Famous Journalist Shuts Down Interview w/ Alex O'Connor

[@grybnyx]

But just to be clear- legalizing hard drugs is a terrible idea.

[@user-sm9zs7sc8u]

Anything that gives the government more power is an even worse idea. Imagine defending the idea of the government to steal your money to fund police to diminish the property rights of people because you think drugs are bad. Pornography is cancer, Prostitution is cancer, heroin is Cancer, Taylor Swift is cancer and acoustic weakness that worsens society, none of it should be banned by the government, and I don’t want to be forced to ban these bad things. Also, the government is fundamentally too incompetent to differentiate between what is really bad and what isn’t. The government is too incompetent to determine which drugs should and shouldn’t be banned. No wonder, bureaucrats are glorified social security receivers.

[@dampierstucco5778]

Didn't they try it Holland and it was really awful for the users?

[@cotch40]

@@dampierstucco5778 Canada. It’s a horror show.

[@ulfsark78]

@@dampierstucco5778 Portugal, and no, it worked, but only because BEFORE they de-criminalized it (not legalized) they built a strong foundation of rehab facilities. Anyone caught would be sent to rehab, instead of jail. An example of doing it wrong is what Oregon, NY, and California has been doing, where they make taxpayer funded drug dens and just let people do what they want, with no mandatory rehab.

[@RickStewart1776]

Non-drug using person here. Other than the drugs present in over-the-counter foods (sugar, caffeine, etc.), I do not use drugs recreationally except for the occasional (once-a-month-or-less) cigar smoking and I never have .. i just didn't seem good to me. I never cared what other people did, it just wasn't for me. Disclaimer aside, I do think a free adult should be able to ingest whatever they want to their body. I would put a couple stipulations on it: A) the user is 100% responsible for their actions while using the substance and B) it should be illegal or have legal consequences if there is an immediate effect on another person (such as unborn child, or dependents in the home). I think it is a freedom issue pure and simple. I agree drug use is a terrible idea, but legalizing freedom is not one.

[@travtotheworld]

I tried watching the full interview, but it was so boring and repetitive. Honestly, I don't blame Hitchens for walking off because it was so unproductive. However, the key to walking off is actually walking off. Where Hitchens went wrong was continuing to argue with him instead of just leaving.

[@Kaiser68]

This ^

[@BillsYoutubeAccount]

He could have said he'd like to move on to the next topic. But evidently he's a man-child that doesn't know how to communicate properly.

[@jeremyashford2145]

Indeed, but it could be that offscreen Peter is stripping off to take one up the a from Alex. I couldn't sit through this. Perhaps there was a different outcome. Who cares. I' g

[@kentl7228]

It was boring because of Hitchens. He was a petulant child who didn't want to engage or explore the topics that were discussed at the interview organisation stage.

[@michaelbutton812]

I honestly agree but I have to say it was only unproductive because Hitchens was disengaged, somewhat confused at times, and extremely condescending and making wild assumptions. He kept reacting as if he already knew what Alex was going to say but never gave him the chance to fully flesh out the questions in the first place. He was kinda rather childish throughout the interview.

[@0num4]

Robert Downey Jr. left an interview after the host began a line of questioning and didn't relent when asked. I'd say that RDJr. "won," if such a thing can be won at all.

[@blumiu2426]

RD Jr wanted to punch that guy so bad when he wouldn't drop it. Made him flinch when he did that feint.

[@NextLineIsMine]

I think the key difference with those celebrity walk-off moments is that the questions have veered into personal topics to build narratives around the individual. Supremely bad-faith in a movie promotion interview.

[@bentongrover9823]

I was going to say the same thing.

[@edwardweaver6869]

@@NextLineIsMineYup it quickly turned from an interview promoting a movie to what could effectively be defined as a smear job

[@Tom-dv6ei]

If you watch that interview...The interviewer took a chance for sure, but also tried to anticipate the potential negative outcome and tried to prep RDJ for his line of questioning. He was actually quite personable about it. Obv RDJ was only interested in promoting his new movie so their ideas did not meet. I am very much on the side of the interviewer for taking a chance and trying to introduce an interest thread to boring interview where RDJ has answered the same questions and repeated the same answers 100 times already in the previous 3 hours. RDJ though was perfectly in his right to do what he did, as that situation is voluntary. There was no "winner" here but there was a loser, as the interviewer, despite his best efforts did not manage to get an interesting interview, just a standard press junket.

