He's one of a few that i really admire because he can be strong in his opinions but still tell you "think for yourself". George Carlin is another that left that impression on me.
@@HailHeidi what a wealth of wisdom you have in front of you on this journey of discovery - happy travels btw - check out 'a man for all seasons' it's brilliant
@@emultra759 ... says the guy with the sign of the "Umbrella corporation", an organization interested in ruling the world by turning "lesser" people into zombies....
Hitchens is well worth anyone's time. Many conservatives challenged him to debates and he happily accepted most of them, had them recorded and then thoroughly trounced one after another. The man had his faults, to be sure, but his knowledge and debating skills were about as good as you ever get. I miss him.
While I understand the important point that Hitch was making, I think a more thoughtful version of the quote would go something like this; Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus that isn't backed by a valid epistemology. It's important to state that consensus isn't always bad and due diligence is a must. A great example of a valid epistemological approach that makes use of consensus would be the scientific method, which has generated literally hundreds of trillions of dollars for the world economy in the last century and helped to alleviate a tremendous amount of suffering in the world, sans nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, almost everything in the domain of science is a double-edged sword. That being said, a valid epistemology coupled with consensus is humanity's best tool for achieving objective truth and understanding. It doesn't get any better than that.
@@Steven-bs5hv I'd agree with that. Addtionally, I don't think his comment is actually so much about consesus itself, but the refuge you may take in it. You still need justifications for your belief, you can't just outsource your brain :)
There is a difference between consensus among people and consensus among the data or the theories. This is a mistake many have when hearing about scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is not a consensus among the scientists (though they may and likely do agree). Scientific consensus is consensus among the science, the data, the theories; the recorded observations agree with each other, regardless of which people accept those facts.
@@Steven-bs5hv You're kind of missing the point the point then. Don't worry, it's common for science worshipers to begin to defend their religion when they feel threatened, it's actually basic psychology of self preservation. The thing is, we're not saying that science isn't working and isn't contributing anything, it obviously is. But there is another dark side to science beyond just nuclear bombs and wast networks of misinformation and censorship. And that is the highly materialistic culture it cultivates which actively tries to devalue anything not scientific. While doing this they often forget that a great deal of the human experience is not scientific. No subjective experience is scientific, it can not be measured or even adequately explained using science. So anything that relates to subjective experience, such as art, aesthetics, story telling, symbolism, philosophy, morality and ethics, and so on are being thrown out with the bathwater. Trough the rise of science these things that constitute maybe the majority of human experience are being relegated to entertainment and novelty, and the damage this is doing to the human psyche and society at large is immense. And here is where the problem of the average science worshiper comes in, because instead of asking themselves how to bring these things back, their minds will immediately go to, how do we make these things scientific and capture them under our umbrella. And many if not most of them are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that maybe they can't, maybe science is not suitable to study more than a small part of the reality we find ourselves in, and that it's not as significant as our recent success with it has led us to believe.
He unfortunately backed Bush's war without evidence. He fell for the propaganda. He wasn't stupid, but he let his bias rule his thoughts. We all make mistakes!
You get a taste here of the stunning levels of his oratory skill. He usually had short notes for addresses like this to cover the points he wanted to make but the WAY he made them was endlessly creative and fluid. Probably the most eloquent public speaker I've ever heard.
Eh, it would be tough for him now. His loyalties would be tested. I know he made brave noises about taking on Islam back in the day, but, the fact is, the west was pretty safe from that. The current threats to the west are far more serious.
A great friend indeed, who would hide you in his attic, himself in considerable danger of crazed zealots on their clerically approved, state-sponsored fatwa. I'm only happy that Hitchens didn't have to see his friend Rushdie brutally attacked and permanently disfigured speaking from a stage in a bastion of American free thinking.
@@ChrisM-ve6qc oh, I have,- be it’s glorious. But Matt lacks that certain type of upper-English gentlemanly biting sting that Hitchens had, and that I think could expertly have eviscerated Peterson with ease
Dearest Heidi, this is a wonderful example of the depths of Hitch’s thinking. I reiterate my suggestion to watch Hitch vs Sharpton, Hitch vs Ramadan and add Hitch vs Wolpe.
Also not to forget, getting rid of hatespeech doesn't get rid of hate, all it does is hide the symptoms instead of trying to fix the actual issue (which is impossible but still worthwile trying to do).
@@matsjonsson1704 He was - until he supported Bush and Blair in a war without evidence. It's a huge blot on his legacy. Goes to show that we all make mistakes.
@@winnywin yes , l could never be reconciled to his support of Dubya and the unjustified second Gulf war , and the total destabilising of the Middle East . V Disappointed.
I didn't know I needed a reaction channel reacting to extremely intelligent people speaking publicly and elegantly about very important things, but now that I type that out it makes a kind of sense... and thanks for doing these. The more people that hear Hitchens and Fry the better.
Questioning other's beliefs seem to come easy to us, while questioning our own beliefs seem harder. Think about it like trying to swim with the current or against it. It is easy to go with what you know and drift down stream.
I've been enjoying your content on free speech quite a lot. Hitchens and Richard Fry have been personal heroes for years - it's truly nice to see your process of discovering them and offering your thoughts and perspectives on what they have to say. We need their messages more desperately than ever today.
I've born and raised in a WarPac country. In my childhood the ongoing kójoke was: Q:"What is the difference in freedom of speech in the SU and the US? " A:"in the US you are still free after the speech"
It isn’t people’s right to say want they want, i.e. free speech, that concerns me, it’s people’s apparent inability to critically evaluate what’s being said and assess its truth and validity.
Why should it not be a person's right to express nearly any point of view? It's whether that opinion has any merit which will determine if what they say, stands or falls.
@@sandgrownun66 I agree, that's what I said. I'm not concerned about a persons right to say what they want, it people's inability to critically evaluate what's said that disturbes me, as they can end up believing and repeating complete bullsh*t .
