tptacek2• 15 years ago

Ah, shit.

Mithrandir2• 15 years ago

You stole those words from me! (just kidding)

RIP.

tptacek2• 15 years ago

You want 'em? I'm getting tired of them.

siculars• 15 years ago

Damn. Miss you.

robertk3• 15 years ago

We shall have to work faster.

http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda

philwelch3• 15 years ago

You know, I think it's really distasteful that you people use the deaths of people who probably wouldn't have even agreed with the message of that essay to promote the ideas in that essay.

VMG2• 15 years ago

He went in for cancer treatment, so he clearly wanted to avoid death, which is what the essay is about.

lsparrish3• 15 years ago

How are you assigning the probability here? Some of his arguments (which are actually standard pro-atheism arguments) seem to be based on life extension, i.e. science leads to longer lifespans therefore it is superior to religion.

His dismissal of cryonics is well known (and deeply tragic in my opinion), but he has not to my knowledge taken the position that everyone should, morally or philosophically, have a duty to die by the time they hit age 120 or so, or that there is such a thing as a "natural lifespan" towards which we are obliged.

D_Alex• 15 years ago

Think what you like, by all means. I think your comment is shallow, and a disservice to humanity in general.

andywood• 15 years ago

I knew he didn't have long, but this still feels so sudden. I got so much out of his way of framing things. I'm grateful that he wrote and spoke so much while he was here.

staunch• 15 years ago

Too short, but he won at life.

chalst2• 15 years ago

62 years is OK for someone who burned the candle of his life at both ends the way he did.

prodigal_erik• 15 years ago

"... and found it gave a lovely light", in his words.

robbrown451• 15 years ago

He and his family are in my....well, in my sincere thoughts that I say in my head directed towards a nonspecific metaphorical anthropomorphic being.

thomasgerbe• 15 years ago

Moments of his life in pictures.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/christoph...

TomOfTTB• 15 years ago

Hitchens was essentially a Marxist (by his own admission) who was also in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the foreign policy it represented. So there was very little I agreed with him on.

But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why.

Because of his willingness to debate. I'd literally scan right wing talk radio schedules for his name because you just knew it would be a great show. In a world where so many people in our modern society hide in their little cliques I think a smart person who is willing to have their ideas challenged is the most valuable person of all.

Losing a voice like that is a true tragedy.

So, with all due respect, I hope he is wrong in his beliefs about the after life because if there is a heaven he's surely earned his place in it.

Edit: On that note this is awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4JJqXISBiI (though skip the first 4 minutes of the host self aggrandizement)

ddw• 15 years ago

He's so incredibly succinct and persuasive in his points when it comes to religion and I always love to hear these debates.

His memoir 'Hitch-22' is well worth the read, especially now (the opening in particular).

sriram_sun2• 15 years ago

Here is Hitchens on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-8-2010/christophe... - just delightful.

hughesdan• 15 years ago

Actually he was initially a Marxist, then a Libertarian, and then a Marxist again. I tended to agree more with his Libertarian side but no matter what his point of view I always enjoyed reading his work and listening to him debate. He was one of a kind.

Kroem3r• 15 years ago

He was a good writer, a smart guy and he liked Orwell, but the move to Vanity Fair seemed a change in direction that put some of his values in question. I'm not sure that his run at Mother Theresa was worthwhile, his run at Kissinger probably was and his support for the war in Iraq was ridiculous. And I never figured out who he was fooling by saying that he was the 'new Gore Vidal'. Maybe it was his publicist. Sad to hear of his passing, but he was, like, just a guy, you know?

dionidium• 15 years ago

It was Vidal himself:

"I have been asked whether I wish to nominate a successor, an inheritor, a dauphin or delfino. I have decided to name Christopher Hitchens."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=“I+have+been+asked+...

pnmahoney• 15 years ago

Note: This can't be a correction so much as (ideally) an opening point for discussion, but Hitchens certainly wasn't a Marxist in the sense of one who advocated replacing the market economy. (Or at least not the Hitchens that died yesterday . . .)

