Christopher Hitchens teases Bill Maher and his stupid audience

[Abdul Alhazred]

Short film clip from TV show.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegr...ll_unthrilled/

[a_unique_person]

I must be missing something, maher points out that bush is a fundie like Amadinejad, Hitchens only response is the finger. That looks like a capitulation to me.

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I must be missing something, maher points out that bush is a fundie like Amadinejad, Hitchens only response is the finger. That looks like a capitulation to me.

To me it points out the lack of the audience to differentiate the context under which it the comparison was made --- I believe only one of them was claiming that a country should be wiped off the face of the earth, the same one that defiantly goes against the UN in developing nuclear fuel. Hitchens clearly noted their selective ignorance to this and responded accordingly --- more in the manner in which they responded.

PS: Hey Bill, looks like Barack just might be a believer in the retun of the Messiah as much as George Bush ...

Quote:

What do you think about the Kingdom of God? Is it attainable on Earth by humans?
I am a big believer in not just words, but deeds and works. I don’t believe that the Kingdom of God is achievable on Earth without God’s intervention, and without God’s return through Jesus Christ, but I do believe in improvement.

... does your point now include Barack an equivalent of Amadinejad? Will your audience react in the same manner as they did with President Bush if this is pointed out to them? Will you even point that out to them?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's part of his shtick. You'll notice he started laughing after he flipped them off the second time.

I love Hitchens!

[Just thinking]

Smile he did, but I think in response to his come back which got them irritated. "Too bad, folks --- I pegged you!" was more how I took it. Note, he got quite the serious look back on his face when he went back to Maher.

[Lonewulf]

Is it wrong that I felt that that felt like it was full of win?

[Wowbagger]

I think Hitchens was the idiot, here.

At first, he correctly remarks that poking fun of Bush's intellect is an easy thing to do. (I do it, myself, all the time.) But, then he insults the audience's intelligence for laughing at such jokes.

What gives Hitchens the Jedi Insight to blanketly insult an entire audience, like that? Does he really know if few in the crowd are not any more intelligent than Bush?

What was giving the finger to the lot of them supposed to achieve?

If I were on that show, I would say something to encourage the audience to think more effectively, without insulting their intelligence in the process. That is how we spread critical thinking skills. What Hitchens did will only serve to deepen their dissonance.

[anticonspiracy911]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I think Hitchens was the idiot, here.

At first, he correctly remarks that poking fun of Bush's intellect is an easy thing to do. (I do it, myself, all the time.) But, then he insults the audience's intelligence for laughing at such jokes.

What gives Hitchens the Jedi Insight to blanketly insult an entire audience, like that? Does he really know if few in the crowd are not any more intelligent than Bush?

What was giving the finger to the lot of them supposed to achieve?

If I were on that show, I would say something to encourage the audience to think more effectively, without insulting their intelligence in the process. That is how we spread critical thinking skills. What Hitchens did will only serve to deepen their dissonance.

It's about time someone called out those morons. It's like they're on auto-pilot now:


"Bush choked on a pretzel today, even I know how to properly chew on a pretzel. This guy is the worst dude ever!"

*Audience laughs, while conspiracy nutbags type up how this news only serves the supposed "police state" we're under*

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I think Hitchens was the idiot, here.

At first, he correctly remarks that poking fun of Bush's intellect is an easy thing to do. (I do it, myself, all the time.) But, then he insults the audience's intelligence for laughing at such jokes.

No ... he points out to them how much they are on auto pilot for such things, without thinking of the context under which it was presented.

Quote:

What gives Hitchens the Jedi Insight to blanketly insult an entire audience, like that? Does he really know if few in the crowd are not any more intelligent than Bush?

Most, if not virtually every one, of these programs seldom if ever show the audience --- and the audience knows this. The only way they can voice their approval or disdain is through audible response. No doubt many would with no hesitation give the President a flip of the bird if the opportunity arose, and perhaps a few were giving it to Hitchens.

Quote:

What was giving the finger to the lot of them supposed to achieve?

It's known as tit-for-tat. It just seems that as soon as the tables are turned to show the audience what they may in fact be guilty of, it is met with grunts and groans even though they (in mob response) dish out the very same emotional reactions themselves. Quite revealing, actually.

Quote:

If I were on that show, I would say something to encourage the audience to think more effectively, without insulting their intelligence in the process. That is how we spread critical thinking skills. What Hitchens did will only serve to deepen their dissonance.

