Hi Alex, if you are still interested in learning from this conversation, I do think you should have skipped to another topic quicker. That said, it was also clear that Peter was in an adversarial mode from the first second.
I think when Hitchens got angry about the "what about alcohol" thing, Alex missed an argument. Alcohol is legal. We don't want people flying planes, driving buses, or doing brain surgery under the influence of alcohol. Why don't we already have a "testing" problem?
I now recall the uncomfortable experience of your watching you, Alex, and will never watch another one of your videos again. You're a petulant and rude young man. ... I taught buttheads like you. You're the kind of young man I would ignore until I had to send him to the office. ... This was generally followed up upon by a phone call to the parents of spoiled children like you.
Yeah. Can you imagine if Alex had sat down and said that? It would have been hilarious. All he wants to talk about is legalizing all drugs, and I’m not sure which ones; however, all I can imagine is marijuana because his focus was on marijuana. Marijuana has been legal for purely recreational purposes here in California for over 6 years (and is legal for purely recreational purposes in 20 other US States, like all of New England from New York up to Maine and several others), and I haven’t noticed the slightest change in society during that time. And I’m no Gen Z. I’m 65, and I frankly couldn’t care less about the topic. It’s a non- issue here and laughably boring and uninteresting. It would be like debating whether Irish Whisky should be legal. Okay, so what else is on the agenda?
Peter Hitchens basically saying: "I HAVE BEEN ABUSED, THIS IS MY LIVED EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CONTRADICT THAT!" ...Now that is pretty ironic! 😂
It was either pre determined that he will get angry or maybe he got angry because of some random fluctuations But he did not have any free will to not get angry
I think the biggest struggle with Peter Hitchens is that he has become quite used to anticipating ambush, antagonistic journalism. That shouldn't be Alex's problem, though. If Hitchens has lost the ability to retain a sense of good will and benefit of the doubt, then it's time to hang up his hat and coat, and get out of the game. He can bang on about morality all he wants, but if he doesn't observe the milder courtesies (also under the morality umbrella), then he's no better than the thing he rails against. What a poor example and message this sends to young people, that you can expect the older men you look up to to look down on you with derision and suspicion, devolving into outright false accusation? Hitchens should be the one to eat an entire patisserie of humble pies, and apologise to Alex. It's obvious Peter has given up on life and society.
I noticed that too and got 5k views on Twitter for saying so to him, but then people responded accusing me of helping Alex spin a narrative? I'm not biased in Alex favour, I have no idea who he is. I was biased in the favour of Mr Hitchens and still disappointed here.
@@the-coopI don't really think anyone could accuse Alex of trying to spin a narrative, because every time he opened his mouth to speak, Hitchens cut him off and drowned him out.
This meltdown could have been avoided by a single: "Alex, I think I've grown a bit tired of this topic, would you mind if we moved on?" This just goes to show you it doesn't matter how intelligent or well-educated you are, if you don't know how to check your ego, you'll still find yourself behaving like a child every now and then.
He kinda says that multiple times about how he’s board, how he’d like to move on, how he wasn’t prepared to talk about Portugal, etc… Plus the interview was only supposed to be an hour and it was 48 minutes on the one topic.
Hitchens writes a whole book about drugs, admits nobody read it, then gets mad about being given an opportunity to have his ideas broadcasted to a population that probably doesn't know his views.
As an addict, I honestly wanted to hear his views… sadly he showed himself to be a COMPLETE ASS! Not an advocate, he’s actually harmful and not helpful.
Not to mention that the interviewer was the one person in the world who read his shitty book lmao What an emotionally immature and intellectually stunted toddler
He even mentioned at the end that he wasted years writing a book. He strikes me as sad and bitter. I feel bad for Hitchens for feeling this way, but the accountability is all his own.
@@RigatoniMadMax like any subject it's aimed at people with critical thinking who want to see a different opinion than theirs or people which already agree to that idea
Imagine writing a whole book about how you support a war on drugs, being invited to talk about drugs, and then getting mad about being asked about drugs.
yea and when hes asked questions on said book, he says he doesn't have to answer that because it was answered already in the book or in x blog. If you wrote the book or the blog you should be able to answer questions without referring back to them lol.
@@AussiesnrgLMAO it's gotten even dumber now that I'm watching the interview. He, in one breath, complains first about Alex asking him questions about this when his views about it are already well known since he has already written a book about it, but then complains about how nobody bought his book or even knew it existed! Just completely nonsensical, what a sad insecure excuse of a man.
I can respect someone not liking drugs, not taking them, or not wanting them to be sold in a black market. But anyone who supports a "war on drugs" it's just delusional and not to be taken off seriously in my opinion.
Yeah, that was wild. Every single time, without fail, Alex waited for Peter to finish, give a small pause to be sure, inhale and Peter would cut him off immediately, often with mere grunting noises. Bewildering, really.
At roughly 22 minutes Hitchens misses the point that most professions do NOT require constant alcohol testing- yet pilots and surgeons still undertake flying and surgery. It’s a clear but simple point that he seemingly misses and gets riled up by.
I was thinking this EXACTLY. Well said. So frustrating to talk to someone who’s questioning your mental capacity while they are completely straw manning your argument.
"You're obsessed with drugs." -Guy who wrote a book about drugs. "I think you've behaved disgracefully." -Guy off screen because he stormed out after insulting the host.
@@trumanfalkner3475 "The lack of self awareness...." is why I suspect that secretly, he's *still* a Trot, and all his lip service towards conservatism is just that; lip service.
I agree that Hitchens' off screen rant was unprofessional but if they really agreed to 1 hour then it's Alex's fault. He's the one interviewing Hitchens and he should change the subject every 10-15 minutes. Alex didn't do a good job of time management and that's on him.
@@neptuneamaru5649 _"... but if they really agreed to 1 hour then it's Alex's fault."_ - But as clearly stated by Alex at the beginning, that _isn't_ what they agreed to.
100% If he was so tired of talking about drugs after 30 minutes for example why didn't he just say, "I'd like to switch topics now. This one is boring." But instead he has a temper tantrum like a 5 year old child.
@@Fairburne69You get that Peter wasn't actually "tired of the topic," right? That was his excuse, but it was clear that Peter just kept growing increasingly mad that Alex was bringing up salient points that he simply could not refute. This is what frustration (particularly with not being as smart as you'd like to think) looks like.
Exactly my thought :D If all he did was to just storm out it would have left him in much better situation now. Sure, still disrespectful thing to do, but he would have skipped 15 minutes of making himself look like a total A hole :D
He knows this will get him more attention than the bog standard option of Peter Hitchens. Same with disagreeing with his famous brother for clicks. 2.5 million views just by having a 17 minute hissy fit- journalistic version of only fans lol
I don’t think we’d even know about Peter if it wasn’t for Christopher. This interview highlighted that this man is immature and spoiled. What a big grump.
Hitchens wants to call Alex rude but he constantly talked over the top of him and raised his voice, speaking down to him. 🤯 well done to Alex for remaining polite and calm.
It's a shame Alex didn't introduce the concept that those who want to smoke cannabis do already, and legalisation is unlikely to increase the rate of consumption.
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
My only criticism of you Alex, is that you invited a childish, reactionary, contrarian, arrogant, bullying grumpster onto your show. You displayed the utmost politeness, patience and persistence. I've just subscribed.
Alex kept badgering him on the subject of drugs so he would come round to his way of thinking. Not only did it not work but he made Hitchen's even more entrenched in his antiquated ideas. Entertaining though 😆
What's weird is people are commenting as if Alex should just move on when he gives his answer. The whole point of an interview is to critique ideas and to see how they miss with other ideas
I think he is fine with not agreeing with him, he keeps reitorating "that is just my opinion". He just does not want his opinion to be challanged. Typical fake tollerance you see a lot, everyone is allowed to have their shitty opinions but you are not allowed to have a opinion about the opinion.
@@jerrmhsI thought people did that when they engaged in polemics, or a debate, even dialogue, but not this back and forth arguing and calling it an interview. Correct me if i’m wrong
If my sole income consisted of getting 1 million dollars for any time Peter Hitchens ever says to anyone “I agree”, “You’re right” or “You have a point”, I would die in abject poverty.
@@user-os9ge2we2b People questioning other people’s claims in a calm manner tend to have this supposedly “weasely” effect on those who blindly follow said other people.
One of the many virtues of @ClarkeMicah is he is not a fence-sitter or a lame-arsed liberal or "cuck-servative" as my 26yo son refers to fence-sitters and "oh yes you have a good point there" merchants. On drugs, few have better overall perspective than @ClarkeMicah, so AO'C's attempts to justify places where legalising or decriminalising have b een a "success" wi be pointless. To his credit AO'C has done a vid on Christopher Hitchens and his bullshittery that so many leftoid cream their jeans over...
He should not have taken all that. He should have told him I'm sorry u feel that way. It wasn't my intent to waste you time. But you can get the fuck out now. He does not need to sit there and take that man's tirade. Just agree to disagree and throw him out. Just one more example of why you should never meet your heros.
@mums_poop_sock I had to scratch my head when he was like "I've spent my whole life talking about drugs" then was offended that Alex wanted to talk about drugs.
He knew this was going to look bad for him. If I thought I was mistreated by an interviewer I would not have a problem with them airing it, unless I thought I also was at fault. His line about “don’t think you’ve bested me” was the most telling. He definitely felt bested.
100%. If I thought I was mistreated by an interviewer, I would be *demanding* it aired, not telling him not to. The ‘feeling bested’ comment was indeed extremely telling.
@@PeteJohnMcGarveyyeah he was definitely bested. And I thought Alex was going soft here. Peter was very unprofessional here there would have been way better ways to move on from this topic than him standing up and doing 15 minutes of personal insults and a hissy fit
Every time insolent people get on my nerves, I watch this video. Alex's patience and calm demeanor in the face of a childish tantrum is truly commendable.
it makes me SO MUCH MORE ANGRY that Alex is trying every conceivable way to placate this man-babies desires, but he JUST KEEPS WHINING. "YOU BROUGHT ME HERE UNDER FALSE PRETENSES" "I explained at the beginning..." "WELL IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE AN HOUR" "It wasn't intended to be an hour" "WELL ONE MINUTE WAS TOO MUCH" "Then why didn't you say so at the beginning?" "YOU LAUNCHED RIGHT INTO IT" "I asked you if you were ok with the topic" "WELL I HAD TO BIKE HERE IN THE HEAT". My god, if Christopher could see his brother now he'd fucking disown him.
@@Urb4n0Ninj4 Christopher Hitchens is a world-renowned asshole in the sphere of discourse. He would go on tantrums to disprove the idea of God and speak in a less controlled tone to this lesser copy of him. If Alex had brought up the Iraq war (or whichever one Christopher supported) this would have looked eerily similar. One thing I would think would be entirely different, however, is that Christopher would not walk out and claim to be there on false pretenses, because he enjoyed debate.
First thought to cross my mind. Haven't watched the whole clip yet, but for some reason he sounded defensive from the jump. That's definitely not normal.
@@ZekeMagnar eh, I think that's probably a fine, realistic view of affairs. No need to be unnecessarily positive. this might be a hindsight thing. That phrase on its own in this context is completely okay in my eyes
@@getasimbehardly. Could easily be construed as just an endearing thing to say, jesting about the unlikely possibility of some sort of disaster, to, somewhat contrarily, show that you're not after anything like that, and you want things to be civil Actually wait that is a tad defensive...
Let me academically argue with you how Marijuana use can strategically harm you and let's deconstruct how lazy a society becomes when consuming the devil's lettuce. I should also add we can spend 24 hours talking about this. Marijuana usage is my whole personality and since I have already expounded it on my book I already have enough materials to answer your questions.
@@bry2k It's not a good argument in its original wording because its reductive. It places the obligation on your parents and God rather than yourself. That is not taking personal responsibility. Morality is multifaceted.
@@bry2kno, it's not. You could make the same argument about studying a field that has little economic potential, like art history. That harms you and god.
Right - it's as though that's Hitchens' entire rhetorical method, to wait until the other person was about to speak, and then interrupt as soon as he opens his mouth. Very annoying.
Great call out! I'm 45:30 in now and Hitchens has definitely had way more mic time and has barely let Alex get in a complete sentence without an interruption. If anybody is to blame for the conversation being stuck in place, it's him.
Thats because he was there to lecture the simple minded people not to have a discussion, and one of us simpletons had the nerve to push back and imply they disagree with his holiness opinion.