Definitely a Marxist in the sense of a historian -- one who understands events from the standpoint of class -- and even one who supported solidarity among laborers. But replacing the free market? No.

patrickaljord• 15 years ago

Here's a video of him about why he supported the invasion of Iraq http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvgAMnMne0

wyclif• 15 years ago

A choice Hitch refusal to be cowed by the moronic and frivolous: http://youtu.be/HECI4QK_mXA

davej• 15 years ago

I love that clip. Not because I agree with him about Bush (I don't), but because he doesn't give a fuck that everybody in the room disagrees with him; in fact, I'd say he revels in it. A true badass contrarian.

127• 15 years ago

Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ

It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx.

paganel• 15 years ago

> Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ > It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx.

Truth be told, Marx himself would probably not be seen as a "marxist". And as a guy who swears by his Hayek and Lord Acton, I wonder how come when someone in the former Western block countries calls you a "marxist" or as a follower of Marx supposedly it is something bad, very bad?

anatoly3• 15 years ago

This video is appallingly deceitful. E.g. where he argues that the USSR was not only not socialism, but in fact as far from it as possible. He deftly redefines the core idea of socialism to make it look superficially plausible.

If socialism was ever about one bug thing, it was the collective ownership of the means of production. This was the slogan of all socialist movements, particularly Marxist socialist movements.

And the USSR was exactly that kind of society: the defining feature of its economy was a total ban on private ownership of the "means of production". Meaning, you could own an apartment, a house, a car, a wrench. You could buy and sell goods privately at a market. But you could not own a factory that made toy cars, or a tool shop that sold wrenches, or a company that wrote software. That was owned by the state collectively.

Now of course one can argue that the implementation of this ideal was twisted because e.g. the actual workers at a particular factory didn't control its planning or production, which were governed by the party apparatus. But even if true, (and it's actually not true; centralized control over the means of production is perfectly compatible with Marxism), this is still infinitely closer to the actual ideal of socialism than, say, a capitalist state with an oligarchy at power, where means of production can be and are privately owned. To claim that the USSR was not socialism and in fact some kind of anti-socialism (Chomsky: "as about remote from socialism as you can imagine"), is just such so offensively misleading; such a gross lie, clearly meant to influence people who've never lived in a socialist economy or actually read Marx.

(And it's in fact not true that workers were "virtual slaves" in the Soviet Union. They had shitty lives, to be sure, just as everybody else except state bureaucracy, but they were quite free in their choices, and made more money on average than any other class in the society. It was peasants who were virtual slaves, disenfranchised by the state and in fact forbidden to move to a different village or city without the state sanction well into the 1960s).

cynicalkane• 15 years ago

raises hand

I've read the writings of Karl Marx.

This guy advocated a "dictatorship of the proletariat", wherein the proletarian party seizes all capital and crushes, with force, any capitalist influence, any attempt for capitalism to re-establish itself. This alleged workers' government maintains control until the world is ready for communism, which might take quite a while. Meanwhile, there is "communal" ownership--via government--of the means of production.

Furthermore, Marx felt he had "proved" this to be the future of history with his "science" of dialectical materialism. I'm not talking about a rhetorical use of the word proof, I'm talking about proof proof. If you're a true believer it's easy to see how a little murder is OK, since you're provably bringing about a communist paradise.

Marx didn't advocate the terrible oppression characteristic of people like Lenin, but he advocated everything but, and it's easy to see where Lenin got this from. Remember, for quite a while, Lenin was considered by many in the West to be a hero, a brilliant Marxist thinker.

I've been able to surprise a few Marxists these facts--all present in Marx's writing. Amazingly, people are somehow able to become hardcore Marxists without realizing their founding figure was a maniac, something like Christians who've never read the Old Testament.

konstruktor• 15 years ago

"So, with all due respect, I hope he is wrong in his beliefs about the after life because if there is a heaven he's surely earned his place in it."

"all due respect" cannot change the fact that this is the most disrespectful thing you can write at the death of an atheist.