Sure ... but now and then it doesn't hurt to slap one upside the head (figuratively, of course) as well. Besides, just what do you think Hitchens was doing the rest of the time of his being there?

[tyr_13]

That was awesome. I hate Bush, but Hitchens was completely right.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by anticonspiracy911

It's about time someone called out those morons. It's like they're on auto-pilot now:

It's one thing to call out Bill Maher's jokes as juvenile.

But, to call everyone laughing at them as nothing more than morons? Are blanket statements suddenly in vogue, around here?

Originally Posted by Just thinking

No ... he points out to them how much they are on auto pilot for such things, without thinking of the context under which it was presented.

I gather you've never been to a comedy club, before.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

No doubt many would with no hesitation give the President a flip of the bird if the opportunity arose,

The current President has done little to garner respect. And, the reasons why are well known.

To disrespect the intelligence of an entire audience, you know nothing about, is different.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

It's known as tit-for-tat.

The game Christopher Hitchens was playing was not exactly altruistic tit-for-tat. Hitchens struck the first blow.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Sure ... but now and then it doesn't hurt to slap one upside the head (figuratively, of course) as well.

Yes, it does.

I think it hurts the cause whenever people act all high-horse like that.

Put yourself in the position of one of those audience members.

Imagine someone called you a moron, because you were laughing at the "Why People Laugh at Creationists" videos. Would you likely stand up and say "By golly, he's right! Those Creationists are too easy a target! We should learn to pick on someone our own brain-size!" Or, are you more likely to dismiss the person as a killjoy? Would you be more or less likely to buy that person's books?

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Besides, just what do you think Hitchens was doing the rest of time of his being there?

I did not see the rest of the show, so I cannot comment. But, anything encouraging he did or said to the audience, after that fiasco, is now more likely to be ignored. That is another reason why such insults can be damaging.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

The current President has done little to garner respect. And, the reasons why are well known.

To disrespect the intelligence of an entire audience, you know nothing about, is different.

Really? Hitchens knew nothing about the audience? The same audience that had been there the entire show? Was Hitchens not there for the show? Could he not observe the reactions? Not only that, it was on Mr. Bill's show. That is hardly an unbiased sample.

Look at it another way; he treated the people laughing the same way there were treating things like the Iraqi war. 'Bush is an idiot, and therefore not only is that funny, but makes any policy choices bad,' or the, 'Hitler wore pants' type arguments are used by Bill and accepted by his audience on a weekly basis. So pointing out that Bush being an idiot is not only an easy, obvious, joke, but one that has been done to death, and therefore the audience is stupid for laughing at it, has value in the parallel.

I don't laugh at 'Bush is stupid' jokes anymore, just like 'Bill Clinton is a horn dog' jokes lost their luster five years ago.

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

It's one thing to call out Bill Maher's jokes as juvenile.

But, to call everyone laughing at them as nothing more than morons? Are blanket statements suddenly in vogue, around here?

No more (or less) than blanket audience responses.

Quote:

I gather you've never been to a comedy club, before.

Non-sequitur. So which is it? ... an audience that wishes to learn or one that came just for laughs?

Quote:

The current President has done little to garner respect. And, the reasons why are well known.

An opinion --- shared by many, but still an opinion.

Quote:

To disrespect the intelligence of an entire audience, you know nothing about, is different.

Taking something clearly out of context that was only seconds ago made clear? Perhaps the word "stupid" was too kind.

Quote:

The game Christopher Hitchens was playing was not exactly altruistic tit-for-tat. Hitchens struck the first blow.

Really ... I take it you've never watched Bill Maher before.

Quote:

Yes, it does.

I think it hurts the cause whenever people act all high-horse like that.

You might wish to point your criticisms at Bill Maher ... did you see the high horse he was on when he thought it clever to equate President Bush with Ahmadinejad? Not to mention (as I linked earlier) of Barack having similar beliefs, as well as millions of others. Kind of made Maher's argument moot. No doubt, though, many will gloss it over as meaningless ---- unless it can be pointed to you-know-who.

Quote:

Put yourself in the position of one of those audience members.

Imagine someone called you a moron, because you were laughing at the "Why People Laugh at Creationists" videos. Would you likely stand up and say "By golly, he's right! Those Creationists are too easy a target! We should learn to pick on someone our own brain-size!" Or, are you more likely to dismiss the person as a killjoy? Would you be more or less likely to buy that person's books?