The funniest thing about this entire video is the fact that there are two chapters, "Interview" and "Hitchens leaves", the subsequent chapter lasting an entire 18 minutes 😂😂
He is clearly buthurt that he is not as smart as his brother and people don't take him seriously like his brother. Whining that publishers won't touch his book full of crap like it's anyone's fault but his own for writing a crap book.
The fact that his very first words were "So far, so good." is just pure gold. He already sounds bored and passive aggressively "stand-off-ish", like he's just waiting for a reason to be pissed. 😂
@@yoyo-lf3ld I've talked to old men about subjects we disagree on and I've had run ins with absolute tools and true gentlemen. This is just disgraceful, I agree with some of the things Hitchens is saying but God damn, way to go off the rails and not fight the argument. He seems like a person who's mad the world isn't going his way, grow up... And if I were Alex I wouldn't have been even closely as patient as him. Cheers!
Where do I start? The guy writes a book on a topic that he then, mid interview, declares himself bored of, then storms off abruptly, without warning, insisting multiple times that the host talked about 1 x subject for the entire hour when, in total (including 15 mins of off-camera shouting & threats to leave) , the whole uncut uploaded video is 59 mins. When someone feels like they're losing an argument, there are many ways to try to divert attention away from that fact. Peter demonstrated several; personal insults, get off the topic ("this is boring", for example), interrupt, straw man, pretend you don't care, run away claiming you've been wronged. It's telling that he spent 15 mins saying he was leaving whilst simultaneously threatening to tweet about the interview if it was to go out. He could have sat down & continued to talk about other topics - he refused. Alex gave him every opportunity to reconcile the interview. I have a feeling Peter underestimated the intelligence of Alex & his debating prowess & thus panicked mid-interview & fled.
At very least instead he could have said, "Alex it's been 40 minutes (it wasnt an hour) can we now move on to the next topic, i believe it was god, or I'm going to cancel the interview". (there were only 2 main topics), it still would have been a childish move, but not that much..
This is exactly the point. Peter is obviously intimidated and it shows immediately. Peter then begins with basic spousal abuse and what is called “normal marital sadism” from a form of Borderline Personality Disorder. This is just his form of argument, what he has in is repertoire. The free form of interviewing; however , is difficult for someone who has a Puritan linear perspective. He actually does need for Alex to have said, Peter, you wrote “dadadadada” and what do you think that applies to, “dada”. And when switch it up. He needs to be praised like a god quite literally and obviously. Lol and quite honestly he sounds like the straight lines from “And Now for Something Completely Different”. BUT: he is really more intimidated by mental illness and thinks it’s the end game and doesn’t know that people can get well again from drug induced psychosis and drug induced schizophrenia et al. And that contemporary psychiatry includes non-invasive therapies that don’t mean a lifetime of being drugged into idiocy. If he did know that he wouldn’t be so scared about the topic.
He did the exact thing to me! I read his book when it came out, asked him questions about it on Twitter, he - without ever having met me or ever engaged with me before - immediately told me I haven't read his book. Wanting to continue the conversation, I welcomed him to challenge me on his book by asking questions you'd only know if you had, to which he surprisingly agreed. He proceeded to ask question after question, each of which I answered (without him ever acknowledging, only moving on to the next). Then he asked an ambiguous question, which I responded to, he claimed that I was wrong, and blocked me as a result. He's a child.
Well of course you didn't read his book! He is undoubtedly and objectively correct, so the only reason why someone might possibly disagree with him is either because they didn't hear his arguments, or they're too stupid to understand their correctness!
@@oxsila Yup. And like so many narcs what set him off had very little to do with the interviewer but the poor interviewer had to bear the brunt of his stupid tantrum.
Don't let a guest mistreat you like that, Alex. The thoughtful questions and the counter-arguments you put forward are what make this channel enjoyable to watch. All I have to say about Peter, is that he proved once again that Christopher was the better man.
true. was never a fan of Peter Hitchens to begin with. Always enjoyed reading/listening to Christopher Hitchen's polemicist works in Vanity Fair and in oral debate / interview. CH was just on another level entirely.
Christopher was no better or worse than Peter. Both were/are egotistical, ungodly people. Peter just showed that he is an awful ,self centred, opinionated fool. Same as his brother was. Neither of them are worth wasting time with. Both were/are far removed from truth.
@@williamauld4083stop listening to what other people tell you and and do some real questioning and research for yourself maybe you won’t have such a nasty obviously religious opinion
I dunno, his delivery of the line struck me as something his brother would've said. Christopher said a lot of that kind of thing, but it was usually in good spirits. Christopher said those things as jokes - Peter, not so much.
@@fang_xianfuChristopher had a very different outlook on life to his brother. Without immortalisation in an afterlife one is very aware that you treat others with respect because this is it, why waste energy reducing others unless they themselves look set to cause harm to others. Peter thinks he's right, convinced of that, and obviously felt this was beneath him. From the start.
The way this man consistently cuts you off mid point, takes half of what you said, answers it badly, and then throws a tantrum about it is just astounding
Writes a book on drug criminalization Gets challenged on drug decriminalization "Frankly i'm bored of this subject now and I'm not discussing any further"
@@ellydian8145 i think you missed the point the interviewer was trying to make, in the portugese drug legalisation experiment "In the first five years after drug policy reform, use of illegal drugs rose slightly among the general population but fell again in the following five years" and that general crime declined during this period. Most likely making a correlation between criminalization leads to more crime. (Put simply). However it is likely imo we are certainly going to see an increase in crime here in the uk, but that will be more from an increased population, uncontrolled immigration, and conservative party that has destroyed the economy.
I always thought he seemed insufferable when debating his brother, but I attributed that to sibling rivalry. It would seem he’s more consistent than I gave him credit for.
He hates it when people don't agree to his point and stay focused on his point. He's of the type that if you're talking or arguing about a specific discourse; then stay on topic and don't change the subject so to speak about another already established issue. He's kind of got a point. But he doesn't state it clear enough I guess. Or at least in a way that gets it out there that he wants the interviewer or person arguing with or against him to stay on topic. Maybe there's something else. But I'm getting this vibe from this particular interview.
Yeah, he’s always been an obnoxious jerk. Like you said tho, it could have seemed more obvious when debating Chris. But when I looked in on other conversations people had with him he had that self satisfied arrogance far too many apologists possess.
I feel like he could have been less of a boomer and stayed in his chair and demanded the subject be changed without all the drama. All I learned is he doesn't like Portugal and Alex.
He was going around in circles on the drug subject. It was boring me as well. Interview a cranky old man and get a cranky old man. I find millennials irritating as well
@@MarcusCicero1if you watch closely, Alex didn't even get to the meat of the point he was trying to get across. I was listening to him try to cross examine the laws and the cultural shifts of something like tobacco and alcohol as well as marijuana. With all of the interruptions from Hitchens, Alex didn't even touch the subject that Hitchens FIRST brought up in his opening where he said that marijuana has correlation that enough damage us already done that is doesn't even need to be counted as a gateway drug. Which, as a viewer I was very curious on that challenge from Alex.
@@CommanderCodyChipless I thought Peter explained it quite well. That is the danger of Marijuana shouldn't be diminished by classifying it as a gate way drug. Hitchens certainly should have been more patient whith the interviewer but the older you get the less tolerant you get with stupidity, real or perceived,
This is a masterclass in dealing with an angry, irrational, and incorrect person. Alex, you handled this with grace, patience, logic, and correctness. I respect you tremendously for being kind while also standing up for yourself. Anyone, whether or not they agree with your positions on this topic or any topic should see that Hitchens was being cowardly and ridiculous. Thank you for posting this.
i think that 1 minute of that is already enough, why would i be wrong? after 1 or 2 attempts to calm him down dont work gtfo who the fuck are you with that behaviour.
A masterclass in being a wimp. Do not take the OP's comment as the correct response. Do not let old people talk to you like that. That senior did not deserve to talk like that. No wonder he didn't want to talk about the royalty, he would end up exposing his royalty complex
This was so much more absurd than I could have possibly imagined. The more composed and genuine you were, the more irate he became. It was such a grossly disproportionate response and the level of projection in claiming such maltreatment from you despite staying 15 minutes just to berate you whilst you attempted to reason with him and explain yourself is utterly INSANE
He’s a spoiled child, unhappy with himself and his life. Just listening to him whining that his book didn’t get the praise he thinks it deserves explains Hitchens entire personality. The thought that the book was maybe just rubbish doesn’t even occur to him.
Have you never read his columns or seen him on TV before? When he's not angry, aggressive and insulting he passive-aggressive, fuming inside and still just as insulting. He occasionally adopts a Libertarian stance on the odd issue but is basically a full-on Conservative D*CKHEAD... Authoritarian nutjob with more in common with Commies than Libertarians and Liberals. The more Conservative you are the more joy & jobs you want banned, and the more kids beaten, and prisoners executed. Nasty moronic NANNY-COP STATIST.
He is a notorious contrarian. If there were a massive Christian revival in the UK he would become an atheist. If there was a sudden surge in social conservatism he would advocate for liberalism. He believes in nothing beyond holding unpopular opinions.
To be fair, I kind of get where Peter is coming from here. An utter drab of a "debate", or a "conversation", or whatever you want to call this. I would be bored off my noggin, if I had to sit there reiterate this sort of base level back and forth on a subject being trodden through many times, more articulately and with better prepared opiners on the issue. I am certainly not for legalization of harmful drugs as a policy myself, but that is neither here and there. The point here, is that Alex O' Connor really missed the mark and did not capitalize on an opportunity to have a fruitful and intellectually challenging conversation with one of the better pundits and political opiners of our time.
That was cold blood as hell lol... But he is actively debating every guest in the most confrontation way. It seems very difficult to see how someone extremely agreeable would do that.
"I read your work" five minutes later "you didn't do you homework, if you'd read my book", "I read your book". Five minutes later "if you'd read my book!" "I read your book", five more minutes later "if you would have just read my work", "I read your work"...
I somewhat feel like Hitchens has no idea what he's even doing the interview for. He wrote this book, but he repeatedly says he doesn't think people will care about his opinion, that he doesn't have any influence, that even if he did, the audience's changing their mind wouldn't cause any substantive change... so why did he write the book and why did he agree to the interview?
Alex: *tries to say literally anything* Peter: *interrupts with stupid accusations and stuttering* The irony of this man-child saying that Alex is being rude is mindboggling.
Christopher clearly got all the charm and charisma - Peter was sadly left with nothing. Hopefully this video will make him crawl up his own a$$ and disappear.
I think this was bad on both sides. Peter Hitchens was clearly in a disagreeable mood to begin with and made ad-hominem attacks repeatedly, whilst Alex kept circling the interview back and forth after the subject had been exhausted, making it more like a debate without a moderator than an interview, which clearly made Hitchens even more annoyed. Neither man would agree on any of the topics, but countless productive interviews have been completed in the past despite that. A good interviewer and a good subject don't have to agree, but if it devolves into a point-scoring argument like this in which no-one wants to be the bigger man and move on, it's unrecoverable.
@@blackbelt2003 the war on drugs is Hitchins game, and he agreed to it being one of two subjects he was prepared to discuss. If he didn't want to talk about it, as apparently he didn't, then don't agree to it. And if he'd actually let Alex speak it may well have been done in 20 minutes. Alex bears absolutely no responsibility for this, but Htchins has shown himself to be an absolute man-brat.
“My good nature was abused” has got to be one of the richest statements I’ve ever heard. Particularly after repeatedly hurling insults at Alex and constantly cutting him off throughout the interview. Also, perhaps the interview would have been less circular if PH didn’t constantly cut off Alex to repeat points/rants he’d already made. Hitchens repeats himself a lot while talking over AOC - as PH did most of the talking maybe he should take some of the blame? I think PH’s ideal interview would be him alone on stage, giving a hour long lecture after which the host will say “you sir are a genius”
@@specialforces101please elaborate, as it sounds very much like nonsense Alex was impeccable in his questioning, am usually impressed with his composure faced with ignorant and/or rude guests/opponents, but here he is downright Incredible The point of the law being on "paper" is to bring consumption to the surface so fewer die as a result of overconsumption and mainly to greatly limit the black market and as a result: gang violence
That’s nothing. We once had to call the police to evict an irascible and impecunious aunt who was vociferously demanding dinner after showing up ‘randomly’ to be invited to stay for dinner for a fortnight and had since come to expect it . . . 😂
@@louiseyvette2261 If one is genuinely appalled at another's behavior, it wouldn't take them 17 minutes to leave. Hitchens comes off as a conversational narcissist throughout, unwilling to face scrutiny on his positions, which is why he had to take this amount of time and repeat himself to try and frame Alex as a villain. For reference, I re-listened to the final 17 minutes and pulled this tally of these rough categories: Run it - 4 Don't run it - 12 False Pretense - 12 This has been on nothing but drugs - 17 I've been here for an hour - 10 Bad manners - 22 I don't like you - 5 I'm bored - 6 A lot of the final 17 minutes was muffled as well. There's likely other phrases he said that fit into one of these categories which I've missed, or another category I could create which he repeats the same quip over and over. For example, something about his book and how Alex hasn't read it, or doesn't understand it, not listening to answers, etc. The icing on the cake is at 46:39 when Hitchens says "this isn't because you've got the better of me". Petulance at it's finest.