SamReidHughes• 15 years ago

No it's not. Why wouldn't an atheist want an afterlife?

vacri2• 15 years ago

"I think that guy has a place in heaven" is much less disrespectful to an atheist than "fuck that guy, he's a bastard". It's an acknowledgement of a noble opponent.

JeremyBanks2• 15 years ago

That's absurd. I'm an Atheist but I'd readily echo that statement. It's an expression of appreciation. If you find it insulting that's only your own eagerness to find insult, nothing legitimate.

khafra• 15 years ago

Isaac is up in heaven now.

redthrowaway5• 15 years ago

>Hitchens was essentially a Marxist

On history, yes, on economics, no. See his answer to the question of his Marxism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJR2HN5V9c&feature=relat...

gbog5• 15 years ago

> "his willingness to debate"

Debating must be done on the ground of good faith, right? Bad faith in a discussion is the sure mark of someone who is not willing to intellectually exchange rational arguments. Then in at least one case Hitchens showed a shocking "unwillingness" to debate:

In his debate about Mother Theresa with Simon Leys, triggered by his book titled "The Missionary Position", Hitchens said "he describes the title of my book as “obscene,” [...] Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?".

This was a killer to me. Never could see him again as someone whose writing could be taken seriously.

See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/dec/19/mother-... Answer http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/on-moth...

bravura8• 15 years ago

I read Hitchens's letter and the reply.

Hitchens is eloquent and direct in his criticisms. Leys, in his reply, is vague and does not answer any of Hitchens's criticisms with any specificity.

Leys demurs and says he has no space for a reply. He then devotes one-third of his letter to joking about Hitchens questioning the use of the word "obscene". His response includes grating ad hominem, with a snide remark that Hitchens must not own a dictionary.

In fact, Hitchens is right and it is Leys who must take deeper council with his copy of the OED. Hitchens, if nothing else, genuinely cares about his use of language. (Note this excerpt: "To represent her as a woman defiled with spittle for her deeds or beliefs is—to employ the term strictly for once—quite incredible." Simply delightful.)

Definition of obscenity, from Wikipedia: "An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious."

Hitchens, when he coyly writes: "Finally, I note that he describes the title of my book as 'obscene,' and complains that it attacks someone who is 'elderly.' Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?" Hitchens knows what he is doing. Most people nowadays don't think the phrase "The Missionary Position" is obscene. Slightly tittilating, yes, but obscene, no. Unfortunately, Leys cannot discriminate the subtlety and smugness in Hitchens's small linguistic victory, and responds blithely and indelicately.

Side note: Classic Hitchens is him saying that people who say that racists are discriminatory could not be further from the truth. Because how can people who dismiss an entire race possess the capacity to discriminate?

rimantas3• 15 years ago

  > Debating must be done on the ground of good faith, right?
  > Bad faith in a discussion is the sure mark of someone who
  > is not willing to intellectually exchange rational
  > arguments.

What? So are you going to debate arguments, or "marks"?

sgaither• 15 years ago

"So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate."

Thank you for this -- too many people value protecting their own beliefs/friends more than they value critical thought and challenging ones own beliefs. R.I.P. Chris

super_mario2• 15 years ago

Anyone who knew Hitchens knows that "heaven" as depicted by cristianity is a "celestial North Korea, where the sole purpose is to praise the dear leader incessantly, compelled to love someone you fear (essence of sadomasochism). You'd think the Lord himself would get bored of this after a couple of billion years"...

So, wishing him in heaven from another atheist as you say you are is really saying you don't know much of his work and life.

aaronmorey• 15 years ago

Hitchens never seemed to understand that "North Korea" isn't the Christian conception of heaven.

To wish for him to be surrounded for all eternity by those he loves most, in the presence of the source of all love, truth and beauty... I think that's something we'd all like to experience along with him.

Edit: Unclear phrasing

brudgers3• 15 years ago

Vonnegut on wishing a person was in heaven:

"I am honorary president of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that functionless capacity. We Humanists try to behave well without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an afterlife. We serve as best we can the only abstraction with which we have any real familiarity, which is our community.

