THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: brawndolicious on May 24, 2007, 11:04:28 PM
-
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchens200706?printable=true¤tPage=all
I'm sure if you investigated feelings on race and religion for poor minorities in any country the results wouldn't be very favorable.
Take American media (where they blame young black men for...anything) but there's a feeling of safe-ness because gentrification is a very large issue. Is that problem in Britain? probably, but those damn ragheads flew a plane into a building and so the news is obsessed with them. Doesn't take a genius (and you have an ex-muslim here!) to figure out that religion says how to have a good society, not how to punish people for not being like you. I don't know how the coverage was in Britain, but the day of 9/11 a news anchor actually asked a specialist or politician "will people be talking about this for a couple weeks or for years" which made me think that because of the religious motivation given that it's going to make people want a "similar" reaction (blind raghead fuckathon). I knew that the day of 9/11. BECAUSE OF HOW THE NEWS REPORTED IT.
-
Really, should you be calling anyone out on the quality of their writing? Even though Hitch was probably tanked while he wrote the damn piece I can at least understand him.
-
Really, should you be calling anyone out on the quality of their writing?
what he said.
-
America media blamed young black men for anything? Maybe they wouldn't if young black men weren't committing almost all the crime
-
America media blamed young black men for anything? Maybe they wouldn't if young black men weren't committing almost all the crime
YOU TELL THOSE DARKIES, WHITE DEVIL!
-
Say what you will about Hitchens, but you can't argue with the prose style.
-
I honestly don't understand what his expertise is. I mean normally when I read somebody trying to hype people up, they're in a special field like a preacher, politician, etc but he talks about many different things and at least now, makes no sense. I understand him being an idiot, but who the fuck is his connection, the Jack Off party?
-
Social commentary is probably one of the worst aspects of society today. Basically most people have become mouthpieces for other people's rhetoric while doing nothing physically to achieve what they 'believe' in.
-
I honestly don't understand what his expertise is.
His expertise is in snappy writing. And that's about it.
-
No it takes a special kind of fucked up to not take your "snappy writing" and write for a tabloid but a political magazine instead.
-
No it takes a special kind of fucked up to not take your "snappy writing" and write for a tabloid but a political magazine instead.
what
stop affirming Malek's assessment of you, nintenho.
-
No it takes a special kind of fucked up to not take your "snappy writing" and write for a tabloid but a political magazine instead.
I don't know what you mean.
-
No it takes a special kind of fucked up to not take your "snappy writing" and write for a tabloid but a political magazine instead.
I don't know what you mean.
No one really does.
-
he tries to hide how well a writer can make a person look civilized and say the popular opinion of fearful white people.
basically he's a little jerk-off alcoholic.
-
No one really does.
:lol
he tries to hide how well a writer can make a person look civilized and say the popular opinion of fearful white people.
basically he's a little jerk-off alcoholic.
Duh? The difference between him and most other 'fearful white people' is that people actually pay to read his opinions.
Personally I'd take his career over most anyday.
-
I'm asking what is his audience and how do they react to something with this much stupidity?
-
I'm asking what is his audience and how do they react to something with this much stupidity?
Anti-theists, libertarians, imperialists, right wing hawks and bemused people.
-
Who the fuck is Maureen Dowd???
-
Who the fuck is Maureen Dowd???
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/12/30/maureen_narrowweb__300x399,0.jpg)
-
(http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/3442.jpg)
-
No it takes a special kind of fucked up to not take your "snappy writing" and write for a tabloid but a political magazine instead.
I don't know what you mean.
No one really does.
am nintenho has a strange grammar all his own. subjects and objects are constantly at war, and strange litotic sequences oddly diffuse whatever opinion he might be trying to convey.
-
you don't need to read my opinion, you can just read his article and see how shitty of a writer he is.