@@waynejones1054 Well, there's not much you can do about ignorance. There will always be a group who'll believe anything they're told. Is there any cure for this?
@@sandgrownun66 Including how to evaluate information and think critically about what you're expected to accept and believe in our education systems. I agree, this wont work 100% of the time though, none of us are infallible!
@@sandgrownun66 except nearly ANY point of view undoubtedly falls into that view has no merit at all and has no value in being expressed. Not every view needs to be entertained as equal. I think you can summon several things that are a point of view that have 0 merit and not worth entertaining in the slightest.
Hi HailHeidi, the first time I wathed your video was year and a half ago, and I see how you are growing up in your way of thinking. Curiosity is a the thing that brings the TRUTH, keep doing it Congrats!
I love that hitch is still influencing new people, he had such a wonderful way with words and supremely logical mind. I found him at 16 and 20 years later I never tire of re-listening or re-reading his work. Enjoy and keep the hitch flame burning. Yes, read his book. It's available in audio form as with many of his books. You'll love it and even if you don't agree with all of it he will get you in a ponderous mood. Nice reaction, clicked subscribe to see your journey with these great minds.
You should check out the video "The Best of the Hitchslap". "Hitchslap" was what we called it when Christopher made a particularly witty comeback or put down on an opponent.
This is my second time watching this particular video; it’s even better than the first time, and I still agree that there are a number of people who need to hear it!
It is so very cool that you are critiquing Hitchens. I think he would’ve enjoyed your videos. Look forward to watching many more of your videos on a variety of subjects. I think the Hitchens video probably was late 90s or around 2000. he has very interesting ideas. I was particularly interested in his reasoning for listening to others opinions. If we all had that mentality, the whole paradigm of Facebook us against them would change it would be fascinating to watch that.
I'm a bit older than you and I find fascinating watching you discovering Hitch and Fry and Carlin etc. and I feel transported 15 years into the past. I can't listen Hitchens without teary eyes (he died in 2011) and in today's times when sometimes seems to me that everybody lost their minds, you are really a breath of fresh air! (BTW I highly recommend Hitch on "mother" Theresa) Stay cool! 😉
I’d be interested to see you react to “Hitchens: Why Fight Religion?” where he answers a question from an audience member and gives a completely off the cuff fiery answer. I remember seeing it when I was 20 (37 now) and it challenged a lot of beliefs I’d grown up around. It was one of the first times I’d seen someone aggressively challenge religion. That stuck with me as being one of the key moments in my life where I realized that it was okay to not believe these things.
Im happy that someone else got the pleasure of hearing Hitch. His eloquent way of saying things that most people cant has a way of making people at least question there long held beliefs. This is the beginning of new discovery and reason
Sorry for commenting multiple times, but watching your journey reminds me of what I went through like 20yrs ago. It was so hard, so confusing...also grew up in a group that did ostracizing. Never even thought of doing a YT channel on it--that takes a lot of courage. Loving these videos!
It's fantastic that you are putting these great people and their work up on your platform. I'm a huge Hitchens fan and Fry. We lost a great man when Hitch passed away and he would have been a great voice of reason in todays troubles. Heidi...stay cool 🇬🇧
I am LOVING your Hitchens journey. He and Stephen Fry are among my favourite human beings. I miss him so much. Thanks… Don’t miss out on the Best of the Hitchslap. 💙🥂
Two points for the sake of keeping the record straight, as I'm sure Hitchens would endorse (even great men make mistakes from time to time): 1. The case that Oliver Wendell Holmes' supreme court was ruling on was not about protesting the war per se, but rather encouraging draft dodging/resistance. Some may see this as a distinction without a moral difference, but technically the charge involved encouraging people to break the law rather than merely publicly expressing an unpatriotic/heretical opinion. 2. The line from 'A Man for All Seasons' isn't spoken in the context that Hitchens describes, although it might have been more effective if it was. The line was not spoken to the prosecutor (whose willingness to bend/break the law to appease King Henry VIII ultimately failed to earn him clemency, and he was subsequently beheaded), but to Thomas More's son-in-law, who was urging him to (illegally) use his own power to muzzle an unscrupulous man in his circle who was willing to falsely incriminate Thomas More for personal gain. Ironically More's refusal to do so resulted in his own execution, and the man his son-in-law had warned him against committed perjury in order to secure his conviction, for which the man received a hefty promotion, and never any comeuppance.
I dearly miss Christopher. He had a remarkable intellect and an amazing life. I highly recommend his autobiography. I do not believe there is another orator of his caliber alive today.
Great reaction! Yeah, Hitchens says it all best. I think I've seen everything he's in on video and am looking forward to seeing you react to it also. There are many, very long, religious debates he's done - which are very fun to warch. Might be too long for you to make reactions of, but... if you do - I'd watch it.
I'd just like to point out how much you have grown and learned over your journey. I've seen you go from a confused, ignorant (in the correct usage of the word) girl into a thoughtful woman over these many months, and it's refreshing. Well done.
To set the record straight: Well David Irving who Hitchens mentioned claimes that Hitler didn´t have anything to do with the Holocaust and additionally claims that the gas chambers in the concentration camps like Ausschwitz, Treblinka, Mauthausen didn´t even exist at all. Well such a claim publicly outspoken on Austrian soil is a felony/illegal, that´s why he got arrested in 2005 as he set foot on Austria soil because he was already accused for that as he did lectures in Austria years before but he then didn´t show up to his trail.. So as he returned to Austria years later in order to give a lecture again he got obviously a pre-trail detention for few months till to his trail date (as like in every other country as well, if you don´t show up to your trail) but he didn´t got imprisoned after his conviction but instead got deported to the UK as a free man but he is not allowed to set his foot on Austrian soil again for the rest of his life.. Holocaust denialism is not "a question of opinion or free speech" in Austria but is an actual "act of re-engagment of Nazi activities" and that is a crime/illegal in Austria since the end of WW2 for a reason.... By the way that is a law which was ratified by the 4 occupying powers USA, UK, France + Russia during the 10 years of occupation of Austria between 1945-1955 (but not only in Austria but also in Germany by the way the 4 occupation powers ratified the "re-engagement of Nazi activities" law as well = "denying the Holocaust" or "glorifying Hitler in any way" is a crime/illegal and it is not a question of "free speech or opinion") and that law is in Austria + Germany still in place for a reason. And Irving knew that beforehand very well and came back to Austria anyway although knowing that there was a arrest warrent for not showing up to trail waiting for him = just as marketing strategy by seeking world wide attention due to his detention in order to sell his at that time new book. Well Hitchens is undoubtable well spoken, and many things he said during his countless lectures were and are totally right, but some things are also simply utter nonsense = simply because he is here accusing a law in Austria preventing "free speech" which his own home country = post war UK in collaboration with the other 3 allies have installed in Austria solely in order to prevent a return of the Nazis..
