Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Rose 08-May-96 (Part 2)

[@BamfFromLA]

Why does Breindel sound like he's about to cry?

[@asheradensein]

Eric's voice makes me want to scream.

[@St37One]

Eric Breindel is a comical character. It really seems like he goes out of his way to seem like a weasle. His extreme character can not be a result of neglect, no way!

[@Studentofgosset]

0.57 Breindel might have more transparently implied that he thought Hitchens was raising the spectre of a Jewish conspiracy if he had used the word cabal instead of cadre, but where is the deniability in that?

[@wickedceltics]

Excellent. Thanks for posting classic Hitchens.

[@ymmittimmy]

Eric Breindel died 2 years later from liver disease. He looks weird but he is probably ill.

[@Erik-qy9gb]

check out david irving on youtube and you might be suprised.

[@MrMonkeyInk]

Eric Breindel here puts up the best challenge to Hitch I have seen.

[@alexayers9463]

Hitch's off-the-cuff synthesis of Voltaire is classic Hitch magic.

[@lissym9854]

Can anyone tell me where Eric Breindel is 'buried'? (please)

[@writersherlock]

If you were to contact the Park Avenue Synagogue, they would likely know... His funeral was held there (I believe), and so they may be able to point you in the right direction... good luck ... (source: nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/916/)

[@lissym9854]

writersherlock Thank you.

[@RogerRoddComedian]

I fail to grasp your red herring reference, but I'll proceed on the basis of fact. Authors (usually financially backed or out of their own pocket) pay the publisher to print books under the publishing company's name. US publishers have a villainous history of refusal to publish opposing POVs to mainstream media brainwashing. These same books are huge sellers in other countries but they still can't get a US publisher to print them. That's not "Knowledge Utopia". That's censorship.

[@Steadno]

eric breindel reminds me of allen keys in the way he speaks and moves.

[@kaunas88]

Arguing that people should shut up and recant because they are being called names is the weakest form of argument. Saying that someone cannot express an opinion because it is: seditious, blasphemous, counter revolutionary, heretical, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, etc is a way usually to short circuit facts and try to shame one into shutting up and not expressing his opinion.

[@violetninja]

My god is that tom cruise on the cover of vanity fair at the end? No wonder everyone thought he was gay. lawl

[@weestro7]

(continued final)... "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof."

[@ChrisBrett2K]

CH Absolutely unshakeable, not a hint of stress. Breindel was simply out gunned. Freedom of speech is a right that should be defended first or we limit our own freedoms.

[@machalot]

Censorship doesn't belong to any particular ideology.

[@SurelyYewJest]

The problem as shown by CH's "opponent" is that of dealing with definitions, and Breindel is dealing with connotations of specific words by the public. This is an example of otherwise righteous moral indignation being misused to blind one's self and others to important perspectives and information. Breindel's most powerful point was that there are others unearthing the information, so why let a Nazi spread it. While academically salient, it still abridges the rights of those seeking information.

[@AnunC8]

When you deny someone else, no matter how ludicrous their point, their right to speak, you also deny yourself your right to hear, as well as your right to respond. While I disagree with the books point, I would like to hear what it has to say. With the author's right to say it comes my right to call it foolery.

[@BamfFromLA]

That's a bummer man. He was a harvard law grad....His parents escaped the choas in Germany during World War II.

[@dalhar20]

He offered a different perspective to a situation , however blasphemous, it can help historians.

[@RogerRoddComedian]

Hitchen's point is unarguably correct if you value the 1st Amendment. Major publishing houses should publish all that they are paid to publish. The public will rule with their wallets. If the book loses large sums of money due to lack of sales, interest, credibility or all 3 , the 1st Amendment has prevailed and remains intact. The backers will be unlikely to reinvest in similar drivel, and if they do they will again pay the price. Anything short of that premise is pure and simple censorship.

[@glaubs65]

@peakzero and how do you know? Oh --- I thought u said 'has' ...

[@weestro7]

I don't understand some of these comments. Christopher Hitchens is quite charismatic in his tremendous wit and enthusiasm for debate, so I can't believe he's called unlikeable. Also, I think Breindel's position is not that Irving's book should be banned or "off limits," but the infinitely more defensible position that this publisher has every right to do what is in its interest. Namely, it was in its interest to forgo the row and the reputation loss. It would perhaps be more persuasive to me...

