"You Have No Moral Right To Run This" - Famous Journalist To Alex O'Connor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Get a Free Sample Pack of all LMNT Flavours with your first box at www.drinklmnt.... (automatically applied at checkout)
Chris and Alex O'Connor discuss Alex's reaction to Peter Hitchens leaving Alex's show mid-interview. Why did Peter Hitches walk out of Alex O'Connor's interview? Why did Alex O'Connor have mixed feelings about posting the Peter Hitchens clip to his channel? What was the public's reaction to Peter Hitchens walking out of Alex O'Connor's interview?
Get access to every episode 10 hours before RUclips by subscribing for free on Spotify - spoti.fi/2LSimPn or Apple Podcasts - apple.co/2MNqIgw
Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - chriswillx.com...
Try my productivity energy drink Neutonic here - neutonic.com/m...
-
Get in touch in the comments below or head to...
Instagram: / chriswillx
Twitter: / chriswillx
Email: chriswillx.com...
![KAYTRANADA - Witchy (feat. Childish Gambino) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jGK3YVmGZ3Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello you legends. Watch the full episode with Alex here - ruclips.net/video/bSJhaTWZxQs/видео.html Get a Free Sample Pack of all LMNT Flavours with your first box at www.drinklmnt.com/modernwisdom
Big fan, but I have to say, I was extremely disappointed in you for not challenging Destiny when he said there's no evidence that our phones are spying on us.
....
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
It's just as Alex said: it is unfathomable to Hitchens that someone would read is book; hear his argument; listen to his speech, and still disagree with him.
You can disagree with him. Just not ask him why 350 times in a row. He answered the question and then repeatedly was asked the same question again. It wasn't an interview, it was an interrogation.
I think Alex did labour the point a little bit. There were other topics Hitchens wanted to discuss and he is bored of the drugs issue now. He knows he has lost the war to the progressive society so he accepts his defeat.
@@blue24563yet not a single time was the phrase “next topic” uttered in any form or essence…
How dare his brainwashing not work?
he was banging on about drugs to the point I went onto something else. Anyone with that kind of constant bore of drugs topic would have walked out in my view
Hitchens is accustomed to people interviewing him and allowing him to explain his views, not expecting him to justify them in any way. He was clearly unaware of Alex’s format where he breaks apart and debates ideas. He took Alex’s reasonable inquiry as an attack. He made a fool of himself.
@@SM-mz2hz Agree mate, exactly
That's Peter Hitchens in a nutshell.
Hitchens asked this guy not to air the interview but he did so anyway even though he had no moral right to do so.
@@goldenboy06 he might have not had a moral right to run it before Peter started bitching about it on twitter first (and even then it's debatable). At that point Peter did that Alex not only had the moral right, but the moral responsibility to run it and let people decide for themselves.
@@TheNheg66 The problem with "letting people decide for themselves" though is that of course everyone of HIS FANS on HIS CHANNEL are going to agree with him regardless, which Alex obviously knew. Regardless of who was right, it's these underhanded pretences of Alex that is wrong.
Alex, you were incredibly patient with a guest whose state of mind we would now have to question. By constantly interrupting you Peter Hitchen's was not allowing you to put points or complete questions. This was why it "went in circles." This was simply you trying to put your intended question and get an answer. Your calm and attention to detail and ipatience with Peter Hitchens' bizarre attitude were exemplary. Peter has embarassed and disgraced himself. Having listened to this I have to wonder about his state of mind and/or mental health. It is not easy for a young man to sit and take a lambasting like that from an older man and you handled yourself with integrity and grace. Good on you, Sir. having watched this, I will be watching more of your shows. (And less of Peter Hitchens')
Peter Hitchens could simply have said that he wished to change the subject. The conversation is tedious and repetitive but his behaviour was shameful.
Peter Hitchens doesn’t even have half the neurons that would be required to do that, along with Jordan Peterson, the guy’s pretty much the perfect example of a pseudo-intellectual.
It was a hour of subject that he didn't care about. And the speaker was clueless about. To try paint it any other way is dumb.
......
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
@@arthurfleck629 Nah Hitchens is a very clever man
@@JamieZero7it was exactly 40 minutes, on a subject he's written a book about, had previously agreed to discuss and clearly cares about.
I think Alex is partially at fault, but what you said is factually incorrect.
The irony of Peter Hitchens calling Alex “rude” and “unprofessional” is astounding; talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Blatant projection. Alex was perfectly civil.
You are correct.
This reminds me of Ben Shapiro walking out of the interview with Andrew Neil. Shapiro is smart enough to rebut but wasn’t aware in the moment that that was an option.
Rough…
@@patrinohe was trying to get answers, period. Peter refused to give them. Going around in circles was on Peter, not Alex. If Peter expected no pushback then that's his failure...
@@TheNheg66 To be fair, Alex was trying to catch Peter out the whole time with the same questions because he's clearly biased towards the pro-drug front. I think Peter just sensed that.
oh no, better storm out!@@patrino
As a Christian, and someone with conservative leanings, I was flabbergasted by Hitchen's outburst. It seems to me he had two alternative options: either politely move the conversation on to the next topic or end the interview and leave. But his near 15 minute outburst was a disgrace. His comment "I actively dislike you" was childish and his own personal feelings towards Alex were irrelevant. It was an emotionally driven tantrum which I had thought was beneath a man who seeks for objective and reasoned argument and, the more I listened, the less respect I had for the man. Alex O' Connor on the other hand grew in my estimation immensely.
I concur.
that is how christies argue.
@@susanwjoh0re735 By 'christies' can I assume you mean 'Christians'? If so that's quite a generalised comment.
@@susanwjoh0re735isn’t hitchens atheist? Like very outwardly
@@sandycheeksyaboi9906 That would be his brother Christopher. Peter Hitchens professes a Christian faith.
A possible rebuttal to Alex’s point about young people smoking is that they may not be smoking cigarettes as much anymore because they’re vaping more.
From my memory smoking fell out of popularity quite a while before vapes become a big thing but maybe it depends where you are.
Kids stopped smoking when cigarettes became priced like luxury items. $16 a pack (New York) is quite prohibitive for a middle school kid
That's the point Hitchens made, actually.
@@ravecrab Exactly & Alex tried pretending he didn't get a rebuttal in this video. I was kinda on the fence about who was wrong in the interview, but considering Alex is still being disingenuous long after the interview has finished kinda makes me side with Hitchens which I don't usually do lol.
@@fiddlecastro1453I just watched the interview and Hitchens was right that they spent 42mins of going round in circles of Alex not listening to the points Hitchens was making! 4 or 5 mins into it was clear he was getting frustrated with the discussion and that should have been picked up on and the topic changed.
