
In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 - tieistoowhite
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011
======
TomOfTTB
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)

~~~
super_mario
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
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

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I think Stephen Fry put it best during a tour of Salt Lake City that was
conducted by a Mormon evangelist:

\----

She gave us a good tour and we saw this tabernacle here and this here and so
on and then at one point she said, "I just want to tell you a little about the
church of the Latter Day Saints." And we all politely stood and then she said
how in the afterlife all families will be reunited. "You’ll be with your
families forever!"

So I put my hand up and said, "What happens if you’ve been good?"

<http://bigthink.com/ideas/17866>

~~~
ArbitraryLimits
As a former Mormon missionary, I can assure you he was not the first person to
think of that particular comeback.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Comeback? As an honest question, maybe it deserves an answer. I mean, sure
tongue in cheek, but any cookie-cutter idea of heaven is bound to leave some
cold. So if you dislike your family, then Mormonism isn't for you?

~~~
ArbitraryLimits
> So if you dislike your family, then Mormonism isn't for you?

Yeah, pretty much.

Edit: OK, that was unnecessarily flippant. I personally never heard that
statement as an honest question, only as a ha-ha-only-serious comeback. It
turns out that all the people I met who didn't like their families felt bad
about it, and realized it wasn't the way things should be.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
WOw, that's a good answer. It even feels right. I'm not kidding, and thanks
for your response on such a touchy issue.

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

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

~~~
davesims
Thanks AJ, I appreciate it.

------
pessimist
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.

------
pflats
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...](http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808)

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

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

------
zalew
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-
hitc...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitchens-
dies-aged-62?CMP=twt_fd)

 _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
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...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitchens-
obituary)

------
bravura
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
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.)

~~~
bravura
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-...](http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/god-not-great-debate-between-
christopher-hitchens-and-al-sharpton)

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) ]

------
valgaze
Astroid: [http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/Asteroid-
Name...](http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/Asteroid-Named-for-
Christopher-Hitchens)

"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."

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

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

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

------
serverdude
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

------
dmerfield
My favourite Hitchens moment:

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

------
martythemaniak
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_Andrei
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.

------
mturmon
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.

------
markwherry
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.

------
andywood
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.

------
arepb
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>

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

------
robertk
We shall have to work faster.

<http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda>

~~~
philwelch
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.

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

~~~
jpulgarin
Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that
transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation:
[http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/hitchens-...](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/hitchens-201011?currentPage=all)

~~~
robertk
Your site says you operate under Crocker's rules, Julian, so please hear me
out. (And to Phil Welch: I understand, but allow me the claim that he probably
would have agreed with the message. And even if the distastefulness depends on
the _probability_ of a dead man's agreement with a position, should we not
prevent ourselves from lashing out at people who post the message so that
people may at least read and decide for themselves on an issue as important as
this?)

Firstly, Christopher is not dismissive of life-extension techniques that
transhumanists espouse. If he could live longer _right now_ due to a technique
formerly classified a "espoused by transhumanists," he would choose to, as is
evinced all over that essay. Rather, he is largely dismissive of life-
extension techniques that _don't work_. The transhumanism part has nothing to
do with it.

In that essay, cryonics is lumped in with the paragraph that discusses _bad
advice_. So we can agree that Christopher considers cryonics as bad science,
the same way he considers eating the granulated essence of the peach pit to
prevent overwhelming growth of a malignant neoplasm bad science.

On the other hand, the rest of the essay discusses good science, that is,
science which has been proven to work. He discusses its "near-miraculous"
quality.

Perfusion of chemicals to preserve and prepare brain tissue is already
textbook science, just not applied to whole brains. The case of Clive Wearing
is one piece of an assortment of evidence that consciousness is a clever
illusion (the philosopher of consciousness, Daniel Dennett, can say a lot
here). Ultimately, cryonics is science that (by definition) has not been
proved to work, but nonetheless serious science. Please don't deny that.
Harvard neuroscientist Kenneth Hayworth explains this much better than I
could, so I leave the floor to him:

[http://brainpreservation.org/documents/killed_by_bad_philoso...](http://brainpreservation.org/documents/killed_by_bad_philosophy.pdf)

This issue is much too important to worry about what's distasteful.

~~~
jpulgarin
_Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that
transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation_

I should have been clearer:

"Christopher Hitchens believes that most of the techniques that transhumanists
think will lead to radically longer lifespans will _not work_."

I think that we are not in disagreement.

~~~
robertk
I see. Then I lay the claim that Hitchens did not have enough medical
expertise to know what will or will not work, and conditional on something
working, he would have espoused it, and conditional on it not working, he
would have not have espoused it. As such, I further lay the claim that he
would have been in favor of allowing people to evaluate the underlying science
for themselves, _in case he made a mistake and it does work_.

------
arjn
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.

------
Vivtek
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.

~~~
Stormbringer
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!

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

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

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

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

------
tptacek
Ah, shit.

~~~
Mithrandir
You stole those words from me! (just kidding)

RIP.

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

~~~
Mithrandir
This has been too depressing of a year.

Where's the good news?!

~~~
dman
We will find out in 80 years time when the eulogies are written.

------
Benares
He's in a better place, now.

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

~~~
Roritharr
Nice observation!

------
Nelson69
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.

------
chjj
dammit. hitchens barely got his trousers off.

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

~~~
bravura
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]

~~~
soitgoes
Here's another time: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm3whAxMgdc>. I'm pretty
sure I've heard him use it a few times.

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

~~~
veidr
Yes, this is _exactly_ what I meant, thank you.

------
staunch
Too short, but he won at life.

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

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

------
thomasgerbe
Moments of his life in pictures.

[http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/christoph...](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/christopher-
hitchens-slideshow-201112#slide=1)

------
robbrown451
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.

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

------
siculars
Damn. Miss you.

------
andyl
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.

------
zotz
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.

------
randdythea
test

------
numair
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.

~~~
antics
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.

~~~
numair
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.

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

I agree with, but this is also #1 story on the frontpage right now, which
makes your statement not indictment a flood of "bad" content in the "new"
section, but an indictment the HN population for upvoting it. If HNers didn't
believe it was relevant content, why vote it up in the first place? HN is
small enough that I just have a lot of trouble believing this is the result of
user dilution.

------
RomanAClef
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
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?