If I responded in opposition without thinking through valid reasons for laughing, I would be a moron --- but that's not why I would laugh. And your argument here is not valid, as it was clearly made obvious the context under which Bush differed from Ahmadinejad, yet Maher used a very direct yet very pathetic link to somehow equate the two --- but the audience ate it up. Why? ... it was a slander on Bush and it garnered the knee-jerk response Hitchens pointed out earlier. He was spot on and the audience (no doubt to many of them) were unaware of it.

Quote:

I did not see the rest of the show, so I cannot comment. But, anything encouraging he did or said to the audience, after that fiasco, is now more likely to be ignored. That is another reason why such insults can be damaging.

You're right in that it will likely be ignored ... but that doesn't make his point less valid.

[Skeptic]

Quote:

Are blanket statements suddenly in vogue, around here?

Only when they're about "conservatives", "republicans", "religious believers", and similar inferior life forms.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Only when they're about "conservatives", "republicans", "religious believers", and similar inferior life forms.

...Bill Maher caters to a majority of republicans, conservatives, or religious believes? Who knew?

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Really? Hitchens knew nothing about the audience? The same audience that had been there the entire show? Was Hitchens not there for the show? Could he not observe the reactions?

I stand corrected: He knew very, very little about the audience. (which is only slightly more than "nothing", and hardly sufficient to make blanket statements against their intellect, anyway.)

Originally Posted by tyr_13

So pointing out that Bush being an idiot is not only an easy, obvious, joke, but one that has been done to death,

I agree on that point, but...

Originally Posted by tyr_13

therefore the audience is stupid for laughing at it, has value in the parallel.

...I think it is rather arrogant to go this far.

Again, I agree with Hitchens' basic premise, about the quality of Maher's humor. But, the way he reacted to the clapping thing, was completely wrong.

When Bill says "So does George Bush, by the way", I would have responded:
"Yes, Bush has a lot of faults, and I am not here to defend him. But, let me continue with the point I was making about these other war mongers..."

Instead, Christopher says "your audience will clap at anything...", which is not constructive towards his point, and is only alienating everyone in the audience, from accepting his points, when he does get to finish them.

I do not see this incident as something to be proud of.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Non-sequitur. So which is it? ... an audience that wishes to learn or one that came just for laughs?

It does not matter what you "came for".

I was trying to point out that the human laughter instinct hardly ever takes the time to "think" about anything, before getting triggered.
That is why stand-up comedians can go "on a roll", and get people to laugh even at stupid jokes, once they start with some good ones.
And, that is also why people will laugh and clap in response to any anti-Bush-sounding comment tossed out by anyone. It is instinct, not stupidity.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

An opinion --- shared by many, but still an opinion.

What is relevant is the amount of details we know about the person, to form that opinion. We know lots of things about Bush.

Unless Hitchens is a psychic, I doubt he knew vey many details about all of those individual audience members

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Really ... I take it you've never watched Bill Maher before.

If someone in the audience was giving Hitchens the finger, before he gave his, it was still Hitchens who started it, because he had just verbally insulted the audience.

Of course, we do not know if anyone in the audience was giving any fingers, so this line of argument is rather moot.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

You might wish to point your criticisms at Bill Maher

I am! I think Maher is exactly the person to criticize.

NOT HIS ENTIRE AUDIENCE!

Of course, Hitchens probably should have known better than to use "he believes the messiah is about to come back", as an example of how these folks are different from Bush, if that was what he was trying to do. But, once it slipped, he should have just moved on with the rest of the point. Not gone off against the audience reaction.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

it was a slander on Bush and it garnered the knee-jerk response Hitchens pointed out earlier. He was spot on and the audience (no doubt to many of them) were unaware of it.

Automatically act on (relatively harmless) instincts, and you get the finger. Is that the sort of lessons we are teaching our children, these days?

Originally Posted by Just thinking

You're right in that it will likely be ignored ... but that doesn't make his point less valid.

My point is that it does more harm than good, to the mentality of the audience, the way it was presented.

You accept that this deepens their dissonance. How is that not hurting them?

[UserGoogol]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

It does not matter what you "came for".

I was trying to point out that the human laughter instinct hardly ever takes the time to "think" about anything, before getting triggered.