If he considered an hour long interview, of what became 2 topics, with an extra half hour if the conversation was flowing, which it definitely was not, then why at the end did Alex say "the plan was to spend an hour on drugs". My gf agreed it was a terrible interview and despite Hitchens not handling it well, he was right to be frustrated by it.
Peter Hitchens was 100% correct when he said that the conversation didn't flow. Unfortunately, he was the one responsible for that. Alex should have pickup up on his attitude and moved the conversation forward sooner, but I understand that he was trying salvage that first topic given that he only had one more to move on to. Ultimately, Hitchens made a damn fool of himself.
Or just refrain from making silly points attempting to undermine his position.
It's the interviewer's job to direct the flow of the conversation.
Well said@@ragnardanneskjold7259 too many sycophants here.
@@philip851 Without a doubt Hitchens made a bit of a tit of himself but the line of questioning was repetitive and I was getting frsutrated watching it so I can just imagine a cantankerous fella like Hitchens would have been stewing. No excuse for his behaviour though.
That's a reasonable take on it. @@thelastemperor3704
Often, when people react like this, it is a sign that they are realising that they are wrong..
Exactly. Defensive behavior.
Alex was a perfect gent in that interview. Hitchens couldn't cope with a very intelligent young man gently pointing out the flaws in his argument. Reverse ageism is exactly what it was. It is a terrible trait to think you can't learn something from people younger than yourself. I'm 51 and Alex has a new fan.
I must say that you have my respect for your admirable quality of listening to the young.
Some people believe that their experience regarding a subject or even their knowledge about it makes their opinion on it more worthwhile, when it isn't necessarily the case; I find that extremely biased and frankly stupid
I think you can just say "ageism." Adding reverse doesn't make sense.
It was not an interview, he, as so many modern journalists do, tried to be the missionary and convince hitchens of his views instead of simply accepting what his guest had to say and move on.
Hitchens was very rude but the questions were very repetitive Reddit level arguments. He asked the same question about Portugal 3 times just phrased in a slightly different way.
@@slownews6220 ... Or, he was simply trying to have a normal adult conversation about a topic somebody is well-known for participating in, and challenge his perspectives in front of a live audience. His failure is in his inability to direct the flow of the conversation, and remaining too long on this point, but Hitchen's extremely rude and undermining behaviour not only instigated the stagnation of the conversation, but resulted in his childish outburst at the end.
I believe this is his guest being a child over a pacing issue that could have been solved with civil dialogue. This has nothing to do with being unable to accept anyone's views.
Peter Hitchens was unbelievably rude to Alex during that podcast. I couldn’t believe it to be honest. Such a rude man.
He's always been rude and arrogant, he's also no where near as smart as people think he is.
Thinking people should be thrown in a cage for what they choose to put in their own body is a despicable view.
And somehow more often comes from the "small government" right wing.
Peter Hitchens has never said anything of value, and lives in his brother’s shadow both in terms of popularity and intellectualism.
I know I alaways remember things completely wrong and make them into a comedy sketch in my head. The way I remember it is a cartoon of an old man walking off the set waiving his hands in the air saying “ you’re a rude young man, and you can go crying back to all your druggy friends.”😂
That sums it up in my head.
You forgot that he had his trousers half way to his armpits, strapped in place by a belt and braces. And hus nurse was on hand with a bedpan if needed.
@@StillAliveAndKicking_true, but then he was dealing with someone who doesn't look like they've finished going through puberty. So maybe it's a matter of perspective.😂
I think ageism was at work here. Even after the first question, Thank you for being here‘, Hitchens says „ So far so good?“ He hated Alex from the get go. Like, „I’m 3 times the age of this little punk. Who is HE thinking he knows more about anything I do? Hell, I’m 3x his age, this little punk.“ That was the psychology of what really happened.
That was another impression of mine too. That was too much for PH to handle and resulted in that very bad ending of that whole recorded interview.
@@jenniferjoyner112 True, but PH is a horrible person in any interview with anyone. Take a look at recent Piers Morgan interview of him. PH just as obnoxious and argumentative. He’s a bitter old man and very much like his deceased brother was, Christopher Hitchens.
@@jenniferjoyner112 Yes. PH was a miserable bitter old man. But, he’s like that with every interviewer. Just watch him on a recent Piers Morgan clip. He’s just as rude and obnoxious to Piers Morgan as he was to Alex. But, the difference is, Piers Morgan stood up to him and didn’t let him get away with it. PH was just as nasty and mean a person as was his deceased brother, Christopher Hitchens.
He always says that at the beginning of interviews, it's not that deep.
@@gillespaling7039 Maybe so, but just watch a recent Piers Morgan of his. Piers doesn’t put up with his bitterness and nonsense. I think PH even reminds Piers „I don’t have to be here you know“, to which Piers replies „Of course not, but it’s my program and I get to ask the questions.“ PH just has some major problems with everyone.
If Peter wanted the conversation to stop going around in circles, he should've stopped steering it around in circles. Whenever he sensed that Alex was about to raise a question that might dent his position, Peter would interrupt with waffling deflection. It was Peter that was making the conversation slow and repetitive, because he couldn't concede the slightest doubt about his conclusions.
Yes, I've seen a lot of people blame Alex for repeating the same questions but it's because Hitchens repeatedly interrupted him with a response that often wasn't appropriate to the intended question, forcing it to be asked again and again. He did this deliberately because he knew he didn't have the answers, he even alludes to this in his rant, "I don't like being challenged".
You hear this all the time though. Someone will say "you're not listening to me", to which I often respond: "I am listening to you, I'm just not agreeing with you."
Arguing with a woman in a nutshell lol. "You don't understand me!" "No, I understand you, I just think you're wrong."
When Alex said he thought he might have done something wrong I cringed. That's what good-hearted, well-meaning people do when confronted with that kind of emotional immaturity, we wonder whether it was really our fault after all.
Exactly! I don't think for one second Peter would have went back and asked himself "maybe I had something to do with how poorly the interview went"
Hitchens has a history of participating in televised debates, and then when guests try to express views he does not like, he uses his loud booming voice to talk over them, and effectively shut them up. He routinely interrupts them, but when they interrupt him, he has a tantrum. My view is that he is an arrogant and rude bully, who is against open debate, and whose beliefs are held for emotional reasons. If someone disagrees with him, then they are stupid, and don’t listen to his ‘truth’. I remember him stating that is views on the Ukraine conflict were correct because he had once lived there. He writes columns for the Daily Mail, which says enough.
