Does Hitchens usually write articles this shitty?

[brawndolicious]

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.

[Van Cruncheon]

yet hitchens makes a fairly compelling case, and you do not! WHAT TO THINK.

[brawndolicious]

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.

[Van Cruncheon]

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.)

[Boogie]

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.

[Mandark]

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.

[brawndolicious]

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?

[Fresh Prince]

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.

[Flannel Boy]

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.

[Fresh Prince]

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.

[Flannel Boy]

Well he may tolerate religion, but he sure doesn't like it.



 

If you believe in the toleration of other religions, don't be surprised when they don't resemble secular humanism.

[Mandark]

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.

[Van Cruncheon]

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.

[Flannel Boy]

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.

[Fresh Prince]

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.

[Flannel Boy]

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.

[Fresh Prince]

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.

[Mandark]

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.

[Flannel Boy]

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.