We had a memorial services for Isaac a few years back, and at one point I said, ''Isaac is up in Heaven now.'' It was the funniest thing I could have said to a group of Humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ''Kurt is up in Heaven now.'' That’s my favorite joke."

grandalf3• 15 years ago

This analogy is among the more brilliant of Hitchens' statements. Thanks for reminding me of it.

tspiteri4• 15 years ago

Not really heaven, and certainly not Christian heaven, but in an interview with Jeremy Paxman, Hitchens did say that he if he would find himself alive in any way at all, that would be a pleasant surprise. (This is not to imply he believes in or hopes for an afterlife, claiming that would be absurd.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/...

Jeremy Paxman: "Do you fear death?"

Christopher Hitchens: "No. I'm not afraid of being dead, that's to say there's nothing to be afraid of. I won't know I'm dead, would be my strong conviction. And if I find that I'm alive in any way at all, well that'll be a pleasant surprise. I quite like surprises. But I strongly take leave to doubt it.

dhughes• 15 years ago

Maybe something better would be 'may the quantum entanglement of the atoms in his body be retained when the molecules which make up his biological framework degrade'.

Craiggybear• 15 years ago

Knew it was coming. Still gutted. Totally agree, there was much I objected to ... but this was someone who enjoyed conversation and debate and always had something thought-provoking to say.

Farewell, Chris.

bravura8• 15 years ago

Don't call him Chris.

'He did not, in fact, like being called "Chris" – his mother would not, he explained, wish her firstborn to be addressed "as if he were a taxi-driver or pothole-filler" – and found "Hitch", which most friends used, more acceptable.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitc...

That obit is a good read, btw.

emmelaich• 15 years ago

"Hitchens was essentially a Marxist .. "

My understand was that he was a Trotskyist rather than a Marxist. Emphasis on 'was' for either.

But if there was anyone to whom labels should not be applied surely it was Hitch.

Here's the best obit I've read: http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-r...

edit - I should add that I am vehemently in agreement with your sentiments about why it is so much a tragedy.

chalst2• 15 years ago

I see "drink-soaked, former-Trotskyist popinjay" applied to Hitchens a lot.

Hitchens' 2002 review of Martin Amis Koba the Dread, "Lightness at Midnight", gives a good summary of his (i.e., Hitchens) attitude to Trotskyism and Marxism. He picks out a wonderful quote of Victor Serge:

> Have you forgotten the other bankruptcies? What was Christianity doing in the various catastrophes of society? What became of Liberalism? What has Conservatism produced, in either its enlightened or its reactionary form? ... If we are indeed honestly to weigh out the bankruptcies of ideology, we shall have a long task ahead of us.

(From http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/09/hitchens... )

Something to think about today, with respect to our own politics.

slurgfest2• 15 years ago

Let's not use the word "essentially" as a weasel word. If you mean to say that Hitchens was a Marxist, that should be based on documented membership in some Marxist organization or some concrete quote avowing allegiance to Marxism. Otherwise we are just casually red-baiting here.

I deplore the way our political culture has taken to shorthanding disagreements by labeling people as Socialists, Marxists and Communists when those movements are politically dead and the concerned individuals are not involved in the pathetic remaining organizations and, come to mention it, don't match to the textbook descriptions of the ideologies.

kaerast• 15 years ago

He glorified cluster bombs and marvelled at mass murder, if there's a heaven then he probably isn't in it.

dreamux• 15 years ago

He was my favourite thinker and orator, I'm very sad to see him go.

Jach• 15 years ago

"God is Not Great" is trending on Twitter right now... (Hilarious material too.) Too bad Hitchens missed it.

tdfx2• 15 years ago

A fitting exit on his part. Got them riled up one last time.

Update: #hitchslap seems to be doing well, also.

andyl• 15 years ago

He was a straight up debater who could discuss ideas on their merits, and seemed to make up his own mind on issues. Gone too soon.

zalew• 15 years ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitc...