That's completely untrue. Good humor ALWAYS involves thought, although not necessarily conscious thought. Irony, wordplay, satire, and absurdism are all fundamentally cognitive forms of comedy, having underlying structure that needs to be appreciated to be laughed at. It is true that bad humor (slapstick, internet memes, easy political jokes) lacks such structure and (essentially) just goes "LOL THIS IS A JOKE AMIRITE?" to inspire people to laugh, but that's what makes it bad.

Christopher Hitchens is a dick, though.

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

It does not matter what you "came for".

I was trying to point out that the human laughter instinct hardly ever takes the time to "think" about anything, before getting triggered.

Just because one is not aware of something doesn't mean the brain isn't capable of rapidly processing established paradigms and throwing out programmed responses. If Bill had said Obama when he has said Bush, do you think it would have elicited the same response? If you believe something to be funny, you will laugh at it --- consciously or not, which is why slapstick works almost immediately. The issue, the issue I'm raising, is that the response was autonomic not in that it was against Bush, but that Maher had tried to compare Bush with Ahmadinejad in a rather stupid way --- and the audience went along without realizing what they were agreeing to or comparing. If they had had half the brains you think them worthy of, they would have immediately realized Maher's comment was totally pointless. It's a case of who is more dumb ... the dummy or the one who follows him? Besides, the audience wasn't so much laughing as they were applauding ... which requires a higher level of conscious awareness of what's going on and/or being said. Remember, the issue revolved around who one thinks is trying to start WW-III ... not exactly the opening to a joke.

Quote:

What is relevant is the amount of details we know about the person, to form that opinion. We know lots of things about Bush.

Unless Hitchens is a psychic, I doubt he knew vey many details about all of those individual audience members.

He seemed to know exactly how they respond when someone makes any kind of negative comment about Bush ... be it relevant or utterly foolish.

Quote:

If someone in the audience was giving Hitchens the finger, before he gave his, it was still Hitchens who started it, because he had just verbally insulted the audience.

Life isn't a one-way street. I feel that in this case, they deserved it.

Quote:

Of course, we do not know if anyone in the audience was giving any fingers, so this line of argument is rather moot.

Of course we don't ... but let's not go into the land of Oz, OK?

Quote:

I am! I think Maher is exactly the person to criticize.

NOT HIS ENTIRE AUDIENCE!

Ooooo, touchy. It's about autonomic reactions. The word stupid was used to drive home a point --- which it sure did.

Quote:

My point is that it does more harm than good, to the mentality of the audience, the way it was presented.

You accept that this deepens their dissonance. How is that not hurting them?

Which is why Hitchens was there in the first place. He made several key points ... the way some audiences respond was merely one of them.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Why is this news now? Didn't this happen very long ago?

I agree that "George Bush is stupid" jokes can be very cheap and that the President is most likely smarter than he is given credit for. He's not the most intellectual person, no, not by far but his chief problem is inarticulateness rather than stupidity.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

Christopher Hitchens is a dick, though.

Which I think he would take as a compliment.

And it's why I like him.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

That's completely untrue. Good humor ALWAYS involves thought, although not necessarily conscious thought.

Fine. Add the word "conscious" to that sentence of mine.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Just because one is not aware of something doesn't mean the brain isn't capable of rapidly processing established paradigms and throwing out programmed responses.

Right. It is rapidly processed. Not carefully, consciously thought out.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

The issue, the issue I'm raising, is that the response was autonomic not in that it was against Bush, but that Maher had tried to compare Bush with Ahmadinejad in a rather stupid way --- and the audience went along without realizing what they were agreeing to or comparing.

And, they should all be given the finger, because of this automatic response?

You have never, in your life, laughed at something you later realized was inappropriate to laugh at?

Originally Posted by Just thinking

If they had had half the brains you think them worthy of, they would have immediately realized Maher's comment was totally pointless.

Was it really all that pointless? I mean, Bush does seem to believe that the messiah is gonna be coming back. It was not really that much of a stretch for Bill to say "so does Bush, by the way", when Christopher was talking about Ahmadinejad.

Granted, the context, extent, and consequences, of the belief are different. But if Chris was aiming to contrast the two, he picked a poor example to pop into his list.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Besides, the audience wasn't so much laughing as they were applauding ... which requires a higher level of conscious awareness of what's going on and/or being said.

And, I suspect it really is a similar instinctual process. You will note laughter starts first, immediately followed by applauding. This was hardly time for people to think carefully or consciously about it.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Remember, the issue revolved around who one thinks is trying to start WW-III ... not exactly the opening to a joke.