There in lies your problem. You state the countries' ( governments) as the rule against speech. Government censors anything at will, and especially anything to do with little hats. Here is a thing, my daughter was studying history at school. On the holocaust , one camp had 300k chews killed as stated in her history book. But I was wary as it was a small camp ( I don't remember the name) and when I read the addendum at the back of the book it was amended to say 30k. Once I had broadband, I looked up the camp, around 2004/5 the epitaph stone read around 3k died........ I'm no holocaust denier, but when a law is made to " not ask or question the narrative " it throws out " LIES "
Anyone with half a brain cell knows Hitler was a figure used as an escape goat for the things the REAL evil people organised. Just like bin laden. Sadam hussein. None of these people have a trace. They were magically gone. No body ever buried. It's a joke. The people who created money are the same ones who start every single war, fund whatever side they want and set the laws
You are saying David Irving returned to Austria as a marketing strategy, which is something you couldn't possibly know. How do you know what his reasons were?
@@robertschatz7781 1. He came back to Austria already knowing that he will face pre-trail detention for not showing up in court for many years (that by the way is a common procedure in every nation of law in the entire world = so he has to know) direct after releasing his - at that time - new book - while - all the years before where he wrote nothing (you can argue therefore he had plenty of time) he didn´t show up in order to get over it.. 2. Knowing that this act = "British historian got arrested after setting foot on Austrian soil" will be headline in all British News outlets which obviously means publicity. How could it not. Are you good in math? The result of 1+1 = ? Or in other words: If somethings looks exactly like a duck and sounds exactly like a duck then it is very likely with high percentage odds a duck.
I always want people to have the freedom to say what I don't agree with or what offends me. 1% of the time, I receive new information that makes me change my mind and I learn something. The other 99% of the time, I am pleased that an enemy has called himself out as such, that someone was brave enough to out himself as an idiot or a bigot or a charlatan. I learn something useful in those cases too.
So glad I ran across your reaction videos because I’ve often wondered how someone who was unaware of Hitchens would react. I’m pretty sure I’ve watched all his debates and many several times and have learned so much. No way could I get any of my Christian family members to set through it
In Memory of Christopher Hitchens, I’ll point out the weakest part of his argument. Whilst no one person may be the arbiter of appropriate speech, this does not mean everyone is free to say whatever they want to whomever they want without consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. This could mean losing friends or public support, for example. Also, if your speech is meant to harass, intimidate, or harm-governments have a right to protect its people and thus may consider these actions criminal (e.g., hate speech, sexual harassment).
My brain gets bigger every time I hear Christopher Hitchens, I hadn't heard that idea before that if you deny someone their right to speak you deny yourself your right to hear what they have to say that is very interesting.
The greatest orator i have ever heard , not a single person have i ever heard speak English the way Hitchens spoke English. I weep for our worlds loss of this man and his powerful intellect.
I've learned so much by arguing with people. I research things regularly just to make sure I'm believing something that's at least based on some kind of evidence.
19:00 the internet and especially social media is full of knee jerk reactions from people but Twitter is next level. The number of people doom scrolling while sitting on the toilet though, there's more thought, time and consideration going into wiping their butts when they're done than what they typed and threw out into the world.
Also his book called “god is not great” is one to look up it’s a very fascinating read.theres so many debates to watch also, His speeches are brilliant to watch.
I'd second this recommendation... and also recommend his autobiography, Hitch 22. He had a rather remarkable career as a journalist, and had a lot of great stories to tell.
I’ve greatly enjoyed the debate subtitled religion “poison or cure.” he’s good friends with the person he’s competing against and they have some wonderful back and forths
Find the discussion between Jordan Peterson and Steven Fry. I found it quite interesting. Fry and Peterosn both admire literature and narrative and its power, but Fry cuts through a lot of Petersons Fluff, and it's a good listen.
The nearest equivalent to Christopher Hitchens (apart from his brother Peter who is very similar in voice and power of captivation) is Douglas Murray. Murray's trains of throught are similarly cogent and broader in social context. Murray has written a range of brilliant books.
Hitch is the GOAT. There is one audio I like to suggest (not from Hitch). Bertrand Russel, "Why I am not a christian". A lecture from 1927. This was my bedtime story for years. Just put my headphones on and listen.
Hitch made a lot of us smarter, and also maybe a tad envious of his huge intellect and Oxford education. As pretentious and high-spoken as he can be you can always feel from him that he would enjoy sharing a drink and a laugh with you, however 'common' you might be, for he kept his eye on the real purpose of thought and words: To make the world better for everyone.
Nice video, Heidi. It's fantastic that a young person is listening and trying to understand the great man. I am an admirer of CH's brain and completely stand with him on his view of religion. I am, though, slightly confused with him, focusing so heavily on religion in this context of free speech. It sounds like he is being supportive of free speech, ie. Anyone should be allowed to say anything in order not to deny anyone the opportunity to listen to any opinion. But at the same time, quite rightly blame some of the religious scriptures that are taken as sacrosanct by so many, as the root cause of fundamentalist destruction and genocide. So, is he supportive of religious fundamentalists using their right of free speech to poison childrens minds? I am not sure. Can anyone advise me? Thank you.