[@Bjorn_R]

I honestly also got annoyed with Alex repeating the same point about drugs. Peter overreacted though. From this interaction it is also clear that Alex did not clearly communicate how much time was going to be spent on each topic

[@jimbusmaximus4624]

To be fair to Peter, it did seem disingenuous to keep repeating the same points as if he wasn't listening. How many interviews have we seen that have been cut up to make the interviewee look irrational and intolerant? I think he was suspicious he was being set up in that way.

[@The_Gallowglass]

@@jimbusmaximus4624 I've never seen Peter Hitchens snap like that.

[@snintendog]

1 hour on a topic with an 1 hour 30 minute slot. Alex only wanted it to be about drugs.

[@The_Gallowglass]

@@snintendog I agree it was likely, however, if I were Hichens I would have sat back down and taken him up on his promise to talk about the other topics.

[@kostaspassias3815]

@@snintendog 40 minutes more like, 45 tops. They had 2-3 topics to discuss and this one was probably the one they disagreed with the most, so I don't think it's all that unreasonable to spend some extra time on it.

[@ShouVertica]

To be fair Alex was being extremely repetitive with the questions after Hitchens already said he didn't want to talk about the topic multiple times. (I don't like Hitchens)

[@andulasis6283]

To me he often seems very precise with his questioning and really wants to get to the root of everything to get the best understanding of something as possible. Understandably annoying to some.

[@ShouVertica]

@andulasis6283 That's not really the issue, the issue was Alex asked questions on a topic Hitchens didn't want to discuss and repeatedly did so.

[@snintendog]

@@ShouVertica Interview on false pretenses. I have never seen a good interview form people that do that (Sam Ceder)

[@theworldofwoo8320]

The topic has been beaten to death long long ago

[@travtotheworld]

@@andulasis6283 I've watched a few of his interviews/debates. I don't get the impression he's trying to be precise. He seems genuinely incapable of understanding that people can disagree with him and it's just a matter of expressing his position clearly before people have to agree.

[@sarahhale-pearson533]

Hitchens is behaving like a petulant child. Incredible.

[@vulkanofnocturne]

Hitchens behaviour was unbearable throughout the interview. Alex was trying to make such simple arguments but Hitchens wouldn't hear it. At one point Hitchens mentions something about: "legalising drugs would require an expensive serious of checks to make sure people like pilots and surgeons weren't high at work" so the obvious counter argument to this is that a popular intoxicant already exists, alcohol, and we don't have 'expensive checks' for that so why would it change just because there are other legal alternatives? Hitchens spoke over him in a whiney voice saying 'I'm sick of this argument' - which is not a bloody argument! It's not about you, old man!

[@homeskillet9802]

Disagree. Alex kept on and on with the same line of questions. It was obvious that Hitchens was incredibly bored and getting more and more frustrated. Interviewers/hosts need to be able to read the room and adapt.

[@vulkanofnocturne]

@@homeskillet9802 Alex kept on with the same question because Hitchens kept interrupting with a response to a different question that wasn't being asked. Very frustrating debate.

[@IronDruids]

@@vulkanofnocturne He's being interviewed so it would be about him. You can't expect everyone to be mouthpieces for what you want them to say.

[@vulkanofnocturne]

@@IronDruids I expect them to say their reasoning for what they believe. Just like every other interview Alex has done where the interlocutor didn't throw a tantrum like hitchens did.

[@LisaFrostPhoto]

I haven't seen the interview, but regarding his argument regarding checks for pilots etc - pilots are already randomly drug tested for both legal and illegal drugs, so whether a drug is legal or not is basically irrelevant. Seems like an incredibly poor argument from someone that's supposed to be a serious journalist.

[@indigosocks3325]

This isn’t Peter Hitchen’s finest hour, but I love him. He’s a national treasure.

[@robinthrush9672]

I think, if a person's stance on a topic has been made very clear (in the same interview or over time) and the person says it doesn't want to talk about the topic further; that should be respected.

[@hoi-polloi1863]

That works for Jim and Joe shooting the breeze at the local bar, but if your job is to be public pundit and debater, at some point you have to be willing to discuss the things that the public is interested in, or retire.

[@matthewsands3591]

He was literally invited to discuss this precise topic and agreed.

[@robinthrush9672]

@@matthewsands3591 And, based on the people who watch Alex's channel and saw this interview, they'd been going in circles on this topic for about half an hour of the hour-long interview.