I like how, even in spite of the disagreement, he still gave you the full hour he promised. 40 minutes of drug debate and 20 minutes of him throwing a hissy fit. The man cares about the algorithm
Even in the first 40 minutes the lesser Hitchins was rude, answering questions before they were finished, and misconstruing points made to him. I can see why he's not taken seriously
Anyone pointing that the rant started only 40 minutes in must be less sensitive than me, I raised my eyebrows at the derailment before the 30 minute mark of the video
I find it shocking how idiotic Hichens doesn’t know anything about the Portuguese situation. We are still one of the safest countries in the world! Britain, by contrast, has been awful for years.
Repeatedly, loudly saying "you're being very rude to me" whilst simultaneously talking over you every time you even attempt to start speaking in reply for 15minutes straight, has to be some sort of attempt at the world record for irony.
This is fantastic content. You get publicity, you get good content for your channel, and you come out of this looking like a saint for your patience while Peter ends up looking like a complete tool. Good stuff. I like how the first thing he says, in response to you thanking him for being on the podcast, is "so far so good." What bizarre and obnoxious behavior.
I was already primed to hate the guy after reading the thumbnail and Hitchens' wikipedia article, but I didn't expect his very first sentence to confirm my detestation. What an extraordinary jerk.
Yeah the video started with him actively disliking the interviewer. So why did he come on the show? To blow hard about how smart he was, to make the young man look foolish. Then he had to retreat to silly arguments like "sure, drug decriminalization might have had an effect on decrease in drug deaths. Or it might have been global warming," as though he had made a clever retort. That Alex ignored that and didn't bother to make fun of it is, I think, what really started the down turn in Peter's temper. This guy (whom I had never heard of before) appears to be a "gotcha" debater, unaccustomed to having someone calmly and detachedly talk with him on the subject of his book. I thought it was especially sad that Peter had to keep going on about how Alex had not prepared, and then had to remind himself that Alex had read his book, only to follow up "yeah but you didn't understand it." He did that at least three times in his post-interview rant, forgetting and then remembering each time that "you know nothing" was not a good attack in this case.
@@michaelmcaree6296 If you think Alex has demonstrated patience, imagine growing up as his brother! Edit: I should probably mention, since you hadn't heard of him before, that the famous author/debater Christopher Hitchens was his brother.
“My good nature was abused” WHAT? My jaw was absolutely dropped so many times at what he said about how good of a person he is after being unable to handle a simple conversation, getting angry at every turn, and hurling insults.
@@johnjameson6751 He was afraid to leave. He kept trying to justify the act of leaving as if there were going to be some sort of judgement that might involve punishment. Don't you find that odd?
Peter Hitchens has always lived under the shadow of his more intelligent, eloquent and successful brother. Christopher ("Hitch") decimated his less intelligent and talented brother in their only public debate, the subject of which was religion. Even after death, "Hitch" reaches out from beyond the grave and continues to shame his less endowed brother. Rest In Peace Hitch.
Peter belittled himself. As much as I admire the intellectual legacy of Christopher Hitchens, Christopher didn't do anything from the grave to belittle his poorly behaved brother.
@@proudatheist2042 I think that for decades Peter has suffered from the knowledge that his brother was his superior. And it was not a close call. Christopher was his superior in every facet. Thus Peter was unable to collect his thoughts in each public encounter, including this one. RIP "Hitch".
I don’t think comments like this are necessary or even useful. I don’t like the way Hitchens behaved in this interview either but playing armchair psychologist and crafting some grand story about his relationship with his brother and accusing him of having an inferiority complex is just insulting and adolescent.
@@motorhead48067 I politely disagree with you. It is obvious to me and to the majority of observers that my comments are factually accurate. If you do not like the truth then you probably need to reconsider your world view. Kind regards.
I purposely didn't read the comments the whole video to be as unbiased as i could be so here i am to check the comments after watching, and that was my exact first thought of Hitchens when he said that 🤦🏼♂️
Never seen an adult "academic" have a tantrum. He felt so empowered to disrespecting you, so flagrantly verbally abusive. I hope he never sees the end of this. Truely shameful.
@@proudatheist2042 He was brillant at constantly being on the wrong side of history as a classic islamophobic warmonger who never cared for the Palestinian people one bit, but loved to side with the war criminals in Washington D.C. and London who thought that it's nice to start an illegal war of aggression in Iraq, based on no/fake evidence. I guess the over one million dead Iraqis might miss that "brillant" guy the most - don't you think so, too?
You should apologize to Hitchens for offending him and beg him for another interview. Tell him you want to talk about God. Then when he sits down, ask him, "When Jesus starts his thousand year reign, do you think he'll legalize drugs?"
He doesn't let you speak more than 3 words at once, talks about drugs for an hour, winds himself up in the process and then freaks out over having had to talk about drugs for an hour. This was painful to listen to and your patience is admirable
@@noidea2568 Did he really say that? I missed it. Gotta love how right wingers always blame "cancel culture" on liberals, and then try to cancel everyone they don't like.
Imagine how the podcast would have gone if Peter stopped for even a moment to listen to what he was actually being asked and responded. Thank you @cosmicskeptic for a masterclass on human decency and interview integrity xx
Hitchens should be embarrassed and certainly owes you an apology. Massive respect to you as always Alex. You're a role model that Peter, despite being almost 50 years older than you, needs to follow.
Love how he accused you of not listening to him while he interrupted and presumed the whole time. You are such a great example of patience and curiosity. Thank you!
Yes Hitchens did go over the top, but I actually understand why he got so angry over it. The subject hit a real nerve in him and you should appreciate that, rather than just calling him a loony. Now Alex has an interest in the subject because he is a drughead himself, but he KNOWS that Hitchens absolutely despises drugs and what they do to society. It was because of the decency of his manners that he stayed there for 45 mins enduring Alex interviewing him about drugs, waiting relentlessly for the topic to move on. Really, he would have much rather only spent 5-10 mins on it. No more than that. So I get how it frustrated him. Alex was just being relentless for him
I think Alex should have known better and not caused an elderly gentleman to become so aggravated over this crap. Hitchens is really bitter about the subject, because like he said, he highly regrets having wasted years of his life on it. Alex, having read his books, knew that and should been more respectful to him by swiftly moving on with the subject. He DEFINITELY shouldn't have tried to spend a whole hour on drugs with somebody who is so resentful against them. Just because Alex is a drughead, doesn't mean he should use Hitchen's time to make arguments for drugs and to try to convert more people to becoming drugheads. That's really what made Hitchens angry. I get it. It was insolent that his time was abused in that way by Alex for his own druggy motives.
@@marioluigi9599Alex told him the interview topics beforehand. Peter wrote an entire book about anti drugs, so clearly it’s a topic he wants to talk about. So it’s weird for you to say that Peter wouldn’t want to discuss this topic.
The first thing that came out of his mouth was "so far, so good" when you thanked him for being a guest, so he was already in a bad mood for whatever reason.
It's insane how unprofessional Hitchens was here. From the start he obviously didn't want to be there and insisted on interrupting and verbally abusing you throughout the interview. Props to Alex for being calm and well-mannered throughout the interview even when being lied about and threatened. Consider it a blessing that he never wants to talk to you again. Earned a subscriber here. Fantastic professionalism on your part.
Saying "you are rude" and "incompetent" in the same sentence one after the other while running away from simple question and talking over you when you try to explain yourself is just the best
An excerpt from a Guardian review of Hitchin's book: "His own instincts strike him as so self-evident that anyone who does not share them has to be dismissed with total contempt. If we are indeed surrounded by cultural ruin, then Hitchens is a fine specimen of it: one of those manic preachers who have been shouting so long that they can no longer hear any voice apart from their own." There is certainly no denying those words, now, is there?
Wow, the first sentence of that quote hit me hard! It perfectly summarizes the attitude of a person in my life who treats me like this. I’ve mostly concluded that I need to either stay away from this person or minimize my engagement with them on any topic of substance. What else can I do?
I like to take statements like this quote with a massive grain of salt, but it perfectly encapsulates Hitchin's attitude during this interview. Him talking about how one correlation is more likely to be causation than another one simply because it seems more reasonable to him is the perfect example.
Don't be sorry, be thankful! What other interviewer could have handled the situation so smoothly and provided us with such an immaculate piece of content? This was a beauty Alex!
That man had a chip on his shoulder the minute he walked through the door. You did an amazing job of being polite and guiding things around his rudeness and interruptions. Good thing you don’t have to ever sit down with him again. He intended to walk off before he sat down.
47:40 I just skipped to near the end and thought that he was having an interview with a chair called Peter who had been lured there under false pretences.
At a certain point of intellect, You can not reason with stupid people. You will explain to them exactly. And then they will say the same thing in a different way, Forever. Hitchins is beyond this man. Alex is like a politician, he knows how to sound a certain way, I bet he got flying colours at university yet didn't understand a single thing. He's like some posh nepo baby standing up in the Oxford union explaining a weak point in a 7000 word essay in the world's most posh accent, sipping whiskey.
@@ConDuiler Totally agree, initially I skipped to the part where Hitchens storms out and I got a negative opinion of him, but then I went back to listen to the whole interview and that changed my entire mind. Alex O'Connor is clearly smoking something (not that there's anything wrong with drugs - in case that triggers someone), but that pattern is always the same for people on drugs. It's all they can talk about. The only mistake Hitchens made was that he agreed to this interview. Alex O'Connor should apologize to everyone when he realizes he wasted such an opportunity.
@jimnz8402 Hitchins may come off as a pompous, narcissistic belligerent at first, How you come off is irrelevant. He's correct, highly intelligent, Refined. You can't just fire off questions at this man as if you're in some A level secondary school class, Half these questions are almost so ignorant and thoughtless he's borderline insulting hitchins the entire interview. It's like inviting a world class snooker player to a game of charity snooker and you put him up against some guy from the pub.. the high level snooker player will come off as a pompous arrogant arcehole but why the fuck would he be happy with this situation, You've wasted his time and humiliated him.. He's not going to sit there and teach someone how to play snooker when you've got him here on the pretense of taking part in a charity match. You want hitchins to educate you? Maybe try reading his books cover to cover for a start.
This is one of the most legendary interactions I’ve ever seen. You remained composed and respectful whilst this guy lost his mind, I think he’s been smoking artificial weed
Hitchens: Writes book about subject Man: Reads book and disagrees with his point Hitchens: You obviously didn’t read my book. Otherwise you’d agree with me.
@@zeroglitch1310 Absolutely right he is bored with himself. Peter Hitchen is unbelievably arrogant. Reminds me of another pain that I know personally who is just completely impossible to talk to.
@jessiebrinklow1595 - hate to tell you, but Alex is also unbelievably arrogant. Hitchens is a bellend, but Alex did want to interview him. He should have taken the hint about 15 minutes in that Hitchens did not want to discuss drugs. Alex didn’t mention the book, Hitchens did. When he said “he’s made his arguments in his book, this isn’t the venue to discuss them and people can read the book if they want his opinions” should have been Alex’s cue to move on. But no, we had to listen to follow up after follow up, including the inane Portugal thread. I can’t stand Hitchens, but when Alex went to Portugal, it was clear he had an agenda and he wanted to press it. His passive-aggressive, smug attitude tells me he knew exactly what he was doing. Did Hitchens handle it well? No. But Alex is not blameless here.
@@sirhumphreyappleby6498 that’s not arrogance that’s being an interviewer. You know what I do when I’m having a conversation I don’t like? I change the subject. Or let the other adult I’m talking to I’m done talking about it. I don’t sit there and fume until I can’t take it anymore and explode at the interviewer
From start to finish he was agitated, condesending, constantly interrupting for no reason, bullying with agresive tone of voice, insulting his inteligence, education, preperation and skill as a host. Also tried to sabotage his work by demanding not to air this interview and threaten him with social media presure and retaliation. All in all he is just a frustrated man child who couldnt leave his brother's shadow, still.