There are clearly other ways to trigger these types of responses, that do not necessarily require good opening jokes.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

He seemed to know exactly how they respond when someone makes any kind of negative comment about Bush ... be it relevant or utterly foolish.

So would I. Yes, you can predict these sorts of reactions. But, it does not follow that the audience members are stupid, morons, or always complete sheep.

All he has proven is that it is easy to illicit positive reaction when one says something that sounds vaguely anti-Bush. Next thing he will prove is that water is, in fact, very wet!

What if I showed you some videos of an entire room filled with bright, smart people (such as a TAM audience) laughing, with a knee-jerk-like reaction, to a stupid joke (perhaps one made by Phil Plait)? Would all those people suddenly become dummies following a dumb person?

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Life isn't a one-way street. I feel that in this case, they deserved it.

They deserve the finger for laughing at a Bush comment?

But, maybe Hitchens does not really care about the audience, then. Maybe he has no interest in helping them grow intellectually. All he ever set out to do was piss them off. Is that all he wants? Well, mission accomplished.

But, that is not exactly helping them see the light. All it does is drive them further down the hole. And, that makes it that much more difficult for those of us who do care, to bring them out of it.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Ooooo, touchy. It's about autonomic reactions. The word stupid was used to drive home a point --- which it sure did.

If you read my comments, you will have noted that I had already agreed Bill Maher should learn some better jokes. So, I do not see how your saying "You might wish to point your criticisms at Bill Maher" was helpful to the conversation. You could also have said "You might want to write your words in English instead of Swahili".

And, I was also criticizing Hitchens for criticizing the audience the way he did, instead of focusing on Bill.
Perhaps he should have said to Maher: "You should learn to make better comments", instead of "Your audience will laugh at anything". That is where the trouble started.

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

He's not the most intellectual person, no, not by far but his chief problem is inarticulateness rather than stupidity.

He is also a weak in leadership skills and actual decision making. His public policies are not solely the product of his inability to speak well. His administration’s actions have caused real damage, worldwide.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Which I think he would take as a compliment.

And it's why I like him.

Hitchens never uses seven words when ten will do.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I wonder when being a dick became a good quality.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I wonder when being a dick became a good quality.

You'll tell us when you find out, won't you?

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I wonder when being a dick became a good quality.

Being a dick is good for poking fun.

[ServiceSoon]

The very first thing that comes out of Christophers mouth is incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong; Iran's president never said he wanted to, "Wipe Isreal off the face of the earth."

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Fine. Add the word "conscious" to that sentence of mine.
Right. It is rapidly processed. Not carefully, consciously thought out.

And, they should all be given the finger, because of this automatic response?

In the manner Hitchens was presenting ... absolutely. It brought to light (to the audience) their repeated mindless behavior over time. He put up to them a mirror and they didn't like their own reflection. Plus, you are wrong in that he gave them the finger for autonomic reactions ... he gave it to them after their response to his expose of their behavior.

Quote:

You have never, in your life, laughed at something you later realized was inappropriate to laugh at?

I thought I made it clear --- it wasn't laughter so much as it was applause in agreement to a stupid, pointless analogy. If you agree that Maher made a stupid comment, then why are those in agreement with it somehow not stupid? Sorry, but to me a group can act and behave every bit as foolishly as an individual. Unlike soldiers of the Reich, there were no orders for them to follow.

Quote:

Was it really all that pointless? I mean, Bush and Obama and Clinton and Regan and JFK and Carter and millions and millions of others do seem to believe that the messiah is gonna be coming back. It was not really that much of a stretch for Bill to say "so does Bush, by the way", when Christopher was talking about Ahmadinejad.

Fixed it for you ... but somehow I still think you are going to gloss over the big picture here.

Quote:

Granted, the context, extent, and consequences, of the belief are different. But if Chris was aiming to contrast the two, he picked a poor example to pop into his list.

If you're referring to Maher choosing Bush out of all the above, then yes ... I agree.

Quote:

And, I suspect it really is a similar instinctual process. You will note laughter starts first, immediately followed by applauding. This was hardly time for people to think carefully or consciously about it.

Again, I ask what if Maher had chosen Obama as one who believes in the Messiah instead of Bush .... do you really think they would have just laughed and applauded in the same manner? If not, why not? Perhaps they would have had time enough to think?