-
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchensqanda200706
i really ain't seeing your complaints. i agree with hitchens' view that multiculturalism requires something from all participating groups, not just kowtowing by the dominant ethnicity, and it should never tolerate extremism. he even acknowledges that secular members of these minority groups are getting locked out of the government support loop because the government only reacts to extremists. on top of that, hitchens excoriates all religions -- islamic, christian, hindi, etc -- because all their texts can be interpreted to endorse violence, and he correctly notes that terrorism is hardly exclusive to islam, although most terrorists these days are islamic.
the fact that the church of england supported the fatwa on salman rushdie is utterly fucking grotesque.
-
Yeah, I read the article last night, along with the Q and A Hitchens did, and don't know what am nintenho was going on about. I would also love to be able to write as "shitty" as Hitchens.
-
do we ever really know what am nintenho is going on about?
if he responds, i hope that he makes an attempt to actually articulate his point...whatever it is.
-
do we ever really know what am nintenho is going on about?
if he responds, i hope that he makes an attempt to actually articulate his point...whatever it is.
I'm not sure I want to understand how his mind works.
-
I don't see the reason for this article beyond getting a paycheck from Vanity Fair. In the same way that New York is used as a breeding ground for fear it uses Londonistan as a breeding ground for terrorists. It's not who makes the fucked up interpretations that matters, it's who's the fucked up psycho that needs religion to explain murderous motives. He decided to sit and type that on my own island, I just saw something different. And that difference can be associated with murderers.
THAT'S NOT FUCKING JOURNALISM.
The entire article goes on and on about how the reasons for why they did a terrorist act or why muslims act isolated is changed because it's proven that they're better off in this country or didn't have a reason to have a problem with this country. NO SHIT THEY'RE FUCKING PSYCHOS.
-
...
i cannot parse that. can you please make your point with proper grammar? you seem to agree with hitchens -- that london is full of islamic extremists -- and then say he sucks?
-
Well why would he write an article about something that involves no compromise (not that I think that they're should be)? Does he think it deserves media attention?
-
because there's loads of folks out there, especially in america, who don't know anything about london's muslim situation and the british government's laissez-faire appeasement policies for dealing with them? there was a lot i was unaware of in that article.
-
Like Drinky said, this article was written for an American audience--an audience that is likely unfamiliar with the present state of the Islamic community in London.
-
I saw lots of stuff on ABC and whatever the fuck right after 9/11 talking about how muslims in europe like to live in seperate areas and are much more radical normally.
-
plus hitchens is an entertaining writer, despite some of his batshit neocon screed back in the early post-9/11 days. good writers can revisit topics with their own twist and i'll certainly read it -- he provided a lot of context and insight i hadn't read before.
i'm not seeing what flipped you out there, duder.
-
so he's a hypocrite and is basically writing what most british people want to read.
-
how is he a hypocrite?
-
This is one confusing thread.
-
he goes from acting like a neocon to bashing falwell on fox news.
-
he goes from acting like a neocon to bashing falwell on fox news.
Just because he supports Bush's foreign policy that does not mean he's a neo-conservative. He's a leftist and an atheist (anti-theist according to him) who disagrees with Falwell on just about everything. So of course he's going to attack him.
Meanwhile Hitchen brother is a Catholic conservative who disagrees with the Iraq war.
-
I honestly don't understand what his expertise is.
His expertise is in snappy writing. And that's about it.
You take that shit back. That man is also an incredible alcoholic.
-
what do you mean by "bush's foreign policy"?
-
what do you mean by "bush's foreign policy"?
Obviously, Bush's policy with Norway.
-
wtf, nintenho? you are a tard. neocon's have absolutely no religious affiliation -- and are often at odds with religious conservatives under the Republican party umbrella. at best, they share a similar goal: the preservation of Israel and a fundamental desire to represent US interests in the Middle East in a more martial fashion.
very, very few -- if any -- of the PNAC neocon set have legitimate fundamentalist Christian sympathies.