Hitchens greeting at the beginning was “so far, so good” and then took an almost hyperventilative breath. He seemed to be bracing for some fictional impact before the conversation even started. It seems to me like the guy is suffering a great deal and has quite a bit of background fear leading him to be hyper-vigilant to a threat that doesnt exist.
@@tl7988Something like this. Smart, genuine zealouts that have an intractable belief can behave this way too. Reasonable discussion with someone who is better at debate than you is either reflexively or deliberately sabotaged because you don’t want to lose in the eyes of the audience. That or you don’t want to be clipped saying things that you think hurt your future ability to share cohesive and consistent “absolutely no drugs” message. You don’t even need to be a zealot. Just a devoted grifter who understands their audience.
@@Metacarn48 i genuinely dont understand what you are trying to say and how it pertains to Hitchens seeming sense of fear from the start of the conversation. If you can say it again in a more cohesive (not said with condescension) way i would happily consider your point. Who are these zealots you are referring to? Are you saying Hitchens has had bad experiences before of being taken out of context and is worried AO is going to do the same? If this is the case shouldnt Hitchens have clarified whether the interview would be edited or not prior to sitting down? Who is the hypothetical grifter? In my experience the guy just seems riddled with fear and apprehension.
I was trying to agree with you and speculate further. I’m not trying to be condescending. Though I will admit that listening to these types of videos does tend to make me speak/write a lil more like an uptight jackass. @@tl7988Again@@tl7988you’re right. To paraphrase, the first words out of his mouth seemed fearful or apprehensive and he came off rigid and anxious on camera. I’m just not sure on the why. This is the first interview I’ve seen of him. I’m also not being specific because I’m talking about patterns I recognize in public speakers/debaters generally. If they feel they’re going to “lose” support for themselves, or the idea they’re defending/ promoting, then they’ll often shift the conversation to be about how you’re doing Conversation wrong, or distract/attack etc. As to why Peter is fearful, I can imagine someone going into an interview nervous because they truly believe that “winning” (which here is convincing more people to be for banning or heavily regulating intoxicant use) is a moral imperative to keep society in divine good graces. (He seems to strongly believe in God). People get fearful when stakes are higher and they’ve suffered a number of losses already (ie. politely shot down while consulting with government) Alternatively, Peter could be grifting. Maintaining a cohesive brand by not having off brand conversations is important. But yeah, him just being a human being whose nervous system was being overwhelmed by anxiety or stress seems likely. I’m just speculating as to why. I’m curious, where do you think Alex wanted to try and take the conversation?
Get early access to videos, and get them ad-free, by supporting my channel at www.alexoconnor.com
Hi Alex, if you are still interested in learning from this conversation, I do think you should have skipped to another topic quicker. That said, it was also clear that Peter was in an adversarial mode from the first second.
hmm, I _also_ actively dislike you, but that doesn't seem to be able to stop this site from constantly recommending your shit videos to me
Why you would entertain this pompous moron I do not know.
I think when Hitchens got angry about the "what about alcohol" thing, Alex missed an argument. Alcohol is legal. We don't want people flying planes, driving buses, or doing brain surgery under the influence of alcohol. Why don't we already have a "testing" problem?
I now recall the uncomfortable experience of your watching you, Alex, and will never watch another one of your videos again. You're a petulant and rude young man. ... I taught buttheads like you. You're the kind of young man I would ignore until I had to send him to the office. ... This was generally followed up upon by a phone call to the parents of spoiled children like you.
"1 minute would've been too long to talk about drugs." - a man who wrote a book concerning drug use
😂😂😂😂😂😂
As if he said, " I wrote a book about it...enough said".
And Alex cleared the topic with him multiple times in advance 🥴 Old bastard
he only wants to talk about it if its the propoganda being unchallenged. no intellectual integrity allowed.
Who was invited to discuss drug decriminalisation. 😅
Imagine he’d gotten Hitchens to sit back down after 20 minutes of arguing. “So… God. … Do you think he’d have decriminalised drugs?”
Well played, Sir.
lmao 👍🏼 WWJD
Bravo - would have been a peach
lol!
Yeah. Can you imagine if Alex had sat down and said that? It would have been hilarious. All he wants to talk about is legalizing all drugs, and I’m not sure which ones; however, all I can imagine is marijuana because his focus was on marijuana. Marijuana has been legal for purely recreational purposes here in California for over 6 years (and is legal for purely recreational purposes in 20 other US States, like all of New England from New York up to Maine and several others), and I haven’t noticed the slightest change in society during that time. And I’m no Gen Z. I’m 65, and I frankly couldn’t care less about the topic. It’s a non- issue here and laughably boring and uninteresting. It would be like debating whether Irish Whisky should be legal. Okay, so what else is on the agenda?
I've never seen someone take so long to storm out of a room
really
😂
It’s because he likes to go in circles. Both physically and argumentatively.
reminds me of the Key and peele sketch :P
Peter Hitchens basically saying: "I HAVE BEEN ABUSED, THIS IS MY LIVED EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CONTRADICT THAT!" ...Now that is pretty ironic! 😂
"thank you for being here"
"so far so good"
what kind of reply is that? dude was upset from the start
He’s perpetually swallowed by his brothers shadow and will be bitter about that forever
This guy was an asshole the whole time…
Yea. He came in pissed.
Forgot to smoke some bud in the morning.
Truu
It was either pre determined that he will get angry or maybe he got angry because of some random fluctuations
But he did not have any free will to not get angry
“Thanks for being here.”
“So far, so good.”
Already off to a tragic start. Man, what an absolute grump of a man.
Foreshadowing irony
Yeah I clocked that too, that was brutally rude. What an entitled old prick.
I think the biggest struggle with Peter Hitchens is that he has become quite used to anticipating ambush, antagonistic journalism. That shouldn't be Alex's problem, though. If Hitchens has lost the ability to retain a sense of good will and benefit of the doubt, then it's time to hang up his hat and coat, and get out of the game.
He can bang on about morality all he wants, but if he doesn't observe the milder courtesies (also under the morality umbrella), then he's no better than the thing he rails against.
What a poor example and message this sends to young people, that you can expect the older men you look up to to look down on you with derision and suspicion, devolving into outright false accusation?
Hitchens should be the one to eat an entire patisserie of humble pies, and apologise to Alex.
It's obvious Peter has given up on life and society.
I noticed that too and got 5k views on Twitter for saying so to him, but then people responded accusing me of helping Alex spin a narrative? I'm not biased in Alex favour, I have no idea who he is. I was biased in the favour of Mr Hitchens and still disappointed here.
@@the-coopI don't really think anyone could accuse Alex of trying to spin a narrative, because every time he opened his mouth to speak, Hitchens cut him off and drowned him out.
This meltdown could have been avoided by a single:
"Alex, I think I've grown a bit tired of this topic, would you mind if we moved on?"
This just goes to show you it doesn't matter how intelligent or well-educated you are, if you don't know how to check your ego, you'll still find yourself behaving like a child every now and then.
Bingo.
He kinda says that multiple times about how he’s board, how he’d like to move on, how he wasn’t prepared to talk about Portugal, etc…
Plus the interview was only supposed to be an hour and it was 48 minutes on the one topic.
@@bubbacheese3929 Yeah but if it was bothering him so much he could've just been more firm about moving on instead of throwing a temper tantrum
Could have been avoided by any awareness and decent questioning on Alex' part, also. Both are to blame.
Easiest solution.
Hitchens writes a whole book about drugs, admits nobody read it, then gets mad about being given an opportunity to have his ideas broadcasted to a population that probably doesn't know his views.
As an addict, I honestly wanted to hear his views… sadly he showed himself to be a COMPLETE ASS! Not an advocate, he’s actually harmful and not helpful.
Not to mention that the interviewer was the one person in the world who read his shitty book lmao
What an emotionally immature and intellectually stunted toddler
He even mentioned at the end that he wasted years writing a book. He strikes me as sad and bitter. I feel bad for Hitchens for feeling this way, but the accountability is all his own.
Who the hell wants to read a book about why we shouldn’t legalise drugs. Who is a book like that aimed at?
@@RigatoniMadMax like any subject it's aimed at people with critical thinking who want to see a different opinion than theirs or people which already agree to that idea
I stumbled across this 11 months later, and legend has it that Hitchens is still storming out
good one
That me laugh out loud😂
Imagine writing a whole book about how you support a war on drugs, being invited to talk about drugs, and then getting mad about being asked about drugs.
I thought the same thing
yea and when hes asked questions on said book, he says he doesn't have to answer that because it was answered already in the book or in x blog. If you wrote the book or the blog you should be able to answer questions without referring back to them lol.
@@AussiesnrgLMAO it's gotten even dumber now that I'm watching the interview.
He, in one breath, complains first about Alex asking him questions about this when his views about it are already well known since he has already written a book about it, but then complains about how nobody bought his book or even knew it existed!
Just completely nonsensical, what a sad insecure excuse of a man.
@@ragegaze3482he is mad that no one gives a crap about his book, it's sadly transparent
I can respect someone not liking drugs, not taking them, or not wanting them to be sold in a black market. But anyone who supports a "war on drugs" it's just delusional and not to be taken off seriously in my opinion.
I like Peter's strategy of waiting until the EXACT moment Alex starts speaking to talk over him
Yeah, that was wild. Every single time, without fail, Alex waited for Peter to finish, give a small pause to be sure, inhale and Peter would cut him off immediately, often with mere grunting noises. Bewildering, really.
@@thecakereduxIt was like something out of a cartoon
It's infuriating. I hate people that do this
@@thecakeredux lol. Hitchens is a conversation hog. He does that all the time.
And HE’S the one who continuously said that Alex was rude. Staggering in his unawareness.
If you took a shot for every sentence Alex got through without Peter shouting over him, you would be as sober as Peter wants the entire planet to be.
Hahajaha!!!!
😂😂😂
What a miserable lad he seems.
i will now be playing this with a dab pen
The real question is, is Peter even sober himself?
At roughly 22 minutes Hitchens misses the point that most professions do NOT require constant alcohol testing- yet pilots and surgeons still undertake flying and surgery.
It’s a clear but simple point that he seemingly misses and gets riled up by.
I was thinking this EXACTLY. Well said. So frustrating to talk to someone who’s questioning your mental capacity while they are completely straw manning your argument.
He knows and said he wasted his life on something that makes no difference in this world
I don’t think he missed the point, I think him getting riled up was likely a defensive reaction.
Totally agree. Couldn't be bothered to think up a sentence that described it, but I'm glad someone did!
"You're obsessed with drugs." -Guy who wrote a book about drugs.
"I think you've behaved disgracefully." -Guy off screen because he stormed out after insulting the host.
The lack of self-awareness is truly embarrassing to watch. But I can’t look away. Was this an episode of the office?
@@trumanfalkner3475 "The lack of self awareness...." is why I suspect that secretly, he's *still* a Trot, and all his lip service towards conservatism is just that; lip service.
@@Si_Mondo Yes, interesting thought. You could be right.
I agree that Hitchens' off screen rant was unprofessional but if they really agreed to 1 hour then it's Alex's fault. He's the one interviewing Hitchens and he should change the subject every 10-15 minutes. Alex didn't do a good job of time management and that's on him.
@@neptuneamaru5649 _"... but if they really agreed to 1 hour then it's Alex's fault."_
- But as clearly stated by Alex at the beginning, that _isn't_ what they agreed to.
Imagine this grown man who, instead of saying “Sorry, Alex, can we move onto a different topic”, decides to have a full on tantrum 😂
100% If he was so tired of talking about drugs after 30 minutes for example why didn't he just say, "I'd like to switch topics now. This one is boring." But instead he has a temper tantrum like a 5 year old child.
@@Fairburne69You get that Peter wasn't actually "tired of the topic," right? That was his excuse, but it was clear that Peter just kept growing increasingly mad that Alex was bringing up salient points that he simply could not refute.
This is what frustration (particularly with not being as smart as you'd like to think) looks like.
The issue is that Alex pointed follow-up questions showed how weak Hitchens' answers are. Hitchens really hates it when he gets exposed like that.
He did say it at the 11 minute mark. I think, however dislikable he is, he did say he didn't want to go on about it, at least once.
