Tfw no hitch to destroy the regressive left for their idiotic love for islamofascism

>tfw no hitch to destroy the regressive left for their idiotic love for islamofascism

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PtnuoLSw_ns
youtube.com/watch?v=dOOQ1ZCeMY4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I've also had this thought. Whether you liked him or hated him that man had a way with words

milo is the reincarnation

Just had a Johnnie Walker Black in his honor when it was his bday. What a based, literate bro.

He was such an articulate and charismatic man. But Peter's great too. Really the only reason he isn't as popular as Christopher, is his religious fanaticism.

One of the only atheist (((leaders))) to not be complete shit.
t. atheist

Carlin and Hitch die. Left turns to shit.

What do you think about Dawkins?

The regressive left had a surge in popularity right after his death. Now look at where we're at. Things might have gone differently if he were still around to keep the regressive left in check.

Dawkins and Harris are good but Dawkins isn't as forceful and Harris isn't as well known.

Can't stand Dawkins. He strikes me a really nasty, arrogant, hateful fellow.

I don't see Dawkins as hateful, it's just that the Hitch was so charismatic he seems abrasive by comparison. Although Dawkins wanted the EU referendum result cancelled as he though the public were too stupid to make such a decision, so fuck him.

Christopher was a social and charismatic author and on the other hand Dawkins is a cold and systematic scientist. Listening to Hitchens debate or discuss certainly was more pleasant, because his personality was more equipped for performance. Apparently he was also very keen on debating in his youth, so that must've helped.

I don't know about Harris, he reminds me of Bill Maher.

Christ youre stupid

It makes me so cheerful to see Peter smile.
It's like a glimpse into the happiness still clinging to his battered soul.

Nah, he'd get cucked for being a str8 FUCKING WHITE MALE.
Where's Dawkins now?

Hitchens would have abhorred Trump.

>He was such an articulate
Everyone says this, but it's just not the case.

Hitchens was good at arguing, not very good at debating. Any time he had to diverge from a script or was unable to make snide remarks he was a lot less imposing.
Check out his debate with WLC if you can stand it. WLC pushed some of the most easily debunked arguments for God (Aquinas) and Hitch just got flustered.

Harris is much more reasoned and probably much better educated than Hitchens was, but he lacks the charisma to be that useful. Also, he's only interested in Islam and doesn't say much else of substance on political subjects.

Dawkins is just an evolutionary biologist. He can run rings around people in the realms of science and debunk any argument against evolution but just comes across as an angsty teen outside of that arena.

Yeah, we most definitely could need some of the hitch-wit atm

We still have his brother but British media have swept him off to the side as some sort of crazy religious nut.

Imagine if the Hitch brothers teamed up against the onslaught of Islam and Islamophilia

I would love to hear what he would have thought about Trump vs Clinton and the current goings on on the Korean peninsula too.

>gets completely annihilated by WLC
are atheists even trying?

Yes, but he was a degenerate Marxist who hated Western white civilization. I guarantee you he'd be supporting BLM.

daily reminder he was a trotskyite jew supremacist turned neocon

he is terrible

Christopher Hitchens was literally Satan

Milo is a performer, a faggot, and clueless.

>assuming anyone could ever cuck the hitchslap

He died of cancer, proving the only person that could cuck Richard was Richard himself

>Some of the most easily debunked arguments for god

Probably thought he was wasting his time if easy shit was brought up to debate. When I'm giving a class on military bridges and a student asks how "the bridge stays up", I'm not gonna have an answer for the retard.

I dunno, he just seemed lost and it seemed he didn't understand some of the terminology.
Granted, it's philosophical and a priori so Hitchens didn't really have much need to debunk it either way, but it still didn't look good.