Hitchens believed in the writer's philosophy of George Orwell; Hitchens might come off as a very complicated writer but his books are very easy to read. I highly recommend "G d is not great" there's a reason why it was necessary, especially at the time but do it... ebook or something... it's crazy good
Regarding what you said about people saying "You just don't understand," Hitchens' razor states, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
When I had free time to extend my non belief in religion. I found other atheists online talking about completely getting rid of religion and any aspect of religion from the thoughts to the history. Then I started reading and watching more scientific content and I came across Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He explained in a great video about the Julian and Gregorian calendars and discussed with Chuck Nice about how the Gregorian calendar came to be and who was behind the design of it. It was jesuit Catholic priests whom devised the most accurate calendar to date and we still use it today. Neil would in later videos say he still uses AD/BC and not BCE/CE. Just because they are tied with religion doesn’t mean they are bad or you shouldn’t use something that is smart and well devised. I don’t call myself an atheist because in science we don’t have conclusive evidence that God doesn’t exist. I am an agnostic atheist who knows religion is a needed philosophy to a lot of people. Just don’t try to use that religion to make policies in government.
I 100% agree with you about not knowing. Some people (both theists and atheists) seem to think that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, which they aren't. Atheism is the disbelief of any God(s) whether its because of lack of evidence or something else, and agnosticism is about not knowing if there is any God(s). *Any* honest person whether theist or atheist would say they are agnostic because we don't know and we (currently) can't know about the supernatural.
Heidi asked when and where this event occurred, so here is the answer. This debate, which included other people, occurred at Hart House at the University of Toronto in November 2006. The debaters debated this motion: “Be it resolved: freedom of speech Includes the freedom to hate.” Hitchens argued for the motion. Not long afterward, TVO (TV Ontario) broadcast Hitchens's remarks to Ontarians. I don't know where the other debaters' remarks are. Incidentally, when I was a student at U. of T. in the early 1980s, I visited Hart House several times. I got the impression that the architect wanted the room to look like an English baronial hall, but it really does look like the Hogwarts dining room.
If you are interested in good atheist/explaining religious beliefs, I highly recommend Matt Dillahunty (has a huge library of videos on YT under his name with his project "atheist debates". Also Dan Baker. Both were pastors once and became freethinkers. Both are great speakers and best in lecture and debate. Might be super interesting for you as an ex-mormon.
How exciting it would've been to have had Hitch as a history or social studies teacher in high school. I may have actually cared and learned something.
Hitch meant as much to me in my personal growth as my own father did. I miss this man so much.
Similar to me
We need him now more than ever...
He was a war mongering scum bag. He defended torture and justified deaths of a million Iraqi civilians at the hands of terrorist NATO army.
Me too, it really sucks that he died on my birthday. 😞
I love Christopher Hitchens so much that I refuse to ever refer to him as Chris
He's one of a few that i really admire because he can be strong in his opinions but still tell you "think for yourself". George Carlin is another that left that impression on me.
None of us had any idea this would turn into HitchHeidi, but here we happily are!
@@MantisEnergy 🤣💜
Now we are all sons of Hitches.
@@emultra759 HA
@@HailHeidi what a wealth of wisdom you have in front of you on this journey of discovery - happy travels
btw - check out 'a man for all seasons' it's brilliant
@@emultra759 ... says the guy with the sign of the "Umbrella corporation", an organization interested in ruling the world by turning "lesser" people into zombies....
Hitchens is well worth anyone's time. Many conservatives challenged him to debates and he happily accepted most of them, had them recorded and then thoroughly trounced one after another. The man had his faults, to be sure, but his knowledge and debating skills were about as good as you ever get. I miss him.
The only thing I love more than Hitchens is people being introduced to Hitchens. Keep these up, I love them😊
i never thought about it but fuck yesss!!!
@@EvilSean62 Me neither, but yes!
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus". Words to live by.
While I understand the important point that Hitch was making, I think a more thoughtful version of the quote would go something like this; Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus that isn't backed by a valid epistemology. It's important to state that consensus isn't always bad and due diligence is a must. A great example of a valid epistemological approach that makes use of consensus would be the scientific method, which has generated literally hundreds of trillions of dollars for the world economy in the last century and helped to alleviate a tremendous amount of suffering in the world, sans nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, almost everything in the domain of science is a double-edged sword. That being said, a valid epistemology coupled with consensus is humanity's best tool for achieving objective truth and understanding. It doesn't get any better than that.
@@Steven-bs5hv I'd agree with that. Addtionally, I don't think his comment is actually so much about consesus itself, but the refuge you may take in it. You still need justifications for your belief, you can't just outsource your brain :)
There is a difference between consensus among people and consensus among the data or the theories. This is a mistake many have when hearing about scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus is not a consensus among the scientists (though they may and likely do agree). Scientific consensus is consensus among the science, the data, the theories; the recorded observations agree with each other, regardless of which people accept those facts.
@@Steven-bs5hv You're kind of missing the point the point then. Don't worry, it's common for science worshipers to begin to defend their religion when they feel threatened, it's actually basic psychology of self preservation. The thing is, we're not saying that science isn't working and isn't contributing anything, it obviously is. But there is another dark side to science beyond just nuclear bombs and wast networks of misinformation and censorship. And that is the highly materialistic culture it cultivates which actively tries to devalue anything not scientific. While doing this they often forget that a great deal of the human experience is not scientific. No subjective experience is scientific, it can not be measured or even adequately explained using science. So anything that relates to subjective experience, such as art, aesthetics, story telling, symbolism, philosophy, morality and ethics, and so on are being thrown out with the bathwater. Trough the rise of science these things that constitute maybe the majority of human experience are being relegated to entertainment and novelty, and the damage this is doing to the human psyche and society at large is immense. And here is where the problem of the average science worshiper comes in, because instead of asking themselves how to bring these things back, their minds will immediately go to, how do we make these things scientific and capture them under our umbrella. And many if not most of them are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that maybe they can't, maybe science is not suitable to study more than a small part of the reality we find ourselves in, and that it's not as significant as our recent success with it has led us to believe.