Hitchens gave short shrift to the "insulting" suggestion that cancer might persuade him to change his position where reason had not, arguing that to ditch principles "held for a lifetime, in the hope of gaining favour at the last minute" would be a "hucksterish choice", and urging those who had taken it upon themselves to pray for him not to "trouble deaf heaven with your bootless cries".

twelvechairs• 15 years ago

The guardian 'obituary' is also quite informative (including a reasonably good amount of biography): http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitc...

pessimist• 15 years ago

The first time I read Christopher Hitchens was his takedown of Mother Teresa - "The Missionary Position". It was emblematic of his writing - shocking, irreverent, but beautifully written and argued. The most intellectually honest pundit I have ever read - even when I disagreed with him. Sad to see him go.

RomanAClef• 15 years ago

Wow, right after America gave up the ghost in Iraq too.

From http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2011/11/oser-dire.html:

" Why does it also not delight me that the extent of the allegations against him, at least on some showings, is “unwanted advances”? It might be argued, by the cynical or the naive, that all “advances” begin that way. True, a period of a matter of months is specified, but don’t I seem to recall, in President Obama’s jaunty account of his courtship, that it took him a certain amount of time to “wear down” his intended target? I dare say that many of us could say the same, while reminiscing among friends, and still hope to avoid getting too many sidelong looks. But in the present circumstances there seems to be a danger of a straight-out politicization of the sexual harassment issue, with many people deciding it in advance on the simple basis of campaign calculations, or—to put it more crudely—of whose ox is being gored. This appears to represent a general coarsening by silence, and yet another crude element in a depressing campaign. "

-Hitchens

I have always suspected that Christopher Hitchens is really a child of Indianapolis or Topeka who spent a year in London while an undergraduate at the North Dakota State Technical and Agricultural Community College or some such and returned with an accent and a ubiquitous unopened umbrella so thoroughly does his Englishness come off as an affect. And, to crib from our friends across the pond, he comes off as a real tosser. "I dare say"? It's as if, sensing his own impending demise, he's angling to be played by Maggie Smith in the biopic.

Any man willing to gratuitously fondle the mother tongue as Hitch does above is obviously going to be an apologist for molestation. If you're a liberal, then you'll find it particularly appalling that Hitch first made his conservative bones, you'll pardon the expression, not by cheering for the death of a million Iraqis, but by stroking feverishly over Monica and Kathleen Willey. This was evidence of Clinton's despicable character, whereas here we are in grave danger of "politicizing . . . the sexual harassment issue," as if chalking it up as an issue has not by fucking default cast it into the baleful form of politics.

JoachimSchipper• 15 years ago

This is in bad taste. Also, I have no idea what it's about, but does "Any man willing to gratuitously fondle the mother tongue as Hitch does above is obviously going to be an apologist for molestation" really constitute a valid argument?

chjj• 15 years ago

dammit. hitchens barely got his trousers off.

soitgoes3• 15 years ago

Always made me smile when he finished off a debate with the "We've barely got our trousers off" line.

bravura8• 15 years ago

Did he do this often?

I was only aware of him using this turn of phrase when debating O'Reilly ("We barely got our trousers off, we should pursue this.")

[youtube link taken down by Fox News, sorry]

arjn• 15 years ago

Not unexpected, he's been ill for a while. I will miss his razor wit and intellect. The clarity of his thought, writing and speech was a breath of cool fresh air amidst the unfortunate smog that is modern media, especially television. Am currently reading Hitch-22, have already read "God is not Great" and would recommend it.

arepb• 15 years ago

A good landing page from VF is an excellent starter for those who are tiptoeing into Hitchens for the first time. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/christopher-hitchens

dmerfield• 15 years ago

My favourite Hitchens moment:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BP51NnoVErA

mturmon• 15 years ago

Such a sharp thinker, with unbelievable wit and depth of memory.

You can get a sense of his political style from his fascination with the remark from Israeli peace activist Israel Shahak, "there are beginning to be some encouraging signs of polarization". Meaning that usually, well almost always, you have to choose sides. Draw the line between the sides yourself if necessary.