Quote:

So would I. Yes, you can predict these sorts of reactions. But, it does not follow that the audience members are stupid, morons, or always complete sheep.

See previous comment.

Quote:

What if I showed you some videos of an entire room filled with bright, smart people (such as a TAM audience) laughing, with a knee-jerk-like reaction, to a stupid joke (perhaps one made by Phil Plait)? Would all those people suddenly become dummies following a dumb person?

No ... it's the continuous repetition of such behavior that's being discusses. Let's not try to confuse the issue with one-time events ... hypothetical or not.

Quote:

They deserve the finger for laughing at a Bush comment?

For behaving autonomically over a good period of time. Didn't Hitchens make that clear?

Quote:

But, maybe Hitchens does not really care about the audience, then. Maybe he has no interest in helping them grow intellectually. All he ever set out to do was piss them off. Is that all he wants? Well, mission accomplished.

You can lead a horse to water ...

Besides ... he did NOT just insult the audience ... he dabeted Maher.

Quote:

But, that is not exactly helping them see the light. All it does is drive them further down the hole. And, that makes it that much more difficult for those of us who do care, to bring them out of it.

One point of issue is not the entire spectrum that was talked about. Hitchens had several points to make ... the type of audience present in some of these forums was one of them. Why is this somehow taboo?

Quote:

If you read my comments, you will have noted that I had already agreed Bill Maher should learn some better jokes. So, I do not see how your saying "You might wish to point your criticisms at Bill Maher" was helpful to the conversation. You could also have said "You might want to write your words in English instead of Swahili".

Yet as I keep pointing out, you gloss over some key issues. You excuse a group of the same behavior you criticize of an individual. I do not; a group is nothing more than a number of individuals ... each, if they like, capable of thinking out things as you or I would.

Quote:

And, I was also criticizing Hitchens for criticizing the audience the way he did, instead of focusing on Bill.
Perhaps he should have said to Maher: "You should learn to make better comments", instead of "Your audience will laugh at anything". That is where the trouble started.

He is also a weak in leadership skills and actual decision making. His public policies are not solely the product of his inability to speak well. His administration’s actions have caused real damage, worldwide.

He was focusing on Maher and his audience when making his points because both often play into a synergistic feedback of poor analogies and dogma that help no one.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Unlike soldiers of the Reich, there were no orders for them to follow.

What I'm wondering is how it took us so long (a full 28 posts) to get from a Hitchens appearance on Bill Maher's tv show to 'soldiers of the Reich'.
Come on folks, you're seriously slacking now.

[Just thinking]

Hey ... I left Hitler's name out of it!



(Plus, I think the first word of my comment says something.)

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

...I think it is rather arrogant to go this far.

That quoted text right there can pretty much be applied to practically every argument Hitchens ever makes. Even if he's making a point I agree with or one that is simply a matter of fact or evidence, he approaches with such arrogance as to not only demolish his own argument with the weight of his inflated sense of worth, but also affirming nearly all negative stereotypes made about atheists (among other things).

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

The very first thing that comes out of Christophers mouth is incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong; Iran's president never said he wanted to, "Wipe Isreal off the face of the earth."

This is an issue that goes back and forth ... but for the record regarding the translation, here is one of some significance:

Quote:

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner affirmed that Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner stated: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."

Also ... keep in mind that a) no direct wording exists in the language of Ahmadinejad when it comes to "wiping a country off the face of the world or map", and b) the man is a Holocaust denier.

[anticonspiracy911]

Originally Posted by GreNME

That quoted text right there can pretty much be applied to practically every argument Hitchens ever makes. Even if he's making a point I agree with or one that is simply a matter of fact or evidence, he approaches with such arrogance as to not only demolish his own argument with the weight of his inflated sense of worth, but also affirming nearly all negative stereotypes made about atheists (among other things).

It's fallacious reasoning to discard the truth value of an argument based on the speaker's tone. If for example someone in an arrogant tone said "gravity exists," would you automatically say that person's statement is demolished because of his tone?

[l0k0]

Although Hitchens is overzealous here (as always) he does make a solid point. He was making a fair argument about Iran and it was countered with a Bush joke, which in reality is a pretty weak way to counter a legitimate argument. Unfortunately, in pointing this out, Hitchens one ups their arrogance and insults the entire audience. In the end, Hitchens comes across as just as much of a hypocrite, and it similarly weakens his argument.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by l0k0

Although Hitchens is overzealous here (as always) he does make a solid point. He was making a fair argument about Iran and it was countered with a Bush joke, which in reality is a pretty weak way to counter a legitimate argument. ...