@@SM-mz2hz Fair enough, I think of the DM and MoS as the same genre i.e. populist right wing. Yes he expects adoration or at least agreement, and when someone argues he feigns exasperation and boredom, claiming that he’s explained it all before, and suggesting others should read his book(s) to gain enlightenment. I do think he’s a bully, even though you don’t, going by the panel discussions he has been on which I have witnessed. Look at the way he behaved when he flounced out of the interview in question. I wouldn’t call it stormed out, it was a hissy fit.
@@SM-mz2hz The young man got stuck on repeat and Peter got exasperated. Alex wasn't processing the answer, which suggests he wasn't really listening. It doesn't help that Alex is also wrong, but hopefully years from now and with added life experience he'll realize that.
@@juzi68 After about the 15 minute mark, Alex would start a question and Hitchens immediately would pounce, shut him down, talk over him, and not actually hear the question at hand. If anything, Hitchens wasn't listening to Alex's questions. I've seen plenty of interviews where there really was false pretenses, and droning topics, and the only appropriate response is to CLEARLY state that you are tired of the topic, or that you don't expect to be talking about the topic, and ask to move on. You can even do so grumpily. And if the interviewer doesn't want to move on, you give one last warning before walking out. You can sit there and send signals all day and night but people aren't mind readers. They can't be expected to separate a clear public persona of a boisterous, angry old man from genuine frustration. He's an adult, he can speak clearly instead of just angrily.
Also, if you're going to walk out of an interview, then walk out. Don't dance around for over 15 minutes hurling insults and acting like some kind of authority parent figure over your interviewer, complaining that your time has been wasted (while continuing to waste time).
Classic so-called crybully
@@juzi68 You're sounding as inflexible and as certain of your opinions as facts as Hitchens. I watched a markedly different interview, where the interviewee constantly interrupted the interviewer's attempts to frame and reframe questions, leading to a frustrating experience all round. Hitchens' habit of overtalking and ignoring any challenge to his views was in full effect.
I don't think Hitchens fully understood that he was there for a discussion not an interview.
I mean given he kept harping on how they'd only spoken about drugs for an hour (40 minutes), despite drugs being one of two topics for a 1-1.5 hour conversation (that is, totally reasonable and within the parameters of the invitation), he either didn't read the brief out of sheer incompetence or is lying about the brief because he lost control and got very upset he wasn't being platformed without challenge, like he's used to.
At one point in the interview, Peter said to Alex- "I actively dislike you." Is that indeed worse than passively disliking Alex? lol
Haha He's not passive aggressive. He's active aggressive.
It's better because it shows commitment.
Peters comment as quoted was childish , extreme and bemusingly antagonistic .
Is your pfp kyle rittenhouse?
@@abcdefzhij Yes. Crying in court at his trial. Bwahahahah
He got angry because he is afraid of looking stupid, he felt that he wasn't abl.e to do his arguments justice and maybe couldn't remember the counterarguments to your points. Instead of admitting this or frankly any one of many different reactions he opted to anger and made himself look stupid that way instead.
Cannabis has been completely legal in Canada for years, and guess what happened... nothing.
so many people use it already all around the world, i kinda feel like it wouldnt change shit if we legalized it
Sales of Pringles went up.
@@AM_o2000🤣🤣🤣 Mmm, Pringles are unhealthy …
You have Communist and thugs running your government.
Justin Trudope
go easy on peter. he's been living under his brother's shadow too long and has nothing but bitterness and resentment. he knows he'll never be as loved as chris.
Christopher, please. Only because that is his name lol
"Chris" 😂
Imagine thinking you're chummy with someone who never knew that you existed
lol imagine being pathetic enough to get upset over someone else's name
I mean, Christopher Hitchens ROUTINELY corrected people as he did not like to be referred to as Chris, he never used that nickname @@oatdilemma6395
@@oatdilemma6395
Christopher hated being called "Chris". It's on record.
The fact that people assume that interrogating Peter on the detail is boring is ridiculous. Alex kept asking about alcohol because he wouldn't answer the question. How can cannabis be a threat to public safety if alcohol is also legal and detrimental? To pretend that he didn't read the book, or that he was labouring a point is to dislike intellectual discussion itself. To harass and abuse the interviewer for interrogating your position is indefensible and hitchens is not a proper journalist.
Poor guy, he got triggered: it happens to everyone. His blood pressure rose. He needed space to cool off. But you were very good, Alex. The ad hominem attacks showed he was giving up.
It goes to show even more how emotionally stunted Peter Hitchens is - that he couldn’t even bring himself to outright ask Alex “please, I’d rather you didn’t run this”, which Alex would have respected!
He said it on multiple occasions during the interview...of course, you may have wanted the C-A-T for cat, but intelligent people tend not to communicate via tins of alphabet spaghetti.
Ah yes, far too intelligent to say the words he wanted to communicate. So deep!@@philip851
@@philip851You mean when he went on for 15 minutes saying "you have no moral right to publish the interview. Go ahead, publish it. You came in with false pretenses, and it doesn't matter what I say. Don't publish the interview. I can't stop you. Do it. But don't do it. But do it." All while immediately yelling the moment Alex opened his mouth to defend himself from these genuinely hurtful accusations. Or are you referring to when Alex offered to cut the entire interview, and do a completely different interview with a different topic, before having insults hurled at him?
Yeah, I guess Alex should have just let him rant on X for 3+ days without ever defending himself or showing people what really happened.
Exactly. And I have a godbrother who has more emotional intelligence than Peter Hitchens. And my godbrother is 7
@@malgrosskreuz01 How would a person with an IQ at room temperature be able to judge another persons immaturity?
I have been suspicious of Peter Hitchens being somewhat strongly narcissistic for a while.
I agree with a lot of what he says but I notice that he appears to be incapable of understanding the emotions of other people while himself portraying himself as being highly rational but actually being highly emotional.
Conner kept looping back to try to sell his point of view. (Portuguese drugs) It lasted for ages and drove me crazy as well. The fun part was Hitches going nuts at the end.
Yes.
Whether that is true or not (I think not) is not the core issue. You don't behave like Peter did, full stop. If he thought Alex should move on or whatever, he could've simply asked politely. Instead he behaved like an evil crybaby.
@@EricusXIVnot just a cry baby. But an evil one 👀
Who are you people? A 40-minute discussion and dozens of you are pulling your hair out in boredom? Is this a crackhead convention? Sounds like a made-up opinion that post-hoc validates a psycho meltdown from a guest.
@EricusXIV lets slip in the word Evil, because Hitchens disliked his shitty interview.