-
i can't believe i'm defending christopher hitchens. :'(
-
wtf? you are a tard. neocon's have absolutely no religious affiliation -- and are often at odds with religious conservatives under the Republican party umbrella. at best, they share a similar goal -- the preservation of Israel and a fundamental desire to represent US interests in the Middle East in a more martial fashion.
very, very few -- if any -- of the PNAC neocon set have legitimate fundamentalist Christian sympathies.
Yeah, quite a few of them are Jews actually.
Goddammit nintenho is stupid. It's a shame Federwang is too busy to run this board- this thread should be the tipping point that sends ol' nintenho down the slope into Townie Leperdom.
-
I only saw him once on fox discrediting hannity and colmes and hating "everything" about a guy that had very strong support for bush.
if he's this stupid why didn't you just tell me?
-
Right Drinky, neocons come from many religious affiliations. However I don't think that Hitchens is a neoconservative. For instance he has criticized Israel on many occasions. Outside of his stance on the Iraq war, I really don't know what makes him such a neocon.
I only saw him once on fox discrediting hannity and colmes and hating "everything" about a guy that had very strong support for bush.
if he's this stupid why didn't you just tell me?
So your logic is that since Hitchens supports Bush's war, he should also support every moron who has ever supported Bush?
-
when you say that a person supports bush's foreign policy, that's a VERY bad thing to most people.
-
malek, i don't really think hitchens is a neocon, either -- he's more of a traditional old world british conservative with a warmongering bent. he's pretty hard to classify -- he's hawkish and isolationist, but anti-religious and somewhat politically intolerant.
-
nintenho, many people of different political stripes support bush's war for vastly different reasons. hitchens doesn't support the war because he wants to exterminate islam and raise the flag of christian triumphalism, nor is he in the game for foreign investment interests; he supports it because he believes that the extremist islamic fringe has begun to seed effectively in his home country (and the first world in general) and he thinks it needs to be checked at the source.
-
(http://www.sncweb.ch/images/fix/Christopher-Hitchens_03.jpg)
HAHA
-
that is a man who appreciates vice!
-
when you say that a person supports bush's foreign policy, that's a VERY bad thing to most people.
Hitchens was not attacking Falwell because he supported Bush’s policies, but for his stupid fundamentalist beliefs, his intolerance, his stupid university, etc.
that is a man who appreciates vice!
If only he appreciated the sweat protection of Right Guard.
-
oh, you'd hit it. seriously: would you let hitchens pitch or would you have him catch?
-
oh, you'd hit it. seriously: would you let hitchens pitch or would you have him catch?
???
I don't think he knows how to play baseball.
-
george f will does, and how!
-
I don't see the reason for this article beyond getting a paycheck from Vanity Fair.
That's what I'm saying re: Maureen Dowd and her NYT column. Who the fuck uses terms like, "quid profiterole??"
-
Oh, and considering "Neocon" is code for "Jewish intellectual," lol at the Falwell comments.
-
Oh, and considering "Neocon" is code for "Jewish intellectual," lol at the Falwell comments.
Most Jews, and certainly most Jewish intellectuals, are liberal. Unless you meant "Neocon" is code for "slightly conservative Jewish intellectual".
-
Oh, and considering "Neocon" is code for "Jewish intellectual," lol at the Falwell comments.
Most Jews, and certainly most Jewish intellectuals, are liberal. Unless you meant "Neocon" is code for "slightly conservative Jewish intellectual".
Really it depends on what you mean by conservative.
-
That depends on what you mean by depends. :-\
-
he supports it because he believes that the extremist islamic fringe has begun to seed effectively in his home country (and the first world in general) and he thinks it needs to be checked at the source.
that's a really fucking dumb idea.
-
yet hitchens makes a fairly compelling case, and you do not! WHAT TO THINK.
-
he could be writing about how the africans are "too segregated" and support a regime change in africa and I would not thiink this article is any more or less shitty.