It's Hitchens' writings that introduced me to the early, dry, humorous works of Evelyn Waugh (best known is "Scoop", but also Decline and Fall, and the Sword of Honour trilogy). Some of Hitchens' best writing was literary appreciation, not polemics.

mattyohe• 15 years ago

#GodIsNotGreat is trending worldwide. It's quite entertaining to see the live timeline of people freaking out: http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23GodIsNotGreat

obtu2• 15 years ago

Seems like Twitter censored it from the trending spot; a pity.

bravura8• 15 years ago

@johnwilander: #GodIsNotGreat pulled from trends because christians protest. But #ReasonsToBeatYourGirlfriend allowed. Stay classy @Twitter

veidr2• 15 years ago

Hitchens was wrong about a lot in my view, but for many atheists he was an important figure.

He eloquently made the case for our faith in empirical evidence and the scientific knowing of reality, and he didn't pussy out at the end. Knowing he was dying, and soon on his way into that void, still looked that motherfucker in the face, and stayed frosty.

Wish he could have died from old age, though.

Hari_Seldon• 15 years ago

"empirical evidence and the scientific knowing of reality"

Not sure what you mean by this, do you really believe that science validates a specific view on what constitutes reality?

gnaritas• 15 years ago

Science defines our best view of reality, period. And by best, I mean most accurate representation of objective reality.

Vivtek• 15 years ago

I first learned of Christopher Hitchens in the run-up to Iraq, which he espoused. I chalked him up as a Bad Guy, and moved my limited attention span on down the pike. Only recently had I realized that he was a lot deeper than I'd given him credit for - and now he's dead.

Life stinks.

Stormbringer3• 15 years ago

Well, the Iraq war is interesting. The US sold a bunch of chemical/biological weapons to the Iraqis, and then years later used that as a pretext for war, being fairly sure that they would find them. Problem was, they weren't there any more, so the US looked stupid.

What happened to those weapons of terror? Well, the Kurds can probably tell you. Suffice it to say that not everyone was a big fan of Saddam, and some people were legitimately happy to see the US overthrow Saddam.

The main problems are this

1) bogus pretext for the war, lying to your own people

2) the means they used (bombing civilian infrastructure, cutting off power supplies to hospitals etc)

And on that note, the US has this insane idea that if they interfere with other countries, mess with their economics etc then it makes people upset with $local_dictator... but it doesn't work like that, it just makes them and everyone else in the world pissed off at the US.

3) What they did afterwards. Sticking around and trying to make the Iraqis pay for it all by looting their resources. Not good.

Afghanistan is even worse. The soviet union stuck their dick in the meat-grinder that is Afghanistan and were there for 20 years and it destroyed them and bankrupted them economically. How is the US going to fare any differently? Oh, you spent a trillion dollars on this war and your economy is in the hole for a trillion dollars. What a mysterious coincidence!

valgaze• 15 years ago

Astroid: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/Asteroid-Name...

"An astroid...has been named after Vanity Fair contributing editor Christopher Hitchens. The asteroid orbits Mars, Jupiter, and Earth. It’s an ironic but fitting honor for an iconoclast who has spent much of his life shaking his fist at the heavens and the deities they may or may not host."

numair2• 15 years ago

Okay, really.

With all due respect to the passing of a fellow human, this story has absolutely nothing to do with hackers, with software development, with the startup business... I know people are going to reply to this with some reference to "but it is of intellectual interest!" -- but really, there are lots of different places on the Internet (thousands, maybe millions!) to discuss lots of different things. If you have begun to look at Hacker News as your sole source of news and information in the world -- of which such stories and their upvoting may be a sign -- you really need to diversify your life. It will be better for your health, and for your work.

It would be great if we could allow this place remain a silo of thought on technical and business matters, and seek out other places and people for other sorts of information and discourse.

antics2• 15 years ago

There is some truth to what you say, but who is going to be the arbiter of what is "hacker" content and what is not? You? And where does it end? Is a blog post detailing how to deal with stock options really hacker content, for example?