Evil because he wrote a book to educate people on drugs and getting dissed, by people who never read his book?
I'm always annoyed when people can't have their views challenged. Hitchens was a child in this interview, but this seems to be par for the course for him.
....
Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Romans 6.23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
He wasn't challenged by Hitchens points, he was just bringing up repetitive Reddit level arguments like "what about alcohol" over and over.
@@PointNemo9 The point about alcohol is very valid and yet, Hitchens couldn't honestly engage any point without getting upset.
@@Eyrie007 It's not valid, wether or not alcohol is bad has nothing to do with whether or not marijuana should be legalised. The argument is "alcohol is bad and it's legal, so we should allow marijuana as well", it's a nonsense.
@@PointNemo9 Oh man, you definitely weren't following along. The argument is that alcohol is WORSE, yet it is ubiquitous and commonly accepted.
This is why Alex was talking about it. Hitchens isn't dealing in reality if he's staunchly against cannabis, but fine with alcohol. Cannabis is far safer and can provide more benefits than alcohol ever could.
But, Hitchens just wants to spread misinformation, argue dishonestly, and get upset when barely challenged.
Very strange behaviour by Peter. Alex did nothing wrong. Whether you were going in circles or pushing too hard, he could have still been cordial and glossed over things or just quietly declined to comment.
I disagree with Alex on a few things, but he is just such an excellent orator that I often find myself finding the validity of his points and questioning my own. And THAT should be the level of political and social discourse in the UK. Respectful, intelligent, well-informed with the aim of converting someone's way of thinking through well reasoned points. Not just slinging insults around and telling people they are stupid, or racist, or privileged just because they hold different beliefs.
I saw the interview. What he did was trying to convince Hitchens for about 30 minutes that drugs aren't that bad - undoubtedly because he himself is a pot smoker.
I would say he tried for about half an hour to not be constantly cut off every time he tried to make a point.
I thought Peter handled the interview very badly, especially at the end. However, the interviewer was truly awful, he clearly came with his own set of answers and constantly tried to put them across rather than listening to what peter had to say. There's only so many times you can listen to the the same arguments about smoking, alcohol and children - i counted four times on both subjects .. Peter was wrong to act the way he did, but i can understand his frustration.
But that's the thing, I think Alex had his own answers and was waiting for Peter to challenge them.
Hitchens wasn't answering the questions, he was interrupting them with his own pre-emptive answers which often bore little relation to what was actually being asked, hence the repetition.
Someone stated Peter Hitchens’ reacted may be linked to dementia. If this is the case it should be met with compassion instead.
He’s always been a prick. If he has I’m sorry for him, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s always been pompous and hostile to anyone who doesn’t agree with his life view.
Surprised Hitchens didn't walk out sooner.
Chris’s point about reverse age discrimination is well put. I’m well into middle age and notice how some of my peers will often dismiss younger perspectives just because of the age of the person saying them, rather than hearing the point being made. I work with too many smart and interesting people under 35 to feel that youth = ill-informed. It’s reductive and counterproductive - you’ll stay close minded to a wider perspective and end up obsolete, in my view.
@@brianmeen2158 agreed but it’s the automatic dismissal of a view because of age that I have a problem with. Hear them out. Listen to understand not just the react. Help them don’t shut them down. Entitlement in some of the younger generation is a thing though, so tread carefully. But I was the same. We forget that sometimes as we get older.
@@brianmeen2158
Some 35 year olds may have learnt very little and experienced very little.
Some 20 year olds may have experienced a lot and learnt a lot.
@@brianmeen2158you are unironically doing exactly what the original comment advised against immediately. Genuinely can’t make this shit up
0:50 "I'd only spoken about drug decriminalisation ONCE before" and then, 1:10 "Mr. Hitchens, there are three topics we both speak about: drug decriminalisation,...." .....reaaaaaally?
6:49 you missed the Hitchens "well, we'll see how we do" reference - 😆😆 nice 1 Alex!
In part I think Peter Hitchens is worn down a bit by modernity, as am I.
Most people are just repeating the stuff that others have said or written, it does get tiresome.
This tends to happen when you find yourself on the losing side of an old debate that has long been settled.
On one hand you'll get attention for being the guy who resurrected a dead horse and decided to ride it. You'll even find some like minded people that refused to accept that the horse was indeed dead before.. but then you're going to get hit with all of the things that killed and beat that dead horse previously.
Choosing this path and then getting upset about it is a self inflicted wound.
Peter Hitchens is the definition of a crybaby narcissist. He has the nerve to call himself a journalist?! Hahaha
Peter sits in his brothers much mightier shadow. He just doesn't have a tenth of his brothers intellect, personality or charisma.
Peter may have lost it but I was frustrated with Alex’s interviewing.
I found him dragging the cannabis argument too much realising it was needling Peter but also, his rather dull, monotonous interviewing style.
Alex did keep asking the same thing over and over looking for a gotcha moment. Constantly interrupting and going around and round the same question for an hour. The whole thing was disingenuous
Let's face it- we only bother listening to Peter because we are hoping to glean a sliver of the brilliance his brother had. It isn't there.
Peter is way beyond Christopher.
Go and hear his talk about "the EU is the continuation of Germany by other means". You will never find such connections in our media today who do nothing but write where celeb x has taken a poo and who sleeps with whom plus downplaying real problems as well as parroting progapanda and functioning as some in official branch of government communication.
Alex was kinda dull and stiff in the interview with Hitchens. That doesn't make it cool to be pompous, self-righteous and not even liste to Alex's questions. Having said that, the last 17 minutes became quite facinating, for all the wrong reasons, but still.
I interpreted that as Alex being a bit thrown off by the initial hostility of Hitchens.
We lost the wrong Hitchens.
I got bored with the endless questions about drugs - Hitchens rightly thought his time was being wasted by the same question being asked in umpteen different ways
Except instead of asking to move on politely he decided to storm out like a fussed child
@@Olster-xy5ol he repeatedly asked him to move on . I am not excusing Hitchens’s temper but it was not all his fault.
Hitchens also threw a 20 minute tantrum after so I don’t think his time was overly valuable tbh
The problem here is that peter hitchens agreed to an interview, and not necessary to a debate.
He did say that as well.
So imagine you agree to an interview and then the interviewer argues with your answers so that the "interview" becomes a never ending back and forth about an answer you gave that the interviewer happened to disagree with.
Thats what peter Hitchens didnt like, and I think the fact that Alex is more interested in focusing on Hitchens' expressions of anger and frustration rather than the reasons for his anger shows pretty bad faith on Alex's part.