He unfortunately backed Bush's war without evidence. He fell for the propaganda. He wasn't stupid, but he let his bias rule his thoughts. We all make mistakes!
The member of the audience said: BRAVOO!
He's talking about his friend, the author Salman Rushdie. Islam put a price on his head for writing the book The Satanic Verses.
And he was attacked on stage by a lunatic trying to kill him who blinded him in one eye as the Fatwa is still in force.
not Islam, the Iranian Ayatollah put a fatwa on him
@@mango4ttwo635I'm glad you pointed that out.
Not only Salman Rushdie. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali intellectual and critic of Islam, also regularly received death threats in the United States.
@@mango4ttwo635 Of course it was in connection to the Religion of Peace.
You get a taste here of the stunning levels of his oratory skill. He usually had short notes for addresses like this to cover the points he wanted to make but the WAY he made them was endlessly creative and fluid. Probably the most eloquent public speaker I've ever heard.
Respect to anyone who listens to the Hitch.. Wish he was here in these difficult times.
Eh, it would be tough for him now. His loyalties would be tested.
I know he made brave noises about taking on Islam back in the day, but, the fact is, the west was pretty safe from that.
The current threats to the west are far more serious.
Hitchens really had a way with words! So eloquent and intelligent.
His favorite drink was Johnny Walker Black, thus proving his intelligence.
He was talking about Salman Rushdie. They were great friends.
That's what I thought as well, not knowing they were friends.
@@KeesBoons when the controversy over the satanic verses blew up and Rushdie was in serious danger, he stayed at Hitchens' home for a while.
@@JDela10 Thank you. Didn't know that :o).
A great friend indeed, who would hide you in his attic, himself in considerable danger of crazed zealots on their clerically approved, state-sponsored fatwa. I'm only happy that Hitchens didn't have to see his friend Rushdie brutally attacked and permanently disfigured speaking from a stage in a bastion of American free thinking.
Hitchens is a personal hero of mine. Congratulations on having an open mind.
What I would give to have seen this man dismantle Jordan Peterson…
That would've have been worth watching. A "scientist" (if psychology counts), who obviously thinks that imaginary friends are real.
I would’ve paid to see that.
Watch Matt Dillahunty’s and Jordan Peterson’s discussion. Interesting.
@@ChrisM-ve6qc oh, I have,- be it’s glorious. But Matt lacks that certain type of upper-English gentlemanly biting sting that Hitchens had, and that I think could expertly have eviscerated Peterson with ease
@@ChrisM-ve6qc It was only interesting in the way that watching an intelligent man destroy a man pretending to be intelligent.
This is my favorite speech on the topic of free expression. So glad it's immortalized.
His last public speech is something you really need to check. How i loved this man for his insights and honesty. Sorely missed.
i miss him sooo
he was ... unlike his brother but under the same sun... such an honest voice
His interview on his opinion the demise of Jerry Falwell is must see viewing. Only Hitch could use the word "carcass", and get away with it.
Totally agree. Stoicism and dignity at its best. Long live Hitch ❤
Dearest Heidi, this is a wonderful example of the depths of Hitch’s thinking. I reiterate my suggestion to watch Hitch vs Sharpton, Hitch vs Ramadan and add Hitch vs Wolpe.
Also not to forget, getting rid of hatespeech doesn't get rid of hate, all it does is hide the symptoms instead of trying to fix the actual issue (which is impossible but still worthwile trying to do).
As Hitch said, he didn't agree with censoring speech, if it had merit.
Tolerating intolerance leads to fascism.
Teaching people a lesson from beyond the grave.. He's such a treasure..
Christopher Hitchens was the best. He is sorely missed.
He was the absolute G.O.A.T
@@matsjonsson1704 He was - until he supported Bush and Blair in a war without evidence. It's a huge blot on his legacy. Goes to show that we all make mistakes.
@@winnywin THIS IS TRUE.
@@winnywin In a record its 5000 to 1 and still a goat
@@winnywin yes , l could never be reconciled to his support of Dubya and the unjustified second Gulf war , and the total destabilising of the Middle East . V Disappointed.
I didn't know I needed a reaction channel reacting to extremely intelligent people speaking publicly and elegantly about very important things, but now that I type that out it makes a kind of sense... and thanks for doing these. The more people that hear Hitchens and Fry the better.
Now that's the education kids need.
This is one of his best speehecs. Thanks for taking the suggestion :)
The person in the audience said, ‘Bravo!’
I've watched and heard days of Christopher Hitchens.. But I have never seen this one before :O
Thank you!
A "Man For All Seasons", was made into a film in 1966. I encourage everybody to watch it.
I so wish he was still with us .
Questioning other's beliefs seem to come easy to us, while questioning our own beliefs seem harder. Think about it like trying to swim with the current or against it. It is easy to go with what you know and drift down stream.
I've been enjoying your content on free speech quite a lot. Hitchens and Richard Fry have been personal heroes for years - it's truly nice to see your process of discovering them and offering your thoughts and perspectives on what they have to say. We need their messages more desperately than ever today.
@@strattubes
Sorry, who is Richard Fry...?
@@brigidsingleton1596 Oops! I meant Stephen! Lol I had also been thinking about Richard Dawkins. Stephen Fry. ☺️
@@strattubes
Ah... 👍🤭🖖
crazy you uploaded a day ago and i just got here by wanting to revisit Hitchens and take a refresher on free speech
I've born and raised in a WarPac country. In my childhood the ongoing kójoke was: Q:"What is the difference in freedom of speech in the SU and the US? " A:"in the US you are still free after the speech"
For now😢
Based on him referring to David Irving as "In prison", this must have been recorded between November 2005 and December 2006.