11:50 he said he doesnt want to go on about the subject
Storming out doesn't have quite the same effect when you stand there for 15 minutes arguing off camera
Exactly my thought :D If all he did was to just storm out it would have left him in much better situation now. Sure, still disrespectful thing to do, but he would have skipped 15 minutes of making himself look like a total A hole :D
He knows this will get him more attention than the bog standard option of Peter Hitchens. Same with disagreeing with his famous brother for clicks. 2.5 million views just by having a 17 minute hissy fit- journalistic version of only fans lol
@@TheJuanvegas It's unfathomable that Christopher & Peter Hitchens share a Mother.
...One of those babies definitely got dropped on his head
I don’t think we’d even know about Peter if it wasn’t for Christopher. This interview highlighted that this man is immature and spoiled. What a big grump.
No on the contrary what a pompous naive young self absorbed narcissistic child
He doesn't hold a candle to his brother in terms of wit or charm. Christopher hitchens wrote books that people actually read.
@ChadVanKlompenburg wow.. all of you such snobs. Atheists narcissistic verbal diharea
Hitchens wants to call Alex rude but he constantly talked over the top of him and raised his voice, speaking down to him. 🤯 well done to Alex for remaining polite and calm.
Totally agree!
100%
He misunderstood Alex, then spent several minutes berating him whilst not letting him explain. Alex showed superhuman restraint.
@@octoBadger Truly a teeth grinding moment. Alex is a better man than I. I would have told him to shut his mouth lol
I used to have respect for Hitchens, but that was pathetic.
It's a shame Alex didn't introduce the concept that those who want to smoke cannabis do already, and legalisation is unlikely to increase the rate of consumption.
Just imagine Peter Hitches angrily riding a bicycle with his little helmet and backpack.
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
😂😂😂
Little helmet's a bit personal. And how do you know that anyway?
@@matthewphilip1977😂😂😂
RUDE! 😂
In the literal first minute:
Alex - " Thank you for being here"
Peter: " So far, so good"
That in itself should have been a MASSIVE red flag.
to be fair to him he does often say that in his interviews. I remember a much more constructive conversation with Novara Media
He says it in every interview. The fact you dont know this shows how ignorabt you are of him
Tries to start it off with a witty start like Christopher would have done, but fails.
@@kil93honestly that doesn’t make it any less of a red flag lol
@@kil93why wouldn't one be ignorant of some old goblin looking rude mf?
Anything wrong with it?
My only criticism of you Alex, is that you invited a childish, reactionary, contrarian, arrogant, bullying grumpster onto your show. You displayed the utmost politeness, patience and persistence. I've just subscribed.
It's rather entertaining.
Alex kept badgering him on the subject of drugs so he would come round to his way of thinking. Not only did it not work but he made Hitchen's even more entrenched in his antiquated ideas.
Entertaining though 😆
I've never seen someone voluntarily go onto a podcast who so vehemently does NOT want to have a conversation.
By his own admission, slogged across London on a bike aswell to have said conversation he didn't want to have.
@@for111really???😂😂is he mad?? Lmfao what a slag
Kanye West on TimcastIRL.
@@for111m
He is also doing it for free. Alex gets a lot out of it and Mr Hitchens gets nothing but an hour in the company of a entitled pseudo intellectual.
Peter's problem is that he believes once he's explained his side of the argument you have to agree with him.
What's weird is people are commenting as if Alex should just move on when he gives his answer. The whole point of an interview is to critique ideas and to see how they miss with other ideas
I think he is fine with not agreeing with him, he keeps reitorating "that is just my opinion". He just does not want his opinion to be challanged. Typical fake tollerance you see a lot, everyone is allowed to have their shitty opinions but you are not allowed to have a opinion about the opinion.
That's what we call a bingo.
God , I got this exact feeling from him. "I've said my part, thanks for agreeing with me."
@@jerrmhsI thought people did that when they engaged in polemics, or a debate, even dialogue, but not this back and forth arguing and calling it an interview. Correct me if i’m wrong
If my sole income consisted of getting 1 million dollars for any time Peter Hitchens ever says to anyone “I agree”, “You’re right” or “You have a point”, I would die in abject poverty.
Alex was such a weasel
@@user-os9ge2we2b Even if that were true, it would still be irrelevant to my point.
@@user-os9ge2we2b People questioning other people’s claims in a calm manner tend to have this supposedly “weasely” effect on those who blindly follow said other people.
One of the many virtues of @ClarkeMicah is he is not a fence-sitter or a lame-arsed liberal or "cuck-servative" as my 26yo son refers to fence-sitters and "oh yes you have a good point there" merchants. On drugs, few have better overall perspective than @ClarkeMicah, so AO'C's attempts to justify places where legalising or decriminalising have b een a "success" wi be pointless.
To his credit AO'C has done a vid on Christopher Hitchens and his bullshittery that so many leftoid cream their jeans over...
@@user-os9ge2we2b Explain it then? Bet you wont
Alex: “Thanks for being here.”
Child: “So far, so good.”
Aged like milk.
You have the patience of a saint, Alex. I cannot even imagine being that polite, for that long, with that man.
Right!
I have not idea how people like him do not come out swinging and swearing up a storm.
He should not have taken all that. He should have told him I'm sorry u feel that way. It wasn't my intent to waste you time. But you can get the fuck out now. He does not need to sit there and take that man's tirade. Just agree to disagree and throw him out. Just one more example of why you should never meet your heros.
What a pompous prick!! No wonder nobody listens to him.
@@mbvurawn370Peter Hitchens is someone's hero?
Yeah honeslty i would have thrown the water on the table on his face
Peter Hitchens: writes an entire book on drugs.
Also Peter Hitchens: "omg how could you ask me to speak for an ENTIRE hour about drugs"
???
He said a minute was too long.
@mums_poop_sock I had to scratch my head when he was like "I've spent my whole life talking about drugs" then was offended that Alex wanted to talk about drugs.
@@thekwjiboo The kid admitted right at the beginning that the agreement was to speak about several topics in the interview
@@mums_poop_sock I think that was one of the craziest counter points he made
@@garymitchell5899 sure, but that's totally different from the petulant "A minute is too long" complaint I was replying to.
He knew this was going to look bad for him. If I thought I was mistreated by an interviewer I would not have a problem with them airing it, unless I thought I also was at fault. His line about “don’t think you’ve bested me” was the most telling. He definitely felt bested.
100%. If I thought I was mistreated by an interviewer, I would be *demanding* it aired, not telling him not to. The ‘feeling bested’ comment was indeed extremely telling.
In my addled haze, I read "felt bested" as "self bested". He really did outdo himself!
@@PeteJohnMcGarveyyeah he was definitely bested. And I thought Alex was going soft here. Peter was very unprofessional here there would have been way better ways to move on from this topic than him standing up and doing 15 minutes of personal insults and a hissy fit
My thoughts exactly. That was a clear concession of defeat, even if he didn't intend it that way.
"I'm definitely not mad. Don't put in the papers that I'm mad" lol. Dril's tweets are useful so often
the longest storm out in history.
Every time insolent people get on my nerves, I watch this video. Alex's patience and calm demeanor in the face of a childish tantrum is truly commendable.
it makes me SO MUCH MORE ANGRY that Alex is trying every conceivable way to placate this man-babies desires, but he JUST KEEPS WHINING. "YOU BROUGHT ME HERE UNDER FALSE PRETENSES" "I explained at the beginning..." "WELL IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE AN HOUR" "It wasn't intended to be an hour" "WELL ONE MINUTE WAS TOO MUCH" "Then why didn't you say so at the beginning?" "YOU LAUNCHED RIGHT INTO IT" "I asked you if you were ok with the topic" "WELL I HAD TO BIKE HERE IN THE HEAT".
My god, if Christopher could see his brother now he'd fucking disown him.
@@Urb4n0Ninj4 I think his brother would not disown him. I think his brother would of put him in his place more than Peter did.
@@c0k375 You think Chris would have acted to Alex the way Peter did? You're delusional.
@@Urb4n0Ninj4 Christopher Hitchens is a world-renowned asshole in the sphere of discourse. He would go on tantrums to disprove the idea of God and speak in a less controlled tone to this lesser copy of him.
If Alex had brought up the Iraq war (or whichever one Christopher supported) this would have looked eerily similar. One thing I would think would be entirely different, however, is that Christopher would not walk out and claim to be there on false pretenses, because he enjoyed debate.
I was getting so upset at how he couldn't get a word in. Clearly someone who likes to hear his own voice.
HAHAHA just the opening:
Alex: “Thanks for being here!”
Peter: “So far… so good…”
Alex (thinking): what a f****ng weird way to say hi, but ok 😂
First thought to cross my mind. Haven't watched the whole clip yet, but for some reason he sounded defensive from the jump. That's definitely not normal.
@@ZekeMagnar eh, I think that's probably a fine, realistic view of affairs. No need to be unnecessarily positive. this might be a hindsight thing. That phrase on its own in this context is completely okay in my eyes
@@billyjoelbeans Nah it's definitely defensive. Not only the words, but also the way he said them
my thoughts too
@@getasimbehardly. Could easily be construed as just an endearing thing to say, jesting about the unlikely possibility of some sort of disaster, to, somewhat contrarily, show that you're not after anything like that, and you want things to be civil
Actually wait that is a tad defensive...
Never seen a man who could use a joint quite like this gentleman.
Lmaooo, he really does
I’m dead.
Let me academically argue with you how Marijuana use can strategically harm you and let's deconstruct how lazy a society becomes when consuming the devil's lettuce. I should also add we can spend 24 hours talking about this. Marijuana usage is my whole personality and since I have already expounded it on my book I already have enough materials to answer your questions.
😂😂😂
you mean man child?
"Harming yourself is an offense against God and your parents" is not an argument. Christopher cornered the market on genius in this family.
Actually it is a pretty good argument...if you are the sort of person who sees value in both personal and societal morality.
It is + the argument for the cost on sociaty and mental health.
@@bry2k It's not a good argument in its original wording because its reductive. It places the obligation on your parents and God rather than yourself. That is not taking personal responsibility. Morality is multifaceted.
What if my educated, successful and agnostic parents also took drugs in their youth, Mr Hitchens?
@@bry2kno, it's not. You could make the same argument about studying a field that has little economic potential, like art history. That harms you and god.
Hitchens: claims Alex isn't listening to him
Also Hitchens: interrupted almost every sentence Alex spoke.
Right - it's as though that's Hitchens' entire rhetorical method, to wait until the other person was about to speak, and then interrupt as soon as he opens his mouth. Very annoying.
Great call out! I'm 45:30 in now and Hitchens has definitely had way more mic time and has barely let Alex get in a complete sentence without an interruption. If anybody is to blame for the conversation being stuck in place, it's him.
That's Hitchens
Thats because he was there to lecture the simple minded people not to have a discussion, and one of us simpletons had the nerve to push back and imply they disagree with his holiness opinion.
@@MrDiveDave He does come off as elitist. And a poor sport.
The funniest thing about this entire video is the fact that there are two chapters, "Interview" and "Hitchens leaves", the subsequent chapter lasting an entire 18 minutes 😂😂
He is clearly buthurt that he is not as smart as his brother and people don't take him seriously like his brother. Whining that publishers won't touch his book full of crap like it's anyone's fault but his own for writing a crap book.
Now we know what the funniest parts are for you . What was the most thought provoking part of the interview??
It would be much funnier if the first chapter was called drugs 😂
The fact that his very first words were "So far, so good." is just pure gold. He already sounds bored and passive aggressively "stand-off-ish", like he's just waiting for a reason to be pissed. 😂
You hit the nail on the head! He came in already wearing "I'm being attacked!"-tinted glasses, so everything he saw looked like an attack.
His an old man lol its to be expected
@@yoyo-lf3ldnope
@@yoyo-lf3ld I've talked to old men about subjects we disagree on and I've had run ins with absolute tools and true gentlemen. This is just disgraceful, I agree with some of the things Hitchens is saying but God damn, way to go off the rails and not fight the argument. He seems like a person who's mad the world isn't going his way, grow up... And if I were Alex I wouldn't have been even closely as patient as him. Cheers!