I think Peter got rather tired of listening to a non-responsive ''what about alcohol'' retort over & over again. Alex obviously wasn't expecting Hitchens to correctly point out that the existence of 1 poison doesn't make another safe. He didn't like this fact so kept repeating the same a ''whatabout'' line and Hitchens clearly thought his time could be best spent elsewhere. I think he was right tbh.
Agreed.
He spent 17 minutes staying and being rude and pompous, after he said he was gonna leave. Talk about time spending.
The reason Hitchens got frustrated is because he know he's argument are flawed and inconsistent. They are not based in rationality but in emotions.
Hitchens argument is: "cannabis is bad for your health and especially when childrend get a hold of them" (paraphrasing).
Alex points out in that case, for Hitchens to be logical consistent. He SHOULD be against alcohol and tobacco too.
But for some ode reason the same argument about the negative health risk and the risk of children geting there hands on alcohol and tobacco does not apply?! Why is that?
Why can't Hitchens just explain why there is different standards for cannabis then tobacco. Or give another argument why he is against Cannabis. If he does not have one. Maybe he should reevaluate he's position on it or just admit he is arguing form feelings and not reason.
@@TheRobinL Nope. The existence of a poison doesn't make another poison safe. If Tobacco was illegal today literally no one would be advocating making it legal.
Obviously Alex and his fanboys don't like their pro-drug nut agenda being challenged but that's really a 'them' problem.
Which is ultimately why he couldn't think of an argument other than ''whatabout''... once it was pointed out to him that ''whatabout'' doesn't make cannabis safe, he then had a bit of a mare and just repeated himself endlessly because he realised the inconsistency and sheer ignorance of his position, rather than acknowledge this he decided to make the argument circular. Not the brightest.
Although it is well used, I don’t think the “what about alcohol?” response is fallacious or uninteresting.
At its core, cannabis being legalised is a question of human liberty and mental capacity. It’s about adult humans making choices for themselves that may or may not hurt them or help them. And the same applies for alcohol, which is almost universally accepted and engrained in cultures across the planet.
Don't know why Chris gives this guy airtime ..He clearly wound up Hitchens going over the same subject over and over ..A poor interviewer unable to cover multiple topics without getting bogged down in irrelevant pointless detail...
Agreed. Alex kept going round in circles. Nor did he inform Hitchens the interview would be an hour+ long debate/argument on drug decriminalization. Hitchens was moody and cantankerous but so what? The interviewer benefits by milking the drama for more clicks/views/$$$.
I agree, Alex went round and round in circles. What he tries to do - and which I've seen him do to others - is catch someone out contradicting himself so he can have his big 'Aha! Gotcha!' moment. Trying to score points to the point that you wind up your interviewee is not good interviewing. Having said that - Hitchins' reaction seemed pretty unreasonable and positively deranged at the end.
@@SAHBfan so hitchens was just supposed to answer his endless repeating questions for how long exactly before he got up and left? six hours perhaps? three days and then it would have become ok to express his frustration at the boringness and futility of arguing for arguing's sake? After that interview I hate Alex too!
@@hiadrianbankhead - I think he was right to leave after he had had enough - but his behaviour after he got out of the chair didn't do him any credit, he should have been a bit more professional about it than that...
This is either dis-ingenuity, or a spectacular absence of any self-awareness on the part of Mr O'Connor. Hitchens was an obvious
target, and potentially a big scalp. He was not interested in interviewing him to elicit his views, he was setting him up to shoot
him down, based on an article by the Washington Post, which he must have known would inflame him, and which would on the surface ,appear to undermine his arguments-which essentially seemed to be the entire point of his line of questioning.
Why don't you come clean on this, Mr O'Connor? You actively dislike what Christopher Hitchens stands for, and presumably wanted to gain some kind of personal glory by publicly taking him down, Now you are trying to cover your tracks by playing
the part of the injured party.
"You actively dislike what Christopher Hitchens stands for ..." Pardon? Did you actually pay attention to this video or the interview? Or are you just trolling.
In Peter's defence though, it's utterly moronic of Alex to say "Let's see what the people have to say" when he knows full-well that nearly everyone ON HIS CHANNEL will obviously agree with him because they're followers of his.
Yep!!
Utterly moronic seems a little harsh. I'm sure Alex is smart enough to know that most of his fans would take his side, but there are other places he'd look for feedback like X where there are a lot of Hitchens fans.
You just have to analyse the reasons that people give for Alex or Peter being in the right, and it's up to each person to decide which argument is more compelling, which I'm sure is what Alex did.
He stormed out because he got bored discussing nonsense with a fool
Cry about it. He made a fool of himself storming out and it's on the internet forever.
So piss off.
@@blingabiaino197
“So p….ss off”
Nice!!
Why did Chris Williams feel the need to carry Alex Oconnor's water? AOC's interview was tedious and boring, a waste of time. It's clear that he had no interest in learning anything from this interview but was frantically searching for yet another worn angle to 'get' Hitchens to submit to his demand that drug legalization be celebrated
This has nothing to do with the substance of your comment, but could you refer to Mr. O'Connor as anything other than "AOC"? That abbreviation is already taken.
Personally I get very very little out of Alex's interviews because he does have a format where he breaks apart everything, and I mean everything that is said. Its sort of like someone says an Orange is orange in colour and he then asks them what did you mean when you said an Orange is orange in Colour. Imo it ruins an interview. Imo this interviewing style ruined a recent Rich Dawkins interview as well. So Iam with Peter and agree I found it a boring interview.
Do you storm, stamp and scream when "bored"? What's the connection?
@@sananton2821 after enough time and repeated warnings, yes, absolutely. People have their limits, and Alex was being incredibly rude. I'm shocked that Hitchens, whom I do not normally support, stayed as long as he did.
I wonder about the discussion about the "moral right to run this", a friend of mine works for a newspaper and even before setting up the interview, she always makes it crystal clear, that the interviewee has no right in either to review the interview before print or cancel it if it not goes the way they wanted.. (Not a topic on podcast, but for print, she has a full collection of all audio recordings, because already a few times she did get sued because the interviewed person claimed they didnt say what she wrote.. well all the times the case was settled before going to court when she told the other side she still has the audio recordings and can easily proof it..
I just watched the first half an hour of the Alex O’Connor Peter, Hitchins interview. I’m pro legalisation subject to huge constraints. I will watch Peter Hitchens again, but I will never watch Alex O’Connor interviewing anyone again. He made it incredibly boring, labouring over the same points again, and again, not really understanding the responses because they didn’t seem to fit in neatly to what he was prepared for. It was probably unnecessary for Hitchens to storm out rather than just politely ending the interview, but I was so bored that I didn’t even get that far.
yep, the arrogance of him to come here and feel vindicated is fckin pathetic also
Being an old bloke myself, I can imagine why Peter walked out of the interview with Alex.