Maher was comparing Bush, who actually did start a war, and who some (did) see as dangerous and some believe to be a fundie with Armadinajad. You can disagree with the comparison, but there was a tad more there than a dismissive joke reply.

I think Maher and Hitchens both cannot break character easily and have an actual exchange of ideas in a discussion. Or perhaps it's just that neither will change their current convictions at the moment.

Maher's reply was knee jerk. A discussion would have been to respond to Hitchen's points, not just say, "Bush is too". Of course, getting a word in edgewise with Hitchens is not always easy.

Hitchens, OTOH, didn't bother discussing Maher's points either. Hitchens simply dismissed Maher's comments and the audience's agreement (clapping) with the stupid Bush joke sidetrack.

Hitchens has said he believes Islamic fundamentalists pose the greatest threat to mankind today. He's extreme in that view. What's interesting is Maher expressed a similar view in the ending to his movie, "Religulous". The only difference is Maher attributes the threat to extreme fundamentalism, not a specific religion whereas Hitchen's believes it is specific to Islamic belief.

I think the fact all three of the JudeoIslamicChristian religious branches have a history of war against each other is evidence Maher's view is closer to reality. The Hindus and the Muslims are simmering against each other in India and Pakistan as well. I wouldn't count that conflict out just yet as a potential focus for the beginning of WWIII.

Currently, Armadinajad may be a a more dangerous political position than any current Christian or Zionist fundie. But between Israel and the Bush administration, Zionists and Christian fundies both have/(had) the potential to influence powerful government leaders which did have political positions capable of starting WWIII. And who can be sure there isn't a Hindu fundie capable of influencing a war between India and Pakistan?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by l0k0

Although Hitchens is overzealous here (as always) he does make a solid point. He was making a fair argument about Iran and it was countered with a Bush joke, which in reality is a pretty weak way to counter a legitimate argument. Unfortunately, in pointing this out, Hitchens one ups their arrogance and insults the entire audience. In the end, Hitchens comes across as just as much of a hypocrite, and it similarly weakens his argument.

Well, hold on here, I think you got the order wrong entirely. However, before I say anything, I will say that I do think that it would have been better, for the discussion, to simply ignore what was said and continue on with the argument he was attempting to make (or point out that, indeed, comparing Bush to the point he was attempting to make was rather silly).

But let's order what occured. First, Hitchens begins to make his argument. Bill Maher tries to interject, although Hitchens insists on getting what he wants to say out before continuing the debate. Then, when there's a pause, Maher comes in with the comparison to Bush.

Hitchens is about to respond, before the entire audience starts cheering and giving a round of applause. Hitchens remarks on this, calling them frivolous, and that they will cheer anything. Then he gets booed by the audience and -- I can only assume, thanks to the insult I heard flung at him later by an audience member -- there was a greater than 0 chance that members of the audience were doing other things to show displeasure, including flicking him off. Though I admit, that's entirely speculation, but it's still a possibility.

Hitchens responds by flicking them off, and without looking at them, throws out the "**** you!", and then continues the debate.

Later on in the show (there's a big cut between the two moments, where they say I-don't-know-what), he takes the moment to insult the audience again, wherein we hear someone shouting at him. Of course, he also takes the pains to call the audience as less intelligent than Bush. That probably was going too far, I think.

[anticonspiracy911]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Hitchens has said he believes Islamic fundamentalists pose the greatest threat to mankind today. He's extreme in that view. kistan?

Hitchens has been really critical of Christianity as well.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by anticonspiracy911

It's fallacious reasoning to discard the truth value of an argument based on the speaker's tone. If for example someone in an arrogant tone said "gravity exists," would you automatically say that person's statement is demolished because of his tone?

Since I was neither making an argument nor making a judgment on the accuracy of his statement, your attribution to my words is poorly chosen at best and apologetics at worst. My comments were on the fact that Hitchens is a notoriously poor communicator and that his communication style can be gratingly inefficient despite parts of his message. Just because a religion generally tells people to 'be good' that doesn't forgive the deceptive or manipulative delivery of couching said message in religious lore.