@@yoyo-lf3ld exactly, probably dealing with chronic pain which makes him cranky too
Where do I start? The guy writes a book on a topic that he then, mid interview, declares himself bored of, then storms off abruptly, without warning, insisting multiple times that the host talked about 1 x subject for the entire hour when, in total (including 15 mins of off-camera shouting & threats to leave) , the whole uncut uploaded video is 59 mins. When someone feels like they're losing an argument, there are many ways to try to divert attention away from that fact. Peter demonstrated several; personal insults, get off the topic ("this is boring", for example), interrupt, straw man, pretend you don't care, run away claiming you've been wronged. It's telling that he spent 15 mins saying he was leaving whilst simultaneously threatening to tweet about the interview if it was to go out. He could have sat down & continued to talk about other topics - he refused. Alex gave him every opportunity to reconcile the interview. I have a feeling Peter underestimated the intelligence of Alex & his debating prowess & thus panicked mid-interview & fled.
At very least instead he could have said, "Alex it's been 40 minutes (it wasnt an hour) can we now move on to the next topic, i believe it was god, or I'm going to cancel the interview". (there were only 2 main topics), it still would have been a childish move, but not that much..
This is exactly the point. Peter is obviously intimidated and it shows immediately. Peter then begins with basic spousal abuse and what is called “normal marital sadism” from
a form of Borderline Personality Disorder. This is just his form of argument, what he has in is repertoire. The free form of interviewing; however , is difficult for someone who has a Puritan linear perspective. He actually does need for Alex to have said, Peter, you wrote “dadadadada” and what do you think that applies to, “dada”. And when switch it up. He needs to be praised like a god quite literally and obviously. Lol and quite honestly he sounds like the straight lines from “And Now for Something Completely Different”. BUT: he is really more intimidated by mental illness and thinks it’s the end game and doesn’t know that people can get well again from drug induced psychosis and drug induced schizophrenia et al. And that contemporary psychiatry includes non-invasive therapies that don’t mean a lifetime of being drugged into idiocy. If he did know that he wouldn’t be so scared about the topic.
"Peter, you seem really tense. How about we smoke a joint together?"
Stop! 😂
oh man 😂😂😂
"Peter... What's going on, big guy?"
Absolutely
That may actually fix him
He did the exact thing to me! I read his book when it came out, asked him questions about it on Twitter, he - without ever having met me or ever engaged with me before - immediately told me I haven't read his book. Wanting to continue the conversation, I welcomed him to challenge me on his book by asking questions you'd only know if you had, to which he surprisingly agreed. He proceeded to ask question after question, each of which I answered (without him ever acknowledging, only moving on to the next). Then he asked an ambiguous question, which I responded to, he claimed that I was wrong, and blocked me as a result. He's a child.
Hitchens NEVER blocks on twitter. You are a liar.
Any chance you could share your twitter handle? I would love to see this conversation.
Well of course you didn't read his book!
He is undoubtedly and objectively correct, so the only reason why someone might possibly disagree with him is either because they didn't hear his arguments, or they're too stupid to understand their correctness!
Hahahah that's so funny. 😂😂😂
@@arcticwolf6402 It didn't happen
It’s incredible how often he can insult you and then have the temerity to say that you are the one who have been rude to him
Sad man projecting his sadness.
Just seems like your classic narcissist who can do no wrong, others only do wrong to him.
@@oxsila Yup. And like so many narcs what set him off had very little to do with the interviewer but the poor interviewer had to bear the brunt of his stupid tantrum.
EXTREMELY rude even.
I feel like he hadn't done any research and then got pissed he wasn't getting his dick sucked. Narcissist.
How can Hitchens be so self-pitying and patronising at the same time?
Don't let a guest mistreat you like that, Alex. The thoughtful questions and the counter-arguments you put forward are what make this channel enjoyable to watch. All I have to say about Peter, is that he proved once again that Christopher was the better man.
true. was never a fan of Peter Hitchens to begin with. Always enjoyed reading/listening to Christopher Hitchen's polemicist works in Vanity Fair and in oral debate / interview.
CH was just on another level entirely.
Christopher was no better or worse than Peter. Both were/are egotistical, ungodly people. Peter just showed that he is an awful ,self centred, opinionated fool. Same as his brother was. Neither of them are worth wasting time with. Both were/are far removed from truth.
Peter needs to Remove the Branch from his 👁 as Jesus said. In Peter's case Jesus would have said," Remove the Hole Dam Tree from Thine eye"
@@williamauld4083stop listening to what other people tell you and and do some real questioning and research for yourself maybe you won’t have such a nasty obviously religious opinion
@@williamauld4083 sure
"So far, so good." The opener of a man ready to leave.
I dunno, his delivery of the line struck me as something his brother would've said. Christopher said a lot of that kind of thing, but it was usually in good spirits. Christopher said those things as jokes - Peter, not so much.
Exactly. Christopher would have said it in jest. His brother oozes self-pity and childish petulance. Not to mention a repulsive lack of good manners.
@@fang_xianfuChristopher had a very different outlook on life to his brother.
Without immortalisation in an afterlife one is very aware that you treat others with respect because this is it, why waste energy reducing others unless they themselves look set to cause harm to others.
Peter thinks he's right, convinced of that, and obviously felt this was beneath him. From the start.
Thats what i was thinking too
“So far so good.” ….What a STRANGE first response to the opening of the Podcast?
The way this man consistently cuts you off mid point, takes half of what you said, answers it badly, and then throws a tantrum about it is just astounding
This was the most painful part of the "interview" to watch for me by far. Just let him finish the question once Peter, please.
Ya, some serous projection Peter was demonstrating calling Alex rude.
Peter Hitchens has embarrassed himself by exhibiting the most ill-mannered and ill-tempered behavior I've seen.
@@iemy2949 Projection: the propaganda alligation was another example.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 ya fr.
Writes a book on drug criminalization
Gets challenged on drug decriminalization
"Frankly i'm bored of this subject now and I'm not discussing any further"
40 minutes talking about drugs, 20 minutes talking about talking about drugs.
lmao😂
hahahahahahaha bullseye
20 more minutes taking drugs 😂
Classic 🤣
40 minutes talking about drugs, 20 minutes of the drugs he’s on kicking in.
If anything could drive people to drink and drugs, it would be listening to Peter Hitchens.
I can’t stand the way he talks!!!
It’s pretentious and made worse by the whistling of his S’s.
I was smoking weed when watching this.
Pretentious arrogant toff
@@ellydian8145 i think you missed the point the interviewer was trying to make, in the portugese drug legalisation experiment "In the first five years after drug policy reform, use of illegal drugs rose slightly among the general population but fell again in the following five years" and that general crime declined during this period. Most likely making a correlation between criminalization leads to more crime. (Put simply). However it is likely imo we are certainly going to see an increase in crime here in the uk, but that will be more from an increased population, uncontrolled immigration, and conservative party that has destroyed the economy.
The display of Alex’s capacity to remain level headed alone is inspiring enough to post the interview
Poor Alex. So nice and polite. I can’t believe he can keep his cool. Hitchins is crazy!
I always thought he seemed insufferable when debating his brother, but I attributed that to sibling rivalry. It would seem he’s more consistent than I gave him credit for.
Finally someone who understands
He hates it when people don't agree to his point and stay focused on his point. He's of the type that if you're talking or arguing about a specific discourse; then stay on topic and don't change the subject so to speak about another already established issue. He's kind of got a point. But he doesn't state it clear enough I guess. Or at least in a way that gets it out there that he wants the interviewer or person arguing with or against him to stay on topic. Maybe there's something else. But I'm getting this vibe from this particular interview.
Yeah, he’s always been an obnoxious jerk. Like you said tho, it could have seemed more obvious when debating Chris. But when I looked in on other conversations people had with him he had that self satisfied arrogance far too many apologists possess.
Yes he’s always been an insufferable twat. I don’t think anyone would give his opinions the time of day were it not for his brother.
I feel like he could have been less of a boomer and stayed in his chair and demanded the subject be changed without all the drama. All I learned is he doesn't like Portugal and Alex.
It’s amazing how Alex is able to keep his cool during Peter’s awful rant. He called him rude, incompetent and extremely dishonest. What a prat.
He was going around in circles on the drug subject. It was boring me as well. Interview a cranky old man and get a cranky old man. I find millennials irritating as well
You can tell his mindset was off going into the discussion with “so far, so good”. Utter git. 😂
@@MarcusCicero1if you watch closely, Alex didn't even get to the meat of the point he was trying to get across. I was listening to him try to cross examine the laws and the cultural shifts of something like tobacco and alcohol as well as marijuana. With all of the interruptions from Hitchens, Alex didn't even touch the subject that Hitchens FIRST brought up in his opening where he said that marijuana has correlation that enough damage us already done that is doesn't even need to be counted as a gateway drug. Which, as a viewer I was very curious on that challenge from Alex.
@@MarcusCicero1Alex is from gen z (he was born in 1999)
@@CommanderCodyChipless I thought Peter explained it quite well. That is the danger of Marijuana shouldn't be diminished by classifying it as a gate way drug. Hitchens certainly should have been more patient whith the interviewer but the older you get the less tolerant you get with stupidity, real or perceived,
This is a masterclass in dealing with an angry, irrational, and incorrect person. Alex, you handled this with grace, patience, logic, and correctness. I respect you tremendously for being kind while also standing up for yourself.
Anyone, whether or not they agree with your positions on this topic or any topic should see that Hitchens was being cowardly and ridiculous.
Thank you for posting this.
i think that 1 minute of that is already enough, why would i be wrong? after 1 or 2 attempts to calm him down dont work gtfo who the fuck are you with that behaviour.
Alex must be a sis male.
He definitely handled it way better than I would’ve.
A masterclass in being a wimp. Do not take the OP's comment as the correct response. Do not let old people talk to you like that. That senior did not deserve to talk like that. No wonder he didn't want to talk about the royalty, he would end up exposing his royalty complex
It's not a masterclass at all, it's a poor interview.
"I dont like being challenged" that speaks so loudly
At 54:04
This was so much more absurd than I could have possibly imagined. The more composed and genuine you were, the more irate he became. It was such a grossly disproportionate response and the level of projection in claiming such maltreatment from you despite staying 15 minutes just to berate you whilst you attempted to reason with him and explain yourself is utterly INSANE
I am blown away at how disrespectful, and childish that man was. you handled that awkward situation way better than I would have.
He’s a spoiled child, unhappy with himself and his life. Just listening to him whining that his book didn’t get the praise he thinks it deserves explains Hitchens entire personality. The thought that the book was maybe just rubbish doesn’t even occur to him.
Have you never read his columns or seen him on TV before? When he's not angry, aggressive and insulting he passive-aggressive, fuming inside and still just as insulting. He occasionally adopts a Libertarian stance on the odd issue but is basically a full-on Conservative D*CKHEAD... Authoritarian nutjob with more in common with Commies than Libertarians and Liberals. The more Conservative you are the more joy & jobs you want banned, and the more kids beaten, and prisoners executed. Nasty moronic NANNY-COP STATIST.
Too busy thinking he's superior. He's very stuck in his ways of thinking
He is a notorious contrarian. If there were a massive Christian revival in the UK he would become an atheist. If there was a sudden surge in social conservatism he would advocate for liberalism. He believes in nothing beyond holding unpopular opinions.
To be fair, I kind of get where Peter is coming from here. An utter drab of a "debate", or a "conversation", or whatever you want to call this. I would be bored off my noggin, if I had to sit there reiterate this sort of base level back and forth on a subject being trodden through many times, more articulately and with better prepared opiners on the issue. I am certainly not for legalization of harmful drugs as a policy myself, but that is neither here and there. The point here, is that Alex O' Connor really missed the mark and did not capitalize on an opportunity to have a fruitful and intellectually challenging conversation with one of the better pundits and political opiners of our time.
"I don't like you"
"That's fine."
Alex, you are literally the most agreeable person ever lol
Agreeable yes but mostly professional
That was cold blood as hell lol... But he is actively debating every guest in the most confrontation way. It seems very difficult to see how someone extremely agreeable would do that.
@@mathiasrennochaves3533 "...debating every guest in the most confrontation way." Hmmm are we talking about Alex O'connor ?
@@leoskyi wouldn't you say so? Point me in one interview that he didn't repeatedly challenged the beliefs of his guest even when he agreed with him.
@@mathiasrennochaves3533 playing devils advocate is not what I would call being confrontational. But I see what you mean now
Bro they even went in circles when he was trying to leave 😂
"youre obsessed with drugs" "youve not read what ive written about drugs". 😂😂😂
"I read your work" five minutes later "you didn't do you homework, if you'd read my book", "I read your book". Five minutes later "if you'd read my book!" "I read your book", five more minutes later "if you would have just read my work", "I read your work"...