It's quite confronting to find that someone about half your age is much more relavent and smarter than you are ... especially if you have been smart, relavent and influencial in the past.
It's the pain of realising that you've lost your youth and influence and intellectual edge.
Peter was clearly in the wrong. He's lost his youthful edge and influence.
It's difficult getting old.
With age comes wisdom, if you're wrong you should stand you're ground or admit fault if anything his reaction is immature
It wasn't that bad...it was the first time Petey was interesting since his brother trounced him in a debate on religion.
Had this interview simply been cordial and normal...no one would be talking about Peter Hitchens and this podcast would not have brought up the interview.
Well, I do side with Alex here more, however I think the whole situation was brought about mutually. First, Hitchens really didn't seem interested in even entertaining arguments against his beliefs, yet Alex was also really pushing against him. Hitchens was also constantly cutting in Alex's questions. In the end neither party understood the other.
"What about smoking, what about alcohol" that's exactly what Alex did, repeatedly.
Here we have two young men sitting together believing they're very clever "Yeah, especially the guys who are a little bit older, there is kind of reverse ageism going on". No, that isn't what is going on. We were all young once and a bit daft, believing we knew it all.
"Kid's aren't smoking now, and that says a lot about education". Totally wrong...we've known smoking is bad for you for several decades and were subjected to far more education on the matter than present day children, and we still smoked.
Kids are now vaping nicotine instead, and it's endemic. Ban or over regulate vaping and guess what they'll do?...smoke!
Where's you evidence? asks the numpty .
Well, smoking is primarily a manifestation of nicotine addiction. And nicotine causes pleasant feelings and distracts one from unpleasant feelings. Either via a vape or a cigarette...people are going to smoke. And banning it all together is the biggest advert ever for smoking..so that won't work either.
If you really want people to stop smoking and have them live healthier lives....you have to provide them a life worth living!
... privation & impoverishment may save the planet but it is not the way you stop people from smoking.
If one dismisses Alex's views due to his age, it reflects ageism. Hitchens' conduct in the interview seemed objectionable, marked by arrogance, dishonesty, and rudeness. Notably, he struggled to substantiate his own thesis, suggesting a misplaced sense of intellectual superiority on his part. He seemed to get frustrated that Alex kept asking questions that he couldn't answer. Pathetic behaviour.
No, @@EricusXIV it is simply a matter of knowing what your talking about and having a little life experience. Alex believes cannabis should be legal and employs whataboutery, which is ignorant on the many issues Hitchens made him aware of. Take the point on testing...how naive and utterly stupid is Alex's position here "We'll have to do random testing" when it's bloody obvious you'll have to test everyone doing important jobs before they're allowed to do them. And isn't it interesting that you are as guilty as that young man of not listening to what Hitchens was saying! Hitchens doesn't have to substantiate his 'thesis'...he isn't offering a solution to a problem. If you want to smoke cannabis and wreck your brain, do it. He's just telling you that it wrecks your brain.
@@philip851 He is not just saying that, he wants it to be a severe criminal offence. I thought you at least knew something about his work? But since you don't know what a thesis is, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... I can't be bothered explaining this to you.
Read a book or ask a grownup (you seem to put a lot of weight on age) and they'll explain it for you. Lesson one: don't have strong opinions on stuff you know next to nothing about.
No@@EricusXIV it is already an offence. He believes the law should be upheld, don't you? Your attempt to belittle my input says a lot about you ...and tbh you should really heed your own advice here. It did make me chuckle though. If I were to say to you that smoking cannabis in your teen years it increases the risk of psychosis and that there is a bunch of literature available proving this happens and we you should be dissuaded by being punished. That is my line of argument, my thesis...to think a good counter (or that there should be a counter at all) is saying "but what about alcohol ( repeatedly) that is dangerous too but it's perfectly legal?" ...is puerile!. He hasn't a clue what he's talking about and that was obvious when asked what managing that would look like."Well we'll randomly test people" He believes that a credible solution but doesn't even begin to address the problems that arise from legalizing cannabis.Clearly, he hasn't thought about it. If you invite Mr Hitchens on a podcast to have a conversation. You may disagree with him, he doesn't really care...but if all you have is naive BS and you use that to debate his pov...obviously, you've wasted his time.
@@philip851 I am not belittling you, it's simply a matter of knowing what you're talking about and having a little life experience.
Something I noticed about Peter Hitchens is that he is becoming increasingly more doom pilled, as the normies call it. In other words he is getting more cynical and bitter. He believes there is no hope and gets angry with anyone for believing that there is hope, that things will be alright and we can make it so. He then will demonstrate a complete lack of accountability, unprofessionalism, and utter arrogance, not to mention a complete lack of self control when he loses his temper. I liked a lot of what he has said but now I think he is letting things overwhelm him and he is just lost on a sea of darkness. I genuinely hope that a better understanding will bless him with the wisdom he lacks, because that is a very dark place to be in, mentally and spiritually. SIDE NOTE: So if you can convince ChatGPT of anything, any lie, any absurdity, that means it is literally like a liberal; not that smart. Interesting...I learn something new each day!
@frankbrennan1619 Honestly, pretty sobering.
Why does Hitchens have to be nice? In particular, why does he have to be nice to the latest funded snark puppet?
@@shortscenes9338 This is not about being 'nice,' this is about the utter downfall of a man's optimism and his overall well being. Hitchens has fallen victim to two deadly sins: the first being his complete and utter hopelessness that borders on giving up. The second being that he is so narcissistic and conceited that he is no longer even patient with people for daring to suggest there is hope, and he is rude to people when they even ask him his views. I hope he will be alright, truly, because I think he is a decent man, he's just fallen victim to the madness of the times. But there is always hope, which of course Hitchens would disagree with.
@@sweetie4915 You're actively answering a question I did not actively ask.
@@shortscenes9338 No, I understand why you might think that is what I was doing, but I was just describing the way I see Hitchens in his present state of mind.
Bewildering behaviour by Peter Hitchens.
By heck. Hitchins definitely got out of bed the wrong side!.
Jeez, what a prima Donna.
Well done for your patience, Alex.
Alex is being dishonest and Chris ignorant. Alex refused to concede or challenge Hitchens point about legalization and childrens accessibility as if Hitchen’s anti drug advovacy was therefore pro alc and tobacco. Alex was just trying to make his guest look stupid, blindly zealous or hypocritical. And for Chris to pile on that is a disappointment.