He could have the formula for the cure for cancer, but if it's delivered in his usual style the chances of him being able to communicate the formula to anyone who could use it would be limited. The amount of BS filtering necessary to get anything useful from his ham-fisted attempts to communicate anything of note is pretty much his rhetorical equivalent of shooting himself in the foot. Whether or not you feel that this doesn't matter is your own opinion based on your personal taste, whereas what I'm saying is that the broader consensus of opinions about his (and, yes, Maher's) communication style does indeed hamper his efficacy.

Criticizing his incredibly flawed (and niche) communication technique isn't a fallacy.

Originally Posted by anticonspiracy911

Hitchens has been really critical of Christianity as well.

Not even in the same ballpark of similar to his statements about Islam (same zip code, maybe). He clearly toes a politically conservative line on this matter. He's not apologetic about that for himself, so there's really no need for you to be for him.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Just thinking

In the manner Hitchens was presenting ... absolutely. It brought to light (to the audience) their repeated mindless behavior over time. He put up to them a mirror and they didn't like their own reflection. Plus, you are wrong in that he gave them the finger for autonomic reactions ... he gave it to them after their response to his expose of their behavior.

You don't enlighten someone by giving them the finger.

I doubt the audience saw Hitchens making that point. All they saw was themselves getting insulted. Thrice.

If one wants to bring to light the mindless behavior of another, there are more effective means of doing that.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

it wasn't laughter so much as it was applause in agreement to a stupid, pointless analogy.

It was still a knee-jerk reaction from the audience. Easy to achieve with the word "Bush".

Originally Posted by Just thinking

If you agree that Maher made a stupid comment, then why are those in agreement with it somehow not stupid?

Because there is insufficient evidence to judge if they really would be in agreement, after more time to think things through, and because there is insufficient evidence that even those who would genuinely agree are stupid: Maybe they would agree for intelligent reasons.

And, besides, even if (for argument sake) you could prove everyone applauding was a mindless sheep: It is not wise to react to that situation by insulting them. If you want them to rise above their stupidity, you have to be diplomatic and encouraging.
Hitchens was just arrogant and insulting. And, that attitude does make the situation worse, certainly not better.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Again, I ask what if Maher had chosen Obama as one who believes in the Messiah instead of Bush .... do you really think they would have just laughed and applauded in the same manner? If not, why not?

Because Obama does not have the silly reputation that Bush does. (at least, not yet.)

Originally Posted by Just thinking

No ... it's the continuous repetition of such behavior that's being discusses. Let's not try to confuse the issue with one-time events

What if I had video evidence of multiple times the TAM crowd laughed at stupid comments?

And, it is not hypothetical. I have all the TAM DVDs from number 3 and up. If you really want me to produce an edit of such moments, I might find the time to do it.

One example, I can show you, right away, is at the very end of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMD4QSkMgyw
At 1:52, Phil Plait says, in response to my act, "Nice to see Tom Cruise showing up to one of these meetings".

What if I responded by saying: "This crowd will laugh at any Tom Cruise comment! You know, I think Tom Cruise jokes have become the jokes that stupid skeptics laugh at."?

Of course, I would NOT really say that. But, what if I did? How was Hitchens' reaction any better than that response?

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Besides ... he did NOT just insult the audience ... he dabeted Maher.

And, part of my point, is that he probably lost the debate, in the eyes of the audience.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Hitchens had several points to make ... the type of audience present in some of these forums was one of them. Why is this somehow taboo?

I am not saying it was taboo. I was saying that there are better ways to make that particular point. Ways that would not, for example, piss off the actual audience you were trying to make the point about.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

You excuse a group of the same behavior you criticize of an individual.

First of all: In this case, it was not the same behavior. There is a subtle, but important, psychological difference between making a comment, and reacting to a comment.

Second of all, I was not excusing the audiences' behavior (weather it was the "same" or not). I was trying to point out that there are better ways of addressing said behavior, that does not resort to insulting them.

Maybe it's just the Humanist in me, but I can't see how one expects to win a debate by insulting the whole crowd of people.

Originally Posted by Just thinking

He was focusing on Maher and his audience when making his points because both often play into a synergistic feedback of poor analogies and dogma that help no one.

And, I suppose giving the finger to the lot of them was supposed to help everyone?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by anticonspiracy911

Hitchens has been really critical of Christianity as well.

At TAM 5 Hitchens' talk was about Islam's goal of wiping out the infidels. Hitchens made a point of there being no way to interpret Islam any other way while with other religions there was.