Hey guys, here's a joke. You see, the universe came from nothing and everything developed out of random chance but here's the catch, I'll prove this while pretending to use science and logical reasoning which can only exist in a deterministic universe in which randomness is literally impossible but I'll make snarky remarks while doing so so that the low IQ atheists won't realize the fundamental contradiction in my pseudo intellectual (((logic))). Hahaha, but don't tell anyone! Oh, and god doesn't exist! Now let me prove that by refuting a very specific religion because god(the premise) can be refuted by refuting the deduction(religion), haha, I mean, it's not like atheists have functioning brains to realize how stupid that is right? Hehe.

>Hitchens was good at arguing, not very good at debating

This is abject nonsense.

>Check out his debate with WLC if you can stand it

Yeah, only because WLC uses the gish-gallop 'debating technique' to frustrate opponents. It is highly disrespectful because it throws so much information at your opponent they can never fully answer back with a satisfying reply. When in a debate, it's about winning the audience to your position - if you never appear to fully answer the opponent, many will assume you 'lost''. Shame on WLC.

>Harris is much more reasoned and probably much better educated than Hitchens was

Harris being a neuroscientist makes him highly educated in one field only - neuroscience. Hitchins was so well read and also had a prodigious memory - probably eidetic capability. Facts and statistics rolled out of him with ease when in a debate he knew the other person's position better than them due to this. Harris on the other hand completely folded when faced with Noam Chomsky - it wasn't even funny how limp he is intellectually.

>Dawkins is just an evolutionary biologist
>just comes across as an angsty teen outside of that arena

This tells me all I need to know about you.

He's repeating what Bill Maher said about Milo

You completely misunderstood almost everything I said, but you're entitled to your opinion friendo.

Sorry, no. You don't get to accuse me of misunderstanding your simple opinion as I don't give you permission to accuse me of such. It's more like you chose not to counter what I said but instead resort to nothing more than a fallacy. Very lazy actually. Lazy thinker.

Cheerio.

Harris is nothing like Maher.

Maher barely scratches the surface on arguments and often resorts to ad hominem.

Harris is very measured and calm and typically gets very deep into arguments.

youtube.com/watch?v=PtnuoLSw_ns

Hitchens would have been great to have around at the moment. He was one of the few atheist intellectuals to attack Islam with the same vigour he attacked Christianity.

Hated Hillary and Bill before it became fashionable and lost a lot of allies on the left when he wrote a book that exposed their lies.

May not have been /ourguy/ through and through but his intellectual honesty makes pol view him very similarly to how they view Ben Shapiro, with grudging admiration.

I don't have time to justify my opinions to someone who clearly just has a hard-on for intellectuals.

Douglas Murray is one of the best rational minds of Britain right now, He's a raging homo, but still on point.

youtube.com/watch?v=dOOQ1ZCeMY4

He was basically a conservative at the end of his life. A few more years and he would have been there.
He would have hated Trump, but I reckon he would have attacked Hillary far more.

"Everyone says this, but it's just not the case."
-user G3me6i+R, 2017

putting this on my wall holy fuck the hitch has been well and truly ditched

>his intellectual honesty
Really? Can't say I've really watched an awful lot of Hitchens, but from some of the little I have seen he was often just being obnoxiously aggressive towards people with a faith.

Saying you don't believe and think faith should be kept out of certain areas, sure.
The mocking of people who have faith or downright ludicrous notion that anything faith touches is poisonous is absolutely asinine, I don't know HOW he can pretend religion hasn't had a positive influence even if you limit it to the arts / music and give humanity the benefit of the doubt and imagine Western civilization could have reached the moral codes it has without it's christian background.

He's definitely better than Dawkins, but still seems, ironically, too fanatical and devoted to atheism for his own good.

>yfw you stop and realize that Christopher hitchens is burning in hell and but for the grace of God you would be headed there as well

>obnoxiously aggressive towards people with a faith

He did this purposefully. He felt strongly about child rape and indoctrination that takes place in all churches, and attacked those responsible: people that look the other way.

>believing in god in the current year

You can't. You're just lazy and shit with presenting information and debate.

>mfw won't burn in hell because it's not real

feels good man