Agreed, Alex came off like an idiot
@@Animalistic9 yep, it was so fckin boring and Alex views are more cultist than JPs I have noticed - I doubt Chris would even have PH on because PH would destroy him if Chris actually had a viewpoint of his own
Hitchens may be a pompous old buzzard, but he clearly didn't want the interview put on air, and in spite of his protests to the contrary, I strongly suspect Alex ran the interview regardless purely because he knew it would get so many clicks. This man lacks integrity.
I disagree. Peter Hitchens for some reason is widely respected. His views and opinions carry weight. On that basis he should expect to be questioned on them. In this interview he was taken to task rigorously and didn't think he needed to be . His ego got in the way. Then he went on a Twitter rampage which asked for a response.
@Coconautify fair enough. But I still think Alex had a responsibility not to upload the interview if his guest expressed desire not to have it made public. If he made it clear that he had no intention of publishing it, Hitchens would probably have let the matter drop and not gone on any Twitter rampage. Though, of course, I could be wrong.
@@jamesdavey9690that male Karen meltdown absolutely deserved to have been seen by the whole world, it was reprehensible, rude and completely unacceptable. He deserved nothing less than to actually have his bluff called, especially as he kept doubling down.
I agree the reason it was going in circles a bit was because he wasn't giving good answers to your questions. But I think the thing you did that catalyzed the meltdown was not take the cues that he was getting irritated with the line of questioning. If your intention was to push it even if that meant pissing him off, then fair enough. But if you wanted to avoid that, you could have dropped the topic sooner.
All that said, I am totally on your side and think he acted like an insane bully.
Out of everybody here. I think this sentiment is the one I agree with most.
I think if Hitches head listen to the questions Alex was asked actually asking instead of treating him like an ideologue. It wouldn't have ended with a walk out, but then again, if Alex had better chops as an interviewer, he could have caped the topic earlier and got a full discussion from him. On a different subject.
I'am no supporter of Hitchens, I don't even know who this young Man is.... However what I would say on this is Young Men should be careful when they delight in the belief of their own greatness and Wisdom, it is a falsehood. We old Men have been fighting these fights since before you were born and with that comes Wisdom and weariness so be careful when you call us Pompous because we don't suffer fools lightly.
However Old Men should be careful to dismiss the Naive and idealistic views of the Young so easily. They are the light that keeps so many people going when the reality of the World is to crushing for them to realize. They will learn their views are foolish in time they don't need us to point them out on Social media. The naive belief that kids aren't smoking as much because our no smoking campaign was successful is proof enough of that as the only thing it was successful at was launching the Vaping industry. An industry who's harm to society and our children is yet to be realized.
Go search for the interview in question. Even if you don't watch the whole thing, watch the ending where Peter spends at least 15 minutes making false accusations against Alex and demands that the interview not be shown. He throws an epic temper tantrum. Alex O'Connor is a civil, intelligent, well educated, well read, and well spoken man who has talked with many different people in a variety of different topics. The only fool in that interview was Peter. I am embarrassed for you to give such a long winded excuse for Peter's immature behavior.
Alex O´Connor. The man with all the charm and charisma of a used tea bag.
...
Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Romans 6.23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
As opposed to the charm of Peter Hitchens?
I'm on the fence. Alex most certainly did NOT lure Peter with false pretenses but he sure beat a dead horse of a conversation. The conversation was stilted, boring and Peter was very obviously done with it. There were also a few points where Alex genuinely seemed to ignore Peter's point and ask the same question again.
Alex did nothing wrong outside being a bad interviewer on this one. Still doesn't give Peter the right to throw a tantrum instead of just vocalize what he's thinking long before storming out.
Even then, Peter also kept looping back to the same points himself after Alex agreed to drop it (mainly the point about drugs and cigarrettes) then went on a tirade about how that was the only thing *Alex* wanted to talk about. While I do somewhat agree with you that Alex didn't lead the interview well, his constant one-upping and interrupting to strawman Alex's points and pre-empt his questions ("oh I know this one it's simple", as Alex put it) made it so Peter seemed egotistically unable to drop the point that he himself wanted to drop. And made it so Alex couldn't even get his argument to have enough footing that he could continue on. Alex's only "fault" is that he didn't give up trying to clarify his points / questions when misinterpreted, and didn't respond much to the subtle contextual cues that Peter was annoyed
Literally all it would have taken was a slightly more explicit "well I would really rather like to talk about a different point now, if you will" / "I do believe we've talked about this for long enoughl from Hitchens and there wouldn't have been a communication breakdown.
I agree, he felt like Alex was not listening to him. I thought he did give him a good answer. Alex wasn’t understanding that he was answering his question so he kept asking which was frustrating Peter
Tbh im not a fan of peter hitchens but there exchange was really tiresome, the interviewer just kept going on and on and on raming the same point and i just thought please move on.
and boy did it move on
he bored me to fckin tears... I mean imagine thinking these type of drugs are going to be a net good.. it is thick
That's a fair point. Alex is a pedantic bore, but on the other hand, Hitchens should have just told him to move on from an exhausted topic.
A shadow of a shadow of a shadow compared to his late brother.
i dont like hitchens, saw the interview and i have to agree: it was boring as fck. more than 40min and no other topic but drugs.. it did suck.
Alex is the kind of person who can't see anything wrong with himself. Perhaps he should think about what he could've done differently and improve in his interviewing style...
Strange behaviour by Peter but Alex always comes across as incredibly arrogant.
Alex thinks everybody must have infinite patience with him. Not a fan of most P.Hitchens opinions or the guy, but the conversation got boring and circural and he was right to end it. But than he embarassed himself by shouting on camera and twitter meltdown, so most people are on Alex's side.
Hitchens made an unlikable fool of himself. He was in a bad mood before he started, but then again, he always seems in a bad mood.
Rent Boy is well rehearsed.
As soon as he snapped first time round, should have moved on.
He stormed out for him making it all about drugs yet signed every single one of his emails to Kate Andrew’s with “PS you’re still wrong about drugs” 😂
This reminds me of adolescent conversations about reflux of macdonalds milk shakes. Guys you are just unable to work out what matters, let alone discuss it.
I think Hitchens is a very intelligent man to the degree of being prophetic. He was making current right-wing talking points about immigration, modernity and the fundamentally containment nature of the Conservative party years before anyone else. But he's just such a miserable man. He's advised young British people to flee the country, as though we should just bail on it. He always came off as a bit arrogant but that did it for me in terms of thinking his head was in the right place.
I agree. I value his insights greatly, but he seems so bitter and defeatist now that he's become quite hard to listen to. He also sorely lacks his late brother's sense of humour.