HN is still a pretty small community, and regardless of whether or not it upvotes strict tech articles or not I think is besides the point. I come here because it's like being in the center of an intellectual panopticon, and to a large extent, I trust people here to show me things that will make me grow. I'm not interested in _everything_ posted here, but it is also not important to me (and I imagine a lot of other people as well) that all the articles here are strictly super technical.

numair2• 15 years ago

There's a variety of places from where we can get our news. For example, I'm super-concerned about the end result of the Euro crisis (which directly affects global businesses, such as the online businesses many of us are building, far more than is ever discussed here) -- but rather than looking for economic insight here, or posting articles about the matter here for discussion, I turn to the Financial Times, and talk to my friends who work in finance.

You have to find the best outlet for information and discussions regarding the topic at hand; as it stands, Hacker News is an excellent place for discussion about technical topics, but if we continue to have more of this mainstream-type stuff because of a more general audience that chooses to use this as their version of CNN, we're going to quickly alienate more technical-minded people who come here to avoid general news topics.

If you want this place to remain special, you have to keep it special.

hyperbovine• 15 years ago

You post a story. It gets voted up. It gets voted down. The site is never out of step with its users' interests, because it can't be.

So simple, and yet somebody is always there to complain about what should or should not be.

Why?

nandemo• 15 years ago

I don't think stories can get voted down (at least for me no down-arrow is displayed).

In any case, I disagree with the "the people have spoken" argument. It boils down to "if you don't like it, then leave". It should be the other way round: if you want to discuss this, then use another forum.

HN has a certain purpose, even if it's not completely well-defined. It follows that there are stories that should be deemed off-topic, regardless of whether a large minority votes them up.

I'm not talking about the on-topic-ness of this particular story (though I'd say it's off-topic even though I am a fan of Hitchens), but trying to defend the notion that it's fine to complain about highly upvoted off-topic stories.

PS: a related comment of mine in a recent thread on Stackoverflow:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3357506

logic• 15 years ago

There are enough of us in this relatively small community of free-thinkers who were touched by this man's work that, for a few moments, we'd like to pause to remember him.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "intellectual interest": we're mourning, and it's a sign we're all basically human.

vacri2• 15 years ago

Hitchens was one of those people that teaches other people how to think better. That classes him as 'of interest' to both tech and business.

maximusprime• 15 years ago

HN used to be about hacking. It's now largely about politics and lolcats. It's "Reddit lite" if you like.

gruseom• 15 years ago

Hitchens was perhaps the greatest master of the English language of our time. If that doesn't make him of intellectual interest, maybe the fault lies with the intellect.

What's a pity is that the discussion here is of such low quality, picking nits about heaven and the like.

Hitchens as a writer was a force of nature. Who else could produce such exquisitely wrought pieces at such a rate? In this respect he reminds me a little of Dickens.

Edit: here's a marvelous remembrance by Christopher Buckley: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/posts...

tdfx2• 15 years ago

For anyone looking for a quick way to get a handle on who he was search YouTube for "hitchslap".

davesims2• 15 years ago

As a person of long-held religious conviction I am deeply saddened to see this worthy adversary go. He had an uncanny ability to go straight for your mostly deeply held beliefs with the most trenchant rhetoric and yet somehow made you like him anyway.

I think it's because with Hitchens, you knew he spoke from the integrity of his own convictions. He was nobody's man, on no one's bandwagon, carrying water for no political agenda other than his own desire to see the world become a better place. His libertarianism or Marxism was just a function of where his own intellect led him, and he never compromised for fashion or acceptance. That gave him gravitas, ethos. How else could you go after Mother Theresa and not get run out of...the World on a rail?

Only Hitchens. He was often compared to Orwell and H.L. Mencken, and he was one of the few writers for whom the comparison was as a peer rather than a distant echo of a greater time. Who will pick up his mantle? Who has the intellect, wit or courage of their convictions that compares with Hitchens?

At the moment I simply can't think of anyone.

ajkessler• 15 years ago

I don't think a finer thing could be said about a man.

http://www.ajkesslerblog.com/a-hell-of-a-eulogy/

davesims2• 15 years ago

Thanks AJ, I appreciate it.