[@justnotcricket]

the creepy looking guy didnt get over the idea that moral authority is being granted [as though somehow its part of the process of certifying something as 'morally acceptable'] by company x publishing this. hitchens moved on from this point miles ago was contending something else about the value of the nuts and bolts process of historic research which is quite detached from the conclusions reached. the other guy just contended this gave irving legitimacy, frankly he got lost in a corn maze.

[@writersblock26]

@AnunC8 But this is not about the right to free speech, and other countries such as Austria have effectively seen to that by denying in 2004 David Irving's passage to the National Press Club conference to which he was invited to give a series of lectures. Rather, the issue is the right of the publishing company to decide which books it will (and will not) publish. Still, if I were Irving (and I'm glad I'm not), I would sue St. Martin's Press for "breach of contract."

[@weestro7]

(continued)... if the book in question were less repugnant. I admire Hitchens and admit that he makes as good a case anybody can for this rather quixotic contention, but I'm not sure whether or not I will take seriously the notion that I should read Irving in order to understand the Nazis. I will do some research into Irving but at this point, knowing only what the debaters said and a bit from Wikipedia, I am doubtful Irving warrants a read. On this topic, one could quote Carl Sagan...

[@poprockssuck87]

I wouldn't expect the perpetrator of a fallacy to understand the fallacy they've perpetrated. You made the assertion that, "Hitchens' point is unarguably correct if you value the 1st Amendment." This, my misguided friend, is the epitome of a red herring. "Proceed on the basis of fact?" HA! FACT: There was obviously a clause in the contract that said the publisher could cancel the deal. Otherwise, Irving could sue for breach of contract. AGAIN, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 1ST AMENDMENT!

[@poprockssuck87]

I won't mention your red herring there; However, this video has nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with whether a publishing company is ethically obligated to print a book because, as Hitchens puts it, "They exist to make sure the widest range of ideas are avalible to readers." Hitchens is wrong! Maybe in a "Knowledge Utopia" that's true, but in the real world, publishing companies are there to make money.

[@poprockssuck87]

Yet you still felt the need to respond back after stating, "I'm done with you." You calling me juvenile is rather ironic seeing as you hold the pathetic, naively idealistic view that "everyone should get a say, despite the legality of the situation." And now you're desperately attacking chess? Really?! The oldest and most complex game in the world. One that has been played by nearly every great mind in the last 400 years? Stick to poker bud, and cheap, two-dimensional, inane jokes.

[@poprockssuck87]

I was trying to keep this civil, but your stupidity has really crossed the line. The publisher chose to cancel the deal, which they are legally allowed to do seeing as it's THEIR PRESS and it was within the terms of the contract. Whether it was from public outcry or for reasons of content, the publisher thought it was in its own interest to break the deal... LEGALLY! Read the Constitution! No where in it does it say that a publisher is obligated to print an authors book!

[@hafnia28]

For once I disagree with Hitchens. There got to be certain standards that a publishing house can set for whom they would publish. Say for instance a doctor publish interesting books about medicine but ridiculously stupid and falcifying books about evolution they have a perfectly good reason not to publish it.

[@teameymelli1]

once again, i side with Hitch...that breindroll is a crack

[@ssalemi]

yes exactly

[@ThisbeandPyramus]

Terrible thing to say. Really. What kind of parents did you have?

[@siquitibum]

@LomU99 u men he´s in a concentration camp by now?

[@Opine101]

@writersblock26 Yeah...we're glad your not Irving either...

[@Steadno]

Christopher Hitchens is a jew though

[@besmb2105]

@ForTheArticles "nearly all died from disease and malnourishment" does Arbeit Marcht Frei tell u anything. lol.

[@RogerRoddComedian]

My sentiments exactly on civility. You clearly have flunked reading and auditory comprehension. You've missed the point of this discussion & site. You are the numbskull that continues to discuss contractual obligations in a philosophical discussion as to the ethical obligations of a publisher in a free thinking society. You contradict your earlier attempt at obfuscation that publishers want to make money. Public outcry and content usually fuels the sales. Don't write back-I'm done with you.

[@nickglais]

Hitchens is weak on this one

[@artistsandbox]

(7:37) huhant-hue-huharlie . .creepy smile

[@besmb2105]

@hafnia28 I agree with you):

[@braktuun]

@felixq78 what utter piffle

[@siquitibum]

@LomU99

[@azmista]

Love hitchens but Breindel kind of owns him here.