I somewhat feel like Hitchens has no idea what he's even doing the interview for. He wrote this book, but he repeatedly says he doesn't think people will care about his opinion, that he doesn't have any influence, that even if he did, the audience's changing their mind wouldn't cause any substantive change... so why did he write the book and why did he agree to the interview?
Alex: *tries to say literally anything*
Peter: *interrupts with stupid accusations and stuttering*
The irony of this man-child saying that Alex is being rude is mindboggling.
The interruptions were the things that most amazed me. I'm thinking about seeing it again and counting them.
Christopher clearly got all the charm and charisma - Peter was sadly left with nothing.
Hopefully this video will make him crawl up his own a$$ and disappear.
If you took a drink every time he interrupts, then you would not be able to watch the whole interview.
I think this was bad on both sides. Peter Hitchens was clearly in a disagreeable mood to begin with and made ad-hominem attacks repeatedly, whilst Alex kept circling the interview back and forth after the subject had been exhausted, making it more like a debate without a moderator than an interview, which clearly made Hitchens even more annoyed. Neither man would agree on any of the topics, but countless productive interviews have been completed in the past despite that. A good interviewer and a good subject don't have to agree, but if it devolves into a point-scoring argument like this in which no-one wants to be the bigger man and move on, it's unrecoverable.
@@blackbelt2003 the war on drugs is Hitchins game, and he agreed to it being one of two subjects he was prepared to discuss.
If he didn't want to talk about it, as apparently he didn't, then don't agree to it.
And if he'd actually let Alex speak it may well have been done in 20 minutes.
Alex bears absolutely no responsibility for this, but Htchins has shown himself to be an absolute man-brat.
Alex’s patience and calm is unreal
He deserves so much credit for this
The patience of Job.
@@queenknow Ironically, for an atheist, lol.
I don't blame hitchens . Your boring
He trained himself on religious people.
After a 20 minute meltdown, the interview still didn't reach an hour 😂
“My good nature was abused” has got to be one of the richest statements I’ve ever heard. Particularly after repeatedly hurling insults at Alex and constantly cutting him off throughout the interview.
Also, perhaps the interview would have been less circular if PH didn’t constantly cut off Alex to repeat points/rants he’d already made. Hitchens repeats himself a lot while talking over AOC - as PH did most of the talking maybe he should take some of the blame?
I think PH’s ideal interview would be him alone on stage, giving a hour long lecture after which the host will say “you sir are a genius”
Your point about law and smoking is immaterial if it wouldn't be enforced. I'm afraid Hitchins shows you up as a dimwit.
LOL. I wonder how Alex feels about being AOC
😂
@@specialforces101please elaborate, as it sounds very much like nonsense
Alex was impeccable in his questioning, am usually impressed with his composure faced with ignorant and/or rude guests/opponents, but here he is downright Incredible
The point of the law being on "paper" is to bring consumption to the surface so fewer die as a result of overconsumption and mainly to greatly limit the black market and as a result: gang violence
😀😀😀
Hitchens took 17 minutes to leave. Let that sink in.
That’s nothing. We once had to call the police to evict an irascible and impecunious aunt who was vociferously demanding dinner after showing up ‘randomly’ to be invited to stay for dinner for a fortnight and had since come to expect it . . . 😂
What's the significance of 17 minutes?
@@louiseyvette2261 Yeah I was thinking the same thing 😊
@@louiseyvette2261 If one is genuinely appalled at another's behavior, it wouldn't take them 17 minutes to leave. Hitchens comes off as a conversational narcissist throughout, unwilling to face scrutiny on his positions, which is why he had to take this amount of time and repeat himself to try and frame Alex as a villain.
For reference, I re-listened to the final 17 minutes and pulled this tally of these rough categories:
Run it - 4
Don't run it - 12
False Pretense - 12
This has been on nothing but drugs - 17
I've been here for an hour - 10
Bad manners - 22
I don't like you - 5
I'm bored - 6
A lot of the final 17 minutes was muffled as well. There's likely other phrases he said that fit into one of these categories which I've missed, or another category I could create which he repeats the same quip over and over. For example, something about his book and how Alex hasn't read it, or doesn't understand it, not listening to answers, etc.
The icing on the cake is at 46:39 when Hitchens says "this isn't because you've got the better of me". Petulance at it's finest.
I bet he took longer than 17 minutes to let his drugs _sink in._
I like how, even in spite of the disagreement, he still gave you the full hour he promised. 40 minutes of drug debate and 20 minutes of him throwing a hissy fit. The man cares about the algorithm
Truly, he was so boring for the first half that he decided he had to make up for it in the second, and he delivered
@@resir9807 In spades 😂
Even in the first 40 minutes the lesser Hitchins was rude, answering questions before they were finished, and misconstruing points made to him. I can see why he's not taken seriously
@@NR-py3to He turned hypocrisy into a form of art, really.
Anyone pointing that the rant started only 40 minutes in must be less sensitive than me, I raised my eyebrows at the derailment before the 30 minute mark of the video
I find it shocking how idiotic Hichens doesn’t know anything about the Portuguese situation. We are still one of the safest countries in the world! Britain, by contrast, has been awful for years.
“You’re a propagandist for drug legalization” I’ve literally never even heard Alex talk about this subject before, lol
And it appears you as a listener have now been demoted by Peter as a "druggy friend."
Well now you have galaxy brain.
😂😂
Repeatedly, loudly saying "you're being very rude to me" whilst simultaneously talking over you every time you even attempt to start speaking in reply for 15minutes straight, has to be some sort of attempt at the world record for irony.
And that was just his warm up
"You've abused me"
"It's a good sign of my self restraint that I haven't actually sworn at you"
🤡
@@resir9807 He isn't swearing in this heated moment? What a paragon of patience... oh wait, he's throwing a tantrum!
This is fantastic content. You get publicity, you get good content for your channel, and you come out of this looking like a saint for your patience while Peter ends up looking like a complete tool. Good stuff.
I like how the first thing he says, in response to you thanking him for being on the podcast, is "so far so good." What bizarre and obnoxious behavior.
I was already primed to hate the guy after reading the thumbnail and Hitchens' wikipedia article, but I didn't expect his very first sentence to confirm my detestation. What an extraordinary jerk.
Yeah the video started with him actively disliking the interviewer. So why did he come on the show? To blow hard about how smart he was, to make the young man look foolish. Then he had to retreat to silly arguments like "sure, drug decriminalization might have had an effect on decrease in drug deaths. Or it might have been global warming," as though he had made a clever retort. That Alex ignored that and didn't bother to make fun of it is, I think, what really started the down turn in Peter's temper. This guy (whom I had never heard of before) appears to be a "gotcha" debater, unaccustomed to having someone calmly and detachedly talk with him on the subject of his book.
I thought it was especially sad that Peter had to keep going on about how Alex had not prepared, and then had to remind himself that Alex had read his book, only to follow up "yeah but you didn't understand it." He did that at least three times in his post-interview rant, forgetting and then remembering each time that "you know nothing" was not a good attack in this case.
@@michaelmcaree6296 If you think Alex has demonstrated patience, imagine growing up as his brother!
Edit: I should probably mention, since you hadn't heard of him before, that the famous author/debater Christopher Hitchens was his brother.
No way! No way Christopher and this idiot are brothers@@chinkasuyaro8983
@@chinkasuyaro8983 I see Peter's brother got the brains in the family
OMG it is so annoying when a person CONSTANTLY interrupts another.
Watch fox news
“My good nature was abused” WHAT? My jaw was absolutely dropped so many times at what he said about how good of a person he is after being unable to handle a simple conversation, getting angry at every turn, and hurling insults.
Classic narcissistic.
That man is clearly confused, since I'm still looking for his good nature that he has talked about.
Everyone here prefer Christopher?
And of course, he had to interrupt Alex at almost every word.
@@nerdtalkvanwilliams6227
Peter's way more honest and moral.
Primed from the start: "Thanks for being here".
"So far, so good."
exactly what I was thinking. First words out of his mouth, and it was over before it even started
absolutely hilarious
This is what performative outrage looks like, and it is hilarious to watch Peter Hitchins make such a fool of himself in this attempt.
Why was Hitchens there, though? He clearly did not want to be, and he clearly despised the young puppet.
@@johnjameson6751 He was afraid to leave. He kept trying to justify the act of leaving as if there were going to be some sort of judgement that might involve punishment.
Don't you find that odd?
Peter Hitchens has always lived under the shadow of his more intelligent, eloquent and successful brother. Christopher ("Hitch") decimated his less intelligent and talented brother in their only public debate, the subject of which was religion. Even after death, "Hitch" reaches out from beyond the grave and continues to shame his less endowed brother. Rest In Peace Hitch.
Must be why Christopher was completely wrong on Iraq. Cope harder midwit.
Peter belittled himself. As much as I admire the intellectual legacy of Christopher Hitchens, Christopher didn't do anything from the grave to belittle his poorly behaved brother.
@@proudatheist2042 I think that for decades Peter has suffered from the knowledge that his brother was his superior. And it was not a close call. Christopher was his superior in every facet. Thus Peter was unable to collect his thoughts in each public encounter, including this one. RIP "Hitch".
I don’t think comments like this are necessary or even useful. I don’t like the way Hitchens behaved in this interview either but playing armchair psychologist and crafting some grand story about his relationship with his brother and accusing him of having an inferiority complex is just insulting and adolescent.
@@motorhead48067 I politely disagree with you. It is obvious to me and to the majority of observers that my comments are factually accurate. If you do not like the truth then you probably need to reconsider your world view. Kind regards.
This is a great ad for those microphones
His first words were, "So far so good." Sounds like he has an expectation that it will not go well.
He didn’t want to talk about it in the beginning and should’ve said something before flipping out.
He's pretty self-serious and arrogant. 😂😂
I agree. He came preloaded with a sourness.
He almost went berserk on the recent triggernometry episode haha 😂
I purposely didn't read the comments the whole video to be as unbiased as i could be so here i am to check the comments after watching, and that was my exact first thought of Hitchens when he said that 🤦🏼♂️
Never seen an adult "academic" have a tantrum. He felt so empowered to disrespecting you, so flagrantly verbally abusive. I hope he never sees the end of this. Truely shameful.
Shows how much you know about him, Hitchens isnt an academic
Academic?! He's a scaremongering Mail journo who likes to exclusively preach to the converted.
I don't see how anyone could call Peter "an academic." His late brother was one of the most brilliant people to ever walk the planet.
I used to think that he's an esteemed respected expert, but after hearing his arguments I'm now convinced otherwise.
@@proudatheist2042 He was brillant at constantly being on the wrong side of history as a classic islamophobic warmonger who never cared for the Palestinian people one bit, but loved to side with the war criminals in Washington D.C. and London who thought that it's nice to start an illegal war of aggression in Iraq, based on no/fake evidence. I guess the over one million dead Iraqis might miss that "brillant" guy the most - don't you think so, too?
You should apologize to Hitchens for offending him and beg him for another interview. Tell him you want to talk about God. Then when he sits down, ask him, "When Jesus starts his thousand year reign, do you think he'll legalize drugs?"
funniest comment i've read in years
As a Christian, this is hilarious 😂
😂
Excellent suggestion!
😂😂😂😂
when his first response is ''so far so good'' u know ur in for a combative episode haha
He doesn't let you speak more than 3 words at once, talks about drugs for an hour, winds himself up in the process and then freaks out over having had to talk about drugs for an hour. This was painful to listen to and your patience is admirable
It was painful to listen to because of Alex's lines of questioning
Wasn't even an hour though. Was 40minutes. Of a 2 hour schedule interview.
ain't no way a 60 year old man just said "i'll start tweeting now" after having an argument
That was breathtaking
Bro really hit him with the "I'm gonna cancel you on twitter" 💀
@@noidea2568 Did he really say that? I missed it. Gotta love how right wingers always blame "cancel culture" on liberals, and then try to cancel everyone they don't like.
Boomers gotta boom🤷🏻
71
Imagine how the podcast would have gone if Peter stopped for even a moment to listen to what he was actually being asked and responded. Thank you @cosmicskeptic for a masterclass on human decency and interview integrity xx
"So far, so good"
Hitchens should be embarrassed and certainly owes you an apology. Massive respect to you as always Alex. You're a role model that Peter, despite being almost 50 years older than you, needs to follow.
Love how he accused you of not listening to him while he interrupted and presumed the whole time.
You are such a great example of patience and curiosity. Thank you!
Yes Hitchens did go over the top, but I actually understand why he got so angry over it. The subject hit a real nerve in him and you should appreciate that, rather than just calling him a loony.