Benares• 15 years ago

He's in a better place, now.

http://explosm.net/comics/2645/

Roritharr• 15 years ago

Nice observation!

soitgoes3• 15 years ago

It would be nice if HN could put up the black bar at the top of the page today for Hitch.

bravura8• 15 years ago

Christoper Hitchens. Rest in Peace. One of the most articulate people, always incisive, even when I disagreed with him.

I saw Hitchens speak at the New York Public Library, as part of their Live! series. Everyone retired to the garden afterwards, to take drinks.

I spoke with Hitchens briefly. He called Mother Theresa "a bitch". I criticized his diction and argued that bitch was the wrong epithet. I don't recall my exact argument, but he conceded my point. I was elated, given that I considered (and still consider) Hitchens one of the most eloquent orators of our generation. In deference to him and his passing, I have mulled my choice of language in this comment.

I am still grateful that I had the chance to engage this great polemicist.

adriand• 15 years ago

That's actually an interesting anecdote, because it demonstrates a willingness to admit when he was wrong, something that is often uncommon among so-called "great thinkers" - especially when they're engaging with a member of the "ordinary public". (My apologies if you're actually quite extraordinary.)

bravura8• 15 years ago

I think it's one of his most admirable qualities, namely that he will admit fault, change his position, and correct himself when he overspeaks.

My apologies if you're actually quite extraordinary.

None taken.

[edit: A question I asked him at the NYPL, 55:30 in the video http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/god-not-great-debate-between-...

Q: In the beginning of the talk you expressed antipathy towards deism in principle, predicated along this particular interpretation of God as a supreme dictator and judge. Is that correct?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: That would be correct, yes.

Q: Now, if I could play devil’s advocate for God for a moment. Could you appreciate a God who watches us and our actions eagerly and with great interest because he created a world where everything is permitted?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Yes, I can picture it, but I’m not without horror. (laughter) ]

randdythea• 15 years ago

test

pflats• 15 years ago

Above all, I really respect him for his piece on waterboarding. For those of you who didn't see it/hear about it, he wanted to try to settle the debate on whether waterboarding is torture or not.

So he let himself be waterboarded.

VF Article (site's getting hit hard): http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens...

Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E

The title of the article? "Believe Me, It's Torture".

markwherry• 15 years ago

Hitch asked us to think, to question, and to appreciate. There is surely no better embodiment of a hacker ethic than someone like Christopher Hitchens: a unique voice who challenged the world not to accept the status quo.

serverdude• 15 years ago

One of the foremost intellectuals - I disagreed with him on Iraq but scoured youtube to watch his debates - mostly against religious rabbis. There really was no one like him.

"“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

Nelson69• 15 years ago

I saw him on Morning Joe about 18 months ago. I like the idea of what they are trying to do with that show, I like that they have both sides on it, but it has more than enough grab ass (it's 2 hours too long every day..) Anyhow, they were getting ready to engage him in a serious conversation but it was a grab-ass session between segments, I can't remember the subject but they were goading folks to make some statement on something really absurd (it was sexist or Jersey Shore or something, I wish I could remember it) but Mika (the news reader lady) tried to get him to voice an opinion and he very eloquently said "pass" it was a bit flowery though and had just a hint of an insult back for even being asked to talk about it.

I don't know if anyone had ever done that before, they clearly weren't prepared for it. He was there for something serious and he kept to it, regardless of views, much respect to the guy. In a pop-media bubble gum bullshit news and entertainment world he had a mission and kept to it. A tragic loss we need more of him and more like him.

martythemaniak• 15 years ago

There was a Munk Debate last year where Hitchens debated Tony Blair on whether religion was a force for good in the world. I highly recommend it: http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/Religion

Everyone knew Hitchens didn't have much time left, so it was great to see him doing what he does best against someone as high-profile as Blair.

Florin_Andrei7• 15 years ago

And he beat Blair, who is no slouch either when it comes to debating.

He was an amazing person. He could write and speak with such force, yet such complexity and refinement at the same time. I deeply admired him even when I disagreed with him completely.

Farewell, Hitch.

zotz• 15 years ago

Not to be blunt, but I never understood why a drunken advocate of a murderous war gets such props no matter what his facility with words may have been.

In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

Related Stories