How is the decriminalization of drugs going now? It’s beyond pot now.
I don't know who Hitchens is but still enjoyed the tea lol
Alex needs to reassess what happened, Peter Hitchens may have been dramatic, but it was an awful interview that belabored a boring argument
It is true. He ought to have changed the subject before the 30 minute mark when it was clear it was going nowhere.
You need to reassess your comment; it may have been dramatic, but it was awful and belabored a boring point. ;)
100% Peter was just fine here. Alex seems hopelessly stubborn, he is protecting the validity of his previous points to his viewers. It feels like Alex is underachieving the entire interview, and the implication might be that he is defending his own drug use which is just intolerable. Alex was very smug, and even gave Peter a "mmmyees" at one point in order to make fun of Peter's logic for a topic Alex knew about. You just don't do that in debate if you want to be taken seriously and the logic followed was not difficult to inquire about. The behaviour is actually propaganda, it tells the unknowing "oh this old fuddy >would< say such a thing." It's a display of popularism, it's entrepenurial, and because it plays with the very spirit of man and their ability to live, I think it is also a bit evil.
@@chyerchr1850 I admire the passion of your commitment here, but also, all you are saying is: I don't like Alex. Hitchens is long manifestly more guilty of the crimes you impute.
@@talastra at this point your comment is so baseless I think this is a russian psyop to destroy western society.
Methinks Alex doth protest too much.
Peter Hitchens certainly went down in my estimation. He behaved like a petulant child.
Peter Hitchens and the late Christopher Hitchens share the same last name. They are brothers. Where they differ, at least for me, is that I can listen to Christopher engage in a debate or deliver a lecture, and by God, I will listen to the entire tape. With Peter, it is different, when is this thing going to end? That's enough for one little comment, 1 out of 609 at the time I posted this thing.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! HOLD MY HAND!!! I'm a good person! He was mean! (Chris: dries tears tenderly)
The man was well in over his head. HE invited Hitchens. HE was the interviewer. Everything that went wrong was O'Connor's responsibility. The interviewer is meant to DIRECT the conversation and CONDUCT the conversation, and O'Connor was incapable as an interviewer. He just got bulldozed. He has a very overinflated sense of self-worth, and it became obvious in that particular interview, which is why he is now seeking validation from a 'friend'.
@@bodhisattva99 And what were your idol Hitchens "POINT" about why alex had run it poorly?
Hitchens was saying "Drugs" topic is Boring even tho they agreed upon it for a 1 hour Drug discussion and 1 Hour God discussion. Like he's calling the subject boring when he's written a book about it and what kind of a stuck up old man basically says "Read my book about it i don't have to answer you"
😂.Hitchens also called him a propagandist, because he didn't agree with Hitchens? Hitchens isn't even capable of being a public interviewee if he's going to make it personal. He proved the biggest cry baby in the whole interview for 20 mins ranting about how alex is a terrible person. So adult of him and definitely not childish eh?
Alex did a TERRIBLE job in that interview.
I disagree with Hitchens on almost everything, but in 45 minutes the conversation didn't move. Alex kept asking the same questions in slightly different ways... which led to Hitchens losing his patience
I bet so many people here in the comments like to think themselves as "free thinkers" but you are defending Alex just because (probably) you agree with him and disagree with Hitchens.
Some comments are basically calling for the cancellation of Hitchens. To those people i say: you are pathetic.
Perhaps a bad strategy for entertainment value from Alex, but he asked the same question several times because Hitchens *never answered it* and he wasn't letting him off the hook. I'll take that level of scrutiny from an interviewer and have a boring podcast over placating terrible arguments any day. Best example of what I'm talking about is Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. That podcast was mind numbing, but I understand so much more about those two people for having listened to it.
@@Rave.- it's not true that Hitchens didn't answer. He even repeated the same answers twice. We might not be satisfied with those answers but that's not his fault
@@adampezzuolo5618 First words of the interview from Hitchens "So far. So good'. He couldn't wait to make it known he didn't like this. And then kept giving off weird vibes. Interrupting. Every. Word. To. Stop. You. From. Speaking. He is clearly way too emotional and not in control of himself to be able to debate his points clearly. He made a fool of himself and then tried to play the victim card after verbaly abusing the host. That's just the cherry on top.
Didn't seem like he listened to the actual question regarding alcohol. Alex was very boring, but Peter was an arrogant self-righteous old man.
Are these shorter videos on the channel snippets of a longer episode? Because if they are I don't need to watch them as I plan on watching most full length interviews.
Yes. In the "Pinned Comment" at the top, that you had to scroll past to comment!
@@bc9485 thank you
One of my friend told me your podcast. He is fluent speaker. Thanks to him ❤
This podcast has done more for my wit and intellect that ~20 years of modern education.
@@conanmcclanahan1069 really !
I have watched quite a few interviews by Alex and although probing and challenging, he is always respectful. I saw the Hitchens interview some time ago and thought how pompous and superior Hitchens was but was till quite shocked when he got up and walked out- totally disrespectful.
Peter Hitchens is not a patch on his brother and I think he knows it.
I learned a new British idiom. Thanks!
@@Picasso_Picante92 you are welcome sir.
Deep down I think he is aware of this and it hurts him
I've never heard of him, I didn't even know Chistopher had a brother, now wish I never knew.
Hitchens lost his rag, whilst you kept your cool. Admirable. Just a suggestion from a regular customer - put a rough time limit e.g 30 mins on your agenda and proceed beyond that if the interviewer agrees to carry on; or agree to curtail the interview prior to the time if you have covered most of the salient points.
Cluster B pathology at full throttle
Though I don't support Peter Hitchens' reaction, or probably even his argument, the problem of not hearing, maybe not properly listening, was happening on Alex's side too. There was an issue of not properly looking at the context of the replies he was getting, and coming back again and again to contexts that didn't really fit it. Thus Peter Hitchens ended up feeling that either he just wasn't being listened to properly- thinking (mistakenly) that that might be because Alex wanted to keep pushing a point of view insistently - or that Alex just wasn't capable of proper understanding, and of properly seeing the relevance of certain points, or the context they sit in, and that thus the conversation was a waste of time. Hitchens was right that "the conversation did not flow", though he was at best very mistaken to feel that Alex had tricked him or mistreated him, and I'd probably say that he was unfair in jumping to that conclusion. In the end I would sum it up as two people not understanding each other, or agreeing on what constitutes a conversation with real substance. I probably would agree though, that Peter Hitchens is way too sure he's right about way too many things, and decides too readily that its incompetence or dishonesty when someone continues to disagree with him.