-
yet oddly, the "africans" in the first-world by and large don't keep close ties with the extremist militant fringes of their homeland religions -- unless the Nation of Islam is planning terrorist attacks and declaring fatwas that i don't know about! WHAT TO THINK.
(also, don't rely on obviously inappropriate analogies when making political decisions.)
-
I honestly don't understand what his expertise is.
His expertise is in snappy writing. And that's about it.
You take that shit back. That man is also an incredible alcoholic.
You're right, that was an inexusable oversight on my part.
-
Trying to pin down Hitchens' ideology is kind of pointless. He's been working the contrarian angle for a couple decades now, at least. He's been consistent on the anti-religion stuff, but outside of that, he seems to be a self-created character much more than a serious thinker.
It's a pretty fun character, for what it's worth, but not really worth spending a lot of time, energy, or outrage on.
PS This thread is why am nintenho is known as Mr. 790.
-
how does it make sense to overthrow a country's leader and cause a civil war for a decade?
to solve the radicalism at your own home?
-
Trying to pin down Hitchens' ideology is kind of pointless. He's been working the contrarian angle for a couple decades now, at least. He's been consistent on the anti-religion stuff, but outside of that, he seems to be a self-created character much more than a serious thinker.
It's a pretty fun character, for what it's worth, but not really worth spending a lot of time, energy, or outrage on.
PS This thread is why am nintenho is known as Mr. 790.
Seriously, like I said before a good profession. Why troll for free when you can get paid for it?
am nintendo why are you arguing with people who really can not talk on behalf of Hitchens (let alone shares his views), find some messageboard that does.
Also most people point to assimilation (as opposed to the current policy of multiculturalism in most western countries) as solving radicalism as probably pointed out by Hitchen's articles.
-
The thing is that Hitchens actually believes in multiculturalism, which is interesting considering that he is unequivocally anti-religious. Since religion is an important part of many cultures, one would expect a multiculturalists to expect that people would bring their religious baggage with them. Does he think people will only bring there cuisine, dress, and music and leave one of the most important parts of their cultures back home? Some of these religous beliefs, as he well knows, are not very progressive and conflict with other people's religous beliefs and will cause conflict in society.
-
The thing is that Hitchens actually believes in multiculturalism, which is interesting considering that he is unequivocally anti-religious. Since religion is an important part of many cultures, one would expect a multiculturalists to expect that people would bring their religious baggage with them. Does he think people will only bring there cuisine, dress, and music and leave one of the most important parts of their cultures back home? Some of these religous beliefs, as he well knows, are not very progressive and conflict with other people's religous beliefs and will cause conflict in society.
Didn't read the article so I didn't find out he advocated multiculturalism. Multiculturalsm 'works' when you advocate tolerance between all cultures and religions while still expressing your own. I'm guessing Hitchens is tolerant of religion but not when it imposes it's 'will' on the secular state as radical Islam has done in Britain.
-
Well he may tolerate religion, but he sure doesn't like it.
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/31V+hsYo6FL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg)
(http://www.israellycool.com/dr%20hook%20ap.jpg)
If you believe in the toleration of other religions, don't be surprised when they don't resemble secular humanism.
-
The thing is that Hitchens actually believes in multiculturalism, which is interesting considering that he is unequivocally anti-religious. Since religion is an important part of many cultures, one would expect a multiculturalists to expect that people would bring their religious baggage with them. Does he think people will only bring there cuisine, dress, and music and leave one of the most important parts of their cultures back home? Some of these religous beliefs, as he well knows, are not very progressive and conflict with other people's religous beliefs and will cause conflict in society.
Any discussion of multiculturalism would probably devolve into semantics really quickly, but it seems like Hitchens' version is that liberal, live-and-let-live norms are the important things, and that people can bring whatever cultural background they want as long as it doesn't violate those. That is, the government should be concerned with incitements to violence and stuff, but not so much with all the cultural protection laws that France has, as an example.