Really enjoying watching your journey with these concepts. Great work and thank you for your 🎉
It isn’t people’s right to say want they want, i.e. free speech, that concerns me, it’s people’s apparent inability to critically evaluate what’s being said and assess its truth and validity.
Why should it not be a person's right to express nearly any point of view? It's whether that opinion has any merit which will determine if what they say, stands or falls.
@@sandgrownun66 I agree, that's what I said. I'm not concerned about a persons right to say what they want, it people's inability to critically evaluate what's said that disturbes me, as they can end up believing and repeating complete bullsh*t .
@@waynejones1054 Well, there's not much you can do about ignorance. There will always be a group who'll believe anything they're told. Is there any cure for this?
@@sandgrownun66 Including how to evaluate information and think critically about what you're expected to accept and believe in our education systems. I agree, this wont work 100% of the time though, none of us are infallible!
@@sandgrownun66 except nearly ANY point of view undoubtedly falls into that view has no merit at all and has no value in being expressed. Not every view needs to be entertained as equal. I think you can summon several things that are a point of view that have 0 merit and not worth entertaining in the slightest.
Hi HailHeidi, the first time I wathed your video was year and a half ago, and I see how you are growing up in your way of thinking. Curiosity is a the thing that brings the TRUTH, keep doing it Congrats!
Hey Heidi I love following your journey of enlightenment! keep it up
This is my favorite speech on Free Speech. If there was one video to show someone what gree speech is all about, it's this one.
I love that hitch is still influencing new people, he had such a wonderful way with words and supremely logical mind. I found him at 16 and 20 years later I never tire of re-listening or re-reading his work. Enjoy and keep the hitch flame burning.
Yes, read his book. It's available in audio form as with many of his books. You'll love it and even if you don't agree with all of it he will get you in a ponderous mood.
Nice reaction, clicked subscribe to see your journey with these great minds.
You should check out the video "The Best of the Hitchslap".
"Hitchslap" was what we called it when Christopher made a particularly witty comeback or put down on an opponent.
This is my second time watching this particular video; it’s even better than the first time, and I still agree that there are a number of people who need to hear it!
It is so very cool that you are critiquing Hitchens. I think he would’ve enjoyed your videos. Look forward to watching many more of your videos on a variety of subjects. I think the Hitchens video probably was late 90s or around 2000. he has very interesting ideas. I was particularly interested in his reasoning for listening to others opinions. If we all had that mentality, the whole paradigm of Facebook us against them would change it would be fascinating to watch that.
Hitchens is an extreme intellectual. Incredibly wel read and nuanced in his views. He's a special, special person.
I'm a bit older than you and I find fascinating watching you discovering Hitch and Fry and Carlin etc. and I feel transported 15 years into the past. I can't listen Hitchens without teary eyes (he died in 2011) and in today's times when sometimes seems to me that everybody lost their minds, you are really a breath of fresh air! (BTW I highly recommend Hitch on "mother" Theresa) Stay cool! 😉
I’d be interested to see you react to “Hitchens: Why Fight Religion?” where he answers a question from an audience member and gives a completely off the cuff fiery answer. I remember seeing it when I was 20 (37 now) and it challenged a lot of beliefs I’d grown up around. It was one of the first times I’d seen someone aggressively challenge religion. That stuck with me as being one of the key moments in my life where I realized that it was okay to not believe these things.
Im happy that someone else got the pleasure of hearing Hitch. His eloquent way of saying things that most people cant has a way of making people at least question there long held beliefs. This is the beginning of new discovery and reason
Sorry for commenting multiple times, but watching your journey reminds me of what I went through like 20yrs ago. It was so hard, so confusing...also grew up in a group that did ostracizing. Never even thought of doing a YT channel on it--that takes a lot of courage. Loving these videos!
This world needs a new generation of Hitchenses
It's fantastic that you are putting these great people and their work up on your platform. I'm a huge Hitchens fan and Fry. We lost a great man when Hitch passed away and he would have been a great voice of reason in todays troubles. Heidi...stay cool 🇬🇧
Hitchens was probably referring to Salman Rushdie (amongst others I'm sure) when he was talking about how he knew people who were targeted.
An almost direct reference to Rushdie.
I am LOVING your Hitchens journey.
He and Stephen Fry are among my favourite human beings.
I miss him so much. Thanks…
Don’t miss out on the Best of the Hitchslap. 💙🥂
with you
Two points for the sake of keeping the record straight, as I'm sure Hitchens would endorse (even great men make mistakes from time to time):
1. The case that Oliver Wendell Holmes' supreme court was ruling on was not about protesting the war per se, but rather encouraging draft dodging/resistance. Some may see this as a distinction without a moral difference, but technically the charge involved encouraging people to break the law rather than merely publicly expressing an unpatriotic/heretical opinion.
2. The line from 'A Man for All Seasons' isn't spoken in the context that Hitchens describes, although it might have been more effective if it was. The line was not spoken to the prosecutor (whose willingness to bend/break the law to appease King Henry VIII ultimately failed to earn him clemency, and he was subsequently beheaded), but to Thomas More's son-in-law, who was urging him to (illegally) use his own power to muzzle an unscrupulous man in his circle who was willing to falsely incriminate Thomas More for personal gain. Ironically More's refusal to do so resulted in his own execution, and the man his son-in-law had warned him against committed perjury in order to secure his conviction, for which the man received a hefty promotion, and never any comeuppance.
@@EvilSean62 I'm up for any discussion you care to have. What's on your mind?
I dearly miss Christopher. He had a remarkable intellect and an amazing life. I highly recommend his autobiography. I do not believe there is another orator of his caliber alive today.
He was a member of the "Four Horsemen", which tells us a lot.
Love your channel, Heidi. You (and the content) are a real breath of fresh air. I feel spiritually refreshed (as an atheist). Thank you. Subbed.
Great reaction! Yeah, Hitchens says it all best. I think I've seen everything he's in on video and am looking forward to seeing you react to it also. There are many, very long, religious debates he's done - which are very fun to warch. Might be too long for you to make reactions of, but... if you do - I'd watch it.
