Know Your Enemy
patreon
BONUS: Sympathy For The Hitch
🕑 Added 2020-01-30 18:34:03 +0000 UTCMatt and Sam break out the good stuff for a late-night, in-depth discussion of Christopher Hitchens, the hot-take economy, and how to be a person. (There's a few minutes of Democratic Primary shoptalk in the beginning; you've been warned.) We apologize for any discernible decline in the quality of Sam's insights or enunciation toward the end of the episode (see: the good stuff).
Readings:
George Packer, "The Enemies of Writing," The Atlantic, Jan 23, 2020
George Packer, "When the Culture War Comes for the Kids," The Atlantic, Oct 2019
Christopher Hitchens, "Booze and Fags," LRB, March 1992
Christopher Hitches, "Philip Larkin, the Impossible Man," The Atlantic, May 2011
George Scialabba, "Farewell, Hitch," N+1, Winter 2005
Sam Adler-Bell, "Unpopular Opinions Suck Ass," The Outline, Dec 30, 2019
Osita Nwanevu, "The Enemies of Truth," The New Republic, Jan 27, 2020
Benjamin Kunkel, "Hitch," N+1, Dec 19, 2011
And ICYMI, here are Sam's much-despised articles on Bernie/Warren unity one and two.
Comments
Killer300
Something that would be cool to expand on from this episode would be an episode about how our prior political beliefs impact every ideology we have in the future. For example, how Neo-Conservatives carry over a lot of Marxist beliefs into conservatism, even though they are no longer Marxist themselves. I suspect there are versions of this with other figures, and I know I've experienced this myself(used to be a tankie), and how our prior ideologies influence our present.
Know Your Enemy
It's a tough question. Maybe I was unfair to Packer wrt that essay; there's a lot to untangle. I'll have to think about it more. Thanks for listening and for the thoughtful comment! - Sam
Benedict Wright
Really great episode, but it left me with a question. As someone who read and liked Packer's essay back in October, I'm struggling to see how he (or anyone) could have been immune to Sam's criticism. I certainly agree that it is better to assert something genuinely thoughtful than to pander to a crowd of anti-SJWs or whatever. However, isn't anything written with the hopes of being read in some sense pandering or trying to engage an audience? I thought Packer's essay was conveying his concern for his children's education and his hesitance to embrace certain ideologies about the ends of education. On one level, of course he is pandering to people who are similarly hesitant to embrace those ideologies (how could he not?). Although, on another level, I think his essay can be read as being at bottom positive rather than polemical. Is there any way to know the difference?
Eleanor McConnell
Matt: It was never going to hurt *Bernie*. I continue to be disappointed in your stance on this. Sam: thank you for those articles. They helped my will-to-live.
Joel
Loved this ep (as someone not super familiar with Hitchens' work). Thanks for the thoughtful discussion guys!