-
tolerating intolerance is not part of a good doctrine of tolerance, as it were -- the trouble is, as mandark and hitchens point out, that such an observation invariably leads to debates over semantics while some religious wacko kills the fuck out of folks their dogma disagrees with.
-
Mandark I used the third person possessive pronoun 'their' in the previous sentence, it was just a mental slip.
It is very difficult to draw the line when defining the limits of tolerance. Except for direct threats of violence, I think people should be able to freely express intolerant viewpoints. So it becomes difficult to limit intolerant religious viewpoints for me, especially once these views are expressed by citizens. So maybe it would be a good idea not to import uneducated Muslims from Pakistan, the majority of who marry their own cousins (note that is not hyperbole but a statistical fact) and live in segregated areas.
-
Mandark I used the third person possessive pronoun 'their' in the previous sentence, it was just a mental slip.
It is very difficult to draw the line when defining the limits of tolerance. Except for direct threats of violence, I think people should be able to freely express intolerant viewpoints. So it becomes difficult to limit intolerant religious viewpoints for me, especially once these views are expressed by citizens. So maybe it would be a good idea not to import uneducated Muslims from Pakistan, the majority of who marry their own cousins (note that is not hyperbole but a statistical fact) and live in segregated areas.
Yes except for the fact that as such most of the London bombers were well educated and recieved tertiary education as well as one which was a Jamaican convert.
-
Mandark I used the third person possessive pronoun 'their' in the previous sentence, it was just a mental slip.
It is very difficult to draw the line when defining the limits of tolerance. Except for direct threats of violence, I think people should be able to freely express intolerant viewpoints. So it becomes difficult to limit intolerant religious viewpoints for me, especially once these views are expressed by citizens. So maybe it would be a good idea not to import uneducated Muslims from Pakistan, the majority of who marry their own cousins (note that is not hyperbole but a statistical fact) and live in segregated areas.
Yes except for the fact that as such most of the London bombers were well educated and recieved tertiary education as well as one which was a Jamaican convert.
Would they have ever been seduced to radical Islam without a large number of local radicals living among them? Many of whom receiving support from the uneducated masses. The community as a whole is a breeding ground for such a transformation. That the bombers themselves were not uneducated is unimportant.
-
Would they have ever been seduced to radical Islam without a large number of local radicals living among them? Many of whom receiving support from the uneducated masses. The community as a whole is a breeding ground for such a transformation. That the bombers themselves were not uneducated is unimportant.
In part perhaps however the role of community and religious leaders as well as the Internet would of played a greater role in their radicalisation.
Putting on my pseudo-expert hat on I suspect what turned these people to turn to radical Islam was the fact that they were partially integrated in society in the first place. They grew disenchanted by 'modern western society' and abhorred at what they felt at society and the government had become turning to radicalism to somehow solve it.
-
If you're not going to restrict a particular act, then it would be odd to restrict someone's entry to a country based on the likelihood of them committing that act.
I'm not sure how much the economic/educational factor comes into it. Intuitively, it seems like poverty and ignorance would feed it, but international terrorists (as opposed to people who are part of sustained local campaigns like the one in Iraq) tend to be better educated than average, IIRC.
-
If you're not going to restrict a particular act, then it would be odd to restrict someone's entry to a country based on the likelihood of them committing that act.
I'm not sure how much the economic/educational factor comes into it. Intuitively, it seems like poverty and ignorance would feed it, but international terrorists (as opposed to people who are part of sustained local campaigns like the one in Iraq) tend to be better educated than average, IIRC.
Well, just because I don't think something should be legally restricted does not then mean I think it is desirable. Just because I think citizens have a right to say highly intolerant things, that does not mean a country should then important religiously crazed people who will then spread hateful intolerance. Of course most people aren't like that. But if you were playing the percentages, wouldn't it be better to get immigrants from other countries, like say China?
Many terrorists are highly educated, but they need the great unwashed masses to support them, to hide them, and to strap explosive vests around their chests.