I'd just like to point out how much you have grown and learned over your journey. I've seen you go from a confused, ignorant (in the correct usage of the word) girl into a thoughtful woman over these many months, and it's refreshing. Well done.
To set the record straight:
Well David Irving who Hitchens mentioned claimes that Hitler didn´t have anything to do with the Holocaust and additionally claims that the gas chambers in the concentration camps like Ausschwitz, Treblinka, Mauthausen didn´t even exist at all.
Well such a claim publicly outspoken on Austrian soil is a felony/illegal, that´s why he got arrested in 2005 as he set foot on Austria soil because he was already accused for that as he did lectures in Austria years before but he then didn´t show up to his trail..
So as he returned to Austria years later in order to give a lecture again he got obviously a pre-trail detention for few months till to his trail date (as like in every other country as well, if you don´t show up to your trail) but he didn´t got imprisoned after his conviction but instead got deported to the UK as a free man but he is not allowed to set his foot on Austrian soil again for the rest of his life..
Holocaust denialism is not "a question of opinion or free speech" in Austria but is an actual "act of re-engagment of Nazi activities" and that is a crime/illegal in Austria since the end of WW2 for a reason....
By the way that is a law which was ratified by the 4 occupying powers USA, UK, France + Russia during the 10 years of occupation of Austria between 1945-1955 (but not only in Austria but also in Germany by the way the 4 occupation powers ratified the "re-engagement of Nazi activities" law as well = "denying the Holocaust" or "glorifying Hitler in any way" is a crime/illegal and it is not a question of "free speech or opinion") and that law is in Austria + Germany still in place for a reason.
And Irving knew that beforehand very well and came back to Austria anyway although knowing that there was a arrest warrent for not showing up to trail waiting for him = just as marketing strategy by seeking world wide attention due to his detention in order to sell his at that time new book.
Well Hitchens is undoubtable well spoken, and many things he said during his countless lectures were and are totally right, but some things are also simply utter nonsense = simply because he is here accusing a law in Austria preventing "free speech" which his own home country = post war UK in collaboration with the other 3 allies have installed in Austria solely in order to prevent a return of the Nazis..
There in lies your problem. You state the countries' ( governments) as the rule against speech.
Government censors anything at will, and especially anything to do with little hats. Here is a thing, my daughter was studying history at school. On the holocaust , one camp had 300k chews killed as stated in her history book. But I was wary as it was a small camp ( I don't remember the name) and when I read the addendum at the back of the book it was amended to say 30k.
Once I had broadband, I looked up the camp, around 2004/5 the epitaph stone read around 3k died........ I'm no holocaust denier, but when a law is made to " not ask or question the narrative " it throws out " LIES "
Anyone with half a brain cell knows Hitler was a figure used as an escape goat for the things the REAL evil people organised. Just like bin laden. Sadam hussein. None of these people have a trace. They were magically gone. No body ever buried. It's a joke.
The people who created money are the same ones who start every single war, fund whatever side they want and set the laws
You are saying David Irving returned to Austria as a marketing strategy, which is something you couldn't possibly know. How do you know what his reasons were?
@@robertschatz7781
1. He came back to Austria already knowing that he will face pre-trail detention for not showing up in court for many years (that by the way is a common procedure in every nation of law in the entire world = so he has to know) direct after releasing his - at that time - new book - while - all the years before where he wrote nothing (you can argue therefore he had plenty of time) he didn´t show up in order to get over it..
2. Knowing that this act = "British historian got arrested after setting foot on Austrian soil" will be headline in all British News outlets which obviously means publicity. How could it not.
Are you good in math? The result of 1+1 = ?
Or in other words:
If somethings looks exactly like a duck and sounds exactly like a duck then it is very likely with high percentage odds a duck.
I always want people to have the freedom to say what I don't agree with or what offends me.
1% of the time, I receive new information that makes me change my mind and I learn something.
The other 99% of the time, I am pleased that an enemy has called himself out as such, that someone was brave enough to out himself as an idiot or a bigot or a charlatan.
I learn something useful in those cases too.
So glad I ran across your reaction videos because I’ve often wondered how someone who was unaware of Hitchens would react. I’m pretty sure I’ve watched all his debates and many several times and have learned so much. No way could I get any of my Christian family members to set through it
That is one of my favorite speeches of all time, to be honest.
I also love his positioning himself as the fighter! His blades were kept sharpened at all times!
You are so fortunate to have just discovered "The Hitch". What an immense man he was.
In Memory of Christopher Hitchens, I’ll point out the weakest part of his argument. Whilst no one person may be the arbiter of appropriate speech, this does not mean everyone is free to say whatever they want to whomever they want without consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. This could mean losing friends or public support, for example. Also, if your speech is meant to harass, intimidate, or harm-governments have a right to protect its people and thus may consider these actions criminal (e.g., hate speech, sexual harassment).
19:00 - He’s referring to Salman Rushdie. Once the Ayatollah’s issued a Fatwa (death order) for Salman, he was living with Hitch at his home in DC.
A man for all seasons is required viewing. I watched it on this very recommendation actually, and it is "Bob Certified Fantastic".
I love Christopher Hitchens he is one of my fav authors his books and articles are something else.
I really enjoy your videos... some great speakers on interesting subjects and thoughtful reactions. You seem very well brought up (Mormon or not!)
This speech was recorded in 2006 at Hart House at the University of Toronto. Brilliant speech!
This speech was in Toronto in 2006
I remember watching a video of Hitchens called "Gods Plan" many years ago and I've been a fan of his ever since. 😊
Heidi getting to experience the 'Hitchslap' is so cool!
My brain gets bigger every time I hear Christopher Hitchens, I hadn't heard that idea before that if you deny someone their right to speak you deny yourself your right to hear what they have to say that is very interesting.
A legend in his own time. Christopher is and will be missed.
The audience member screamed "Bravo!" enthusiastically.
The guy in the audience at 23:00 said "bravo!"