Now Alex has an interest in the subject because he is a drughead himself, but he KNOWS that Hitchens absolutely despises drugs and what they do to society. It was because of the decency of his manners that he stayed there for 45 mins enduring Alex interviewing him about drugs, waiting relentlessly for the topic to move on. Really, he would have much rather only spent 5-10 mins on it. No more than that. So I get how it frustrated him. Alex was just being relentless for him
I think Alex should have known better and not caused an elderly gentleman to become so aggravated over this crap. Hitchens is really bitter about the subject, because like he said, he highly regrets having wasted years of his life on it. Alex, having read his books, knew that and should been more respectful to him by swiftly moving on with the subject.
He DEFINITELY shouldn't have tried to spend a whole hour on drugs with somebody who is so resentful against them. Just because Alex is a drughead, doesn't mean he should use Hitchen's time to make arguments for drugs and to try to convert more people to becoming drugheads. That's really what made Hitchens angry. I get it. It was insolent that his time was abused in that way by Alex for his own druggy motives.
I get the impression that to Peter, listening becomes equated with agreeing with him. At least in his head.
@@marioluigi9599”elderly gentleman” 🤓
@@marioluigi9599Alex told him the interview topics beforehand. Peter wrote an entire book about anti drugs, so clearly it’s a topic he wants to talk about. So it’s weird for you to say that Peter wouldn’t want to discuss this topic.
The first thing that came out of his mouth was "so far, so good" when you thanked him for being a guest, so he was already in a bad mood for whatever reason.
I would like to have seen the pre-interview to observe if there was any malice between Peter and Alex.
He's always in a bad mood.
Thought so too but if there was any issues preinteview, he would have mentioned it in his rant
Defensive from the word go because he knows he can't hold an argument unlike his late lamented brother.
Probably fell down with his bike on the way
"I'm leaving right now, .....in about 30 minutes... after i argue with you about how im not talking about drugs" 😂😂😂😂😂
no true, it "only" took him 18 minutes to go, not 30.
@@georgelionon9050😂😂😂felt like an hour
It's insane how unprofessional Hitchens was here. From the start he obviously didn't want to be there and insisted on interrupting and verbally abusing you throughout the interview. Props to Alex for being calm and well-mannered throughout the interview even when being lied about and threatened. Consider it a blessing that he never wants to talk to you again.
Earned a subscriber here. Fantastic professionalism on your part.
Saying "you are rude" and "incompetent" in the same sentence one after the other while running away from simple question and talking over you when you try to explain yourself is just the best
All his arguments are begging the question, not to mention his ad hominems
@@marvinmallette6795 And it is, for what I feel is my accurate assessment, pretty rude.
@@marvinmallette679510:33
He's happy that big Pharma give our kids uppers and downers though.
I still miss Mr. Christopher Hitchens! he is the one & only Mr. Hitchens for me
"Rude!" he yells, loudly interrupting Alex every time he tries to speak.
Ironically, Peter Hitchens succeeded at proving that you can have a complete mental health breakdown WITHOUT marijuana.
Smoking a bit would probably do him a lot of good
@@pitmclord
Personally, I think weed is often harmful. But yes, for him I’d probably agree 😂. Gotta learn to chill.
lmao
This was clearly caused by interacting with a irritating millennial, not marijuana
@@davidsimpson7229 smoking anything is always harmful, but adults should have the agency to make their own mistakes
An excerpt from a Guardian review of Hitchin's book:
"His own instincts strike him as so self-evident that anyone who does not share them has to be dismissed with total contempt. If we are indeed surrounded by cultural ruin, then Hitchens is a fine specimen of it: one of those manic preachers who have been shouting so long that they can no longer hear any voice apart from their own."
There is certainly no denying those words, now, is there?
Wow, the first sentence of that quote hit me hard! It perfectly summarizes the attitude of a person in my life who treats me like this. I’ve mostly concluded that I need to either stay away from this person or minimize my engagement with them on any topic of substance. What else can I do?
Cancer took the wrong Hitchens. Rational and thoughtful people around the world dearly miss Christopher, but few, if any, will miss Peter.
he's a fucking infant, nobody gives a shit about his tantrums. this video lays him bare as an utterly contemptuous piece of shit.
I like to take statements like this quote with a massive grain of salt, but it perfectly encapsulates Hitchin's attitude during this interview. Him talking about how one correlation is more likely to be causation than another one simply because it seems more reasonable to him is the perfect example.
look at what you've done, you've made me agree with something written by the guardian :p
I'm sorry this happened to you Alex. You handled it incredibly well and I admire you for how well you handle uncomfortable situations.
Don't be sorry, be thankful! What other interviewer could have handled the situation so smoothly and provided us with such an immaculate piece of content? This was a beauty Alex!
That man had a chip on his shoulder the minute he walked through the door. You did an amazing job of being polite and guiding things around his rudeness and interruptions. Good thing you don’t have to ever sit down with him again. He intended to walk off before he sat down.
47:40 I just skipped to near the end and thought that he was having an interview with a chair called Peter who had been lured there under false pretences.
hahahahah
This comment deserves way more likes. So funny 😂
Lolllllll holy moly this comment is underrated.
"Every time I speak my opinion, you don't agree with me, and that is very tedious and makes me doubt your mental acuity"
This fuckin guy
Hahahaha! It's a first in the podcast world.
He strikes me as somebody who simply wants to tell people what he thinks, but isn't interested in explaining why he thinks it.
@@skunkq id like to think so otherwise how would he have got here?
At a certain point of intellect, You can not reason with stupid people. You will explain to them exactly. And then they will say the same thing in a different way, Forever. Hitchins is beyond this man. Alex is like a politician, he knows how to sound a certain way, I bet he got flying colours at university yet didn't understand a single thing. He's like some posh nepo baby standing up in the Oxford union explaining a weak point in a 7000 word essay in the world's most posh accent, sipping whiskey.
@@ConDuiler Totally agree, initially I skipped to the part where Hitchens storms out and I got a negative opinion of him, but then I went back to listen to the whole interview and that changed my entire mind. Alex O'Connor is clearly smoking something (not that there's anything wrong with drugs - in case that triggers someone), but that pattern is always the same for people on drugs. It's all they can talk about. The only mistake Hitchens made was that he agreed to this interview. Alex O'Connor should apologize to everyone when he realizes he wasted such an opportunity.
@jimnz8402 Hitchins may come off as a pompous, narcissistic belligerent at first, How you come off is irrelevant. He's correct, highly intelligent, Refined. You can't just fire off questions at this man as if you're in some A level secondary school class, Half these questions are almost so ignorant and thoughtless he's borderline insulting hitchins the entire interview. It's like inviting a world class snooker player to a game of charity snooker and you put him up against some guy from the pub.. the high level snooker player will come off as a pompous arrogant arcehole but why the fuck would he be happy with this situation, You've wasted his time and humiliated him.. He's not going to sit there and teach someone how to play snooker when you've got him here on the pretense of taking part in a charity match. You want hitchins to educate you? Maybe try reading his books cover to cover for a start.
Is he not telling what he thinks because he was asked what he thinks?
Peter said "I don't like to be challanged". Pretty much sums it up.
I thought he said "I don't mind being challenged".
I had a few relistens because it's not completely clear.
The captions say "don't mind".
yeah maybe on a second listen you're right. He acted like he minded though :P
@@MrKlousseyeah I think that too, so does my auto captions thing
He seems rather challenged either way.
His remarks about not liking to be challenged reminded me o Eric Hitchmough, from the Coventry conference.
This is one of the most legendary interactions I’ve ever seen. You remained composed and respectful whilst this guy lost his mind, I think he’s been smoking artificial weed
Hitchens certainly seemed more unhinged here than the supposedly unstable marijuana users he vehemently warns us about.
What WAS petey smoking before the sperg fest, anyways?!?!?
His outburst came completely out of the blue. I didn't think his reaction to or characterisation of Alex was remotely justified.
I don't condone his outburst but it's nothing like as erratic as someone unhinged by drugs
I think this dude should smoke some weed and relax. He seems to have anger management problems.
@@freedomafterspeechnever seen anyone unhinged on cannabis.
Hitchens: writes book about subject
Also Hitchens: gets mad at anyone who wants to discuss that subject with him because the subject bores him
Hitchens: Writes book about subject
Man: Reads book and disagrees with his point
Hitchens: You obviously didn’t read my book. Otherwise you’d agree with me.
@@zeroglitch1310
Absolutely right he is bored with himself. Peter Hitchen is unbelievably arrogant. Reminds me of another pain that I know personally who is just completely impossible to talk to.
@jessiebrinklow1595 - hate to tell you, but Alex is also unbelievably arrogant. Hitchens is a bellend, but Alex did want to interview him. He should have taken the hint about 15 minutes in that Hitchens did not want to discuss drugs. Alex didn’t mention the book, Hitchens did. When he said “he’s made his arguments in his book, this isn’t the venue to discuss them and people can read the book if they want his opinions” should have been Alex’s cue to move on. But no, we had to listen to follow up after follow up, including the inane Portugal thread. I can’t stand Hitchens, but when Alex went to Portugal, it was clear he had an agenda and he wanted to press it. His passive-aggressive, smug attitude tells me he knew exactly what he was doing.
Did Hitchens handle it well? No. But Alex is not blameless here.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe he just realised he was losing the argument?
@@sirhumphreyappleby6498 that’s not arrogance that’s being an interviewer. You know what I do when I’m having a conversation I don’t like? I change the subject. Or let the other adult I’m talking to I’m done talking about it. I don’t sit there and fume until I can’t take it anymore and explode at the interviewer
From start to finish he was agitated, condesending, constantly interrupting for no reason, bullying with agresive tone of voice, insulting his inteligence, education, preperation and skill as a host. Also tried to sabotage his work by demanding not to air this interview and threaten him with social media presure and retaliation.
All in all he is just a frustrated man child who couldnt leave his brother's shadow, still.
Hitchens greeting at the beginning was “so far, so good” and then took an almost hyperventilative breath. He seemed to be bracing for some fictional impact before the conversation even started. It seems to me like the guy is suffering a great deal and has quite a bit of background fear leading him to be hyper-vigilant to a threat that doesnt exist.
Drugs? Or lack of drugs?
@@tl7988Something like this.
Smart, genuine zealouts that have an intractable belief can behave this way too.
Reasonable discussion with someone who is better at debate than you is either reflexively or deliberately sabotaged because you don’t want to lose in the eyes of the audience. That or you don’t want to be clipped saying things that you think hurt your future ability to share cohesive and consistent “absolutely no drugs” message.
You don’t even need to be a zealot. Just a devoted grifter who understands their audience.
@@Metacarn48 i genuinely dont understand what you are trying to say and how it pertains to Hitchens seeming sense of fear from the start of the conversation. If you can say it again in a more cohesive (not said with condescension) way i would happily consider your point. Who are these zealots you are referring to? Are you saying Hitchens has had bad experiences before of being taken out of context and is worried AO is going to do the same? If this is the case shouldnt Hitchens have clarified whether the interview would be edited or not prior to sitting down? Who is the hypothetical grifter?
In my experience the guy just seems riddled with fear and apprehension.
I was trying to agree with you and speculate further. I’m not trying to be condescending. Though I will admit that listening to these types of videos does tend to make me speak/write a lil more like an uptight jackass.
@@tl7988Again@@tl7988you’re right. To paraphrase, the first words out of his mouth seemed fearful or apprehensive and he came off rigid and anxious on camera. I’m just not sure on the why. This is the first interview I’ve seen of him.
I’m also not being specific because I’m talking about patterns I recognize in public speakers/debaters generally. If they feel they’re going to “lose” support for themselves, or the idea they’re defending/ promoting, then they’ll often shift the conversation to be about how you’re doing Conversation wrong, or distract/attack etc.
As to why Peter is fearful, I can imagine someone going into an interview nervous because they truly believe that “winning” (which here is convincing more people to be for banning or heavily regulating intoxicant use) is a moral imperative to keep society in divine good graces. (He seems to strongly believe in God). People get fearful when stakes are higher and they’ve suffered a number of losses already (ie. politely shot down while consulting with government)
Alternatively, Peter could be grifting. Maintaining a cohesive brand by not having off brand conversations is important.
But yeah, him just being a human being whose nervous system was being overwhelmed by anxiety or stress seems likely. I’m just speculating as to why.
I’m curious, where do you think Alex wanted to try and take the conversation?
the pillow toss was comedy 😂