You may want to hit the pause button when you make comments as we can’t hear your comment nor the speaker if you speak at the same time. Subscribed.
The greatest orator i have ever heard , not a single person have i ever heard speak English the way Hitchens spoke English. I weep for our worlds loss of this man and his powerful intellect.
I've learned so much by arguing with people. I research things regularly just to make sure I'm believing something that's at least based on some kind of evidence.
When u get used to Hitchens hitchslap compilations are great entertainment
19:00 the internet and especially social media is full of knee jerk reactions from people but Twitter is next level. The number of people doom scrolling while sitting on the toilet though, there's more thought, time and consideration going into wiping their butts when they're done than what they typed and threw out into the world.
Also his book called “god is not great” is one to look up it’s a very fascinating read.theres so many debates to watch also, His speeches are brilliant to watch.
I'd recommend getting the print book AND the audiobook, beautifully narrated by Hitchens himself.
I'd second this recommendation... and also recommend his autobiography, Hitch 22. He had a rather remarkable career as a journalist, and had a lot of great stories to tell.
The person in the audience said " Bravo!" Which is Italian for" well done". .
It's usually heard at the end of a performance by an orchestra.
Nice to hear your thoughts on this!
I recommend the speech he gave upon receiving the dawkins price :)
at the texas free thought 2011
I’ve greatly enjoyed the debate subtitled religion “poison or cure.” he’s good friends with the person he’s competing against and they have some wonderful back and forths
Find the discussion between Jordan Peterson and Steven Fry. I found it quite interesting. Fry and Peterosn both admire literature and narrative and its power, but Fry cuts through a lot of Petersons Fluff, and it's a good listen.
The nearest equivalent to Christopher Hitchens (apart from his brother Peter who is very similar in voice and power of captivation) is Douglas Murray. Murray's trains of throught are similarly cogent and broader in social context. Murray has written a range of brilliant books.
RIP Cristopher Hitchens. You are missed. Check out his writing too, if and when you are able to to do, Heidi :)
Hitch is the GOAT. There is one audio I like to suggest (not from Hitch). Bertrand Russel, "Why I am not a christian". A lecture from 1927. This was my bedtime story for years. Just put my headphones on and listen.
That’s a great classic in my opinion
'Nite nite, stay cool'
Hitch made a lot of us smarter, and also maybe a tad envious of his huge intellect and Oxford education. As pretentious and high-spoken as he can be you can always feel from him that he would enjoy sharing a drink and a laugh with you, however 'common' you might be, for he kept his eye on the real purpose of thought and words: To make the world better for everyone.
Nice video, Heidi. It's fantastic that a young person is listening and trying to understand the great man. I am an admirer of CH's brain and completely stand with him on his view of religion. I am, though, slightly confused with him, focusing so heavily on religion in this context of free speech. It sounds like he is being supportive of free speech, ie. Anyone should be allowed to say anything in order not to deny anyone the opportunity to listen to any opinion. But at the same time, quite rightly blame some of the religious scriptures that are taken as sacrosanct by so many, as the root cause of fundamentalist destruction and genocide. So, is he supportive of religious fundamentalists using their right of free speech to poison childrens minds? I am not sure. Can anyone advise me? Thank you.
Hitchens believed in the writer's philosophy of George Orwell; Hitchens might come off as a very complicated writer but his books are very easy to read. I highly recommend "G d is not great" there's a reason why it was necessary, especially at the time but do it... ebook or something... it's crazy good
Regarding what you said about people saying "You just don't understand," Hitchens' razor states, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
This really should be spread around nowadays...The arguments are so sound
The audience member shouted 'Bravo'. I suggest in support of Hitch's comment.
When I had free time to extend my non belief in religion. I found other atheists online talking about completely getting rid of religion and any aspect of religion from the thoughts to the history. Then I started reading and watching more scientific content and I came across Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He explained in a great video about the Julian and Gregorian calendars and discussed with Chuck Nice about how the Gregorian calendar came to be and who was behind the design of it. It was jesuit Catholic priests whom devised the most accurate calendar to date and we still use it today. Neil would in later videos say he still uses AD/BC and not BCE/CE. Just because they are tied with religion doesn’t mean they are bad or you shouldn’t use something that is smart and well devised. I don’t call myself an atheist because in science we don’t have conclusive evidence that God doesn’t exist. I am an agnostic atheist who knows religion is a needed philosophy to a lot of people. Just don’t try to use that religion to make policies in government.
I apologize if this sounds incoherent. I am one of the child’s who was left behind by the no child left behind policy.
I 100% agree with you about not knowing. Some people (both theists and atheists) seem to think that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, which they aren't. Atheism is the disbelief of any God(s) whether its because of lack of evidence or something else, and agnosticism is about not knowing if there is any God(s). *Any* honest person whether theist or atheist would say they are agnostic because we don't know and we (currently) can't know about the supernatural.
I think it was "BRAVO" from the audience? I Think I hear an R at the start there.
Heidi asked when and where this event occurred, so here is the answer.
This debate, which included other people, occurred at Hart House at the University of Toronto in November 2006. The debaters debated this motion: “Be it resolved: freedom of speech Includes the freedom to hate.” Hitchens argued for the motion.
Not long afterward, TVO (TV Ontario) broadcast Hitchens's remarks to Ontarians. I don't know where the other debaters' remarks are.
Incidentally, when I was a student at U. of T. in the early 1980s, I visited Hart House several times. I got the impression that the architect wanted the room to look like an English baronial hall, but it really does look like the Hogwarts dining room.
If you are interested in good atheist/explaining religious beliefs, I highly recommend Matt Dillahunty (has a huge library of videos on YT under his name with his project "atheist debates".
Also Dan Baker.
Both were pastors once and became freethinkers. Both are great speakers and best in lecture and debate.
Might be super interesting for you as an ex-mormon.
How exciting it would've been to have had Hitch as a history or social studies teacher in high school. I may have actually cared and learned something.