[@Tom-dv6ei]

@@robinthrush9672 Interview was to be an hour to an hour and half. This subject was discussed for roughly about 45mins. The key issue is that Alex was opening up hypothetical reasoning to tease out any potential contradictions in Peter's position. Peter knew fine well by entertaining hypotheticals you can inadvertently put your back against a wall, especially when you hold such vehement views on a topic. Rather than be entertained at the challenge he stormed out then proceeded to argue with him for another 10mins after about how the interview was conducted under false pretenses, which it was not.

[@robinthrush9672]

@@Tom-dv6ei Thanks for the added context.

[@JaysSavvy]

Although I'd like longer content from you, I've found that you give just enough to make me want to rewatch the interviews (most of which I've seen before).

[@Elrog3]

It would be nice if he linked the interviews in the description though.

[@robinthrush9672]

I think he needed to make this one a bit clearer though. It seemed like this happened early in an interview, but many of the comments indicated this was going on for 20-30 minutes by the time Hitchens left.

[@SecretScholars]

@@Elrog3 I will add that

[@GearForTheYear]

As someone not intimately familiar with either individual, this video was held back by the lack of context. “Don’t walk out on interviews because it makes you look bad” Great… thanks.

[@petercrowley453]

To some extent I understand Hitchens’ frustration in this interview. From memory, Alex was careless in parsing out Hitchens’ answers. Hence they began to go around in awkward circles with Hitchens becoming increasingly and obviously impatient. If I recall correctly, Alex was trying to lay out a hypothetical situation in which all negative consequences of drug usage were successfully mitigated. Hitchens response was basically that drugs are essentially negative and therefore the negatives are constitutive of the activity itself. Alex missed this possibly three or four times in succession. Obviously, this doesn’t vindicate Hitchens and I don’t believe Alex was dishonest. Here, Hitchens’ reaction was clearly disproportionate and counterproductive. I don’t believe this brought Alex any satisfaction either.

[@Minpb-m2x]

Thanks for the added context. The way it was presented in the video, Hitchens understood up front that decriminalization was going to be a topic, and then stormed out when the topic came up. I like Warren, but if your characterization of events is accurate, this was less than fair on Warren’s part.

[@petercrowley453]

@@Minpb-m2x maybe. I think Warren had a point to make about storming out of an interview. He made the point, and then got out. I don’t think he was aiming at a full breakdown of the events. I don’t think Hitchens accusations were warranted and were certainly unwise / ill-advised. In this regard, I think Warren’s presentation was fair. But there’s nothing to stop you from checking out the interview and making your own judgement. Warren and Alex are temperamentally very similar. Both are versed in Socratic dialogue and I suspect Alex was looking for an obvious concession or an obvious reason why Hitchens would continue to disagree. Hitchens is quite different. He relies on the reader/listener parsing out the nuance he intends rather than being simple and direct. He’s much like his late brother in that. It comes from media interviews over academic exchanges. I think I got where Hitchens was coming from. I think Alex missed it. I think this was why Alex was quite perplexed.

[@razzle_dazzle]

@@Minpb-m2x Alex had suggested three topics (drugs, god, and the monarchy), of which Peter chose two (including drugs), so they were going to spend 45 minutes on each for a 1.5 hour podcast. But after about 45 minutes on drugs, Peter got fed up and walked out. From my perspective, he was too used to talking about the real-world effects of drugs, so wasn't prepared for the kind of philosophical hypotheticals that Alex posed and couldn't/wouldn't engage with them.

[@jimbusmaximus4624]

I think this small interaction is rather indicative of the larger one in our ever increasingly divided society. He wasn't listening. Each man had a stance and neither were genuinely willing to challenge it.

[@petercrowley453]

@@razzle_dazzle I disagree. I believe Peter did engage sufficiently. He just didn’t state his response to Alex’s specific question qua response as clearly as he might have. Alex was also not alert to what Peter was actually trying to articulate. I think it’s a chance for Alex to learn how to parse an indirect response better than he did. There might also have been better strategies to pursue as an interviewer. And I agree that I don’t believe there’s any foundation to Peter’s accusations.

[@Pandamancer224]

I remember watching this and thinking it was very obvious that Hitchens was becomming annoyed with the questioning, and thought alex could have at least presented the option to move on to another topic. Something along the lines of, "we've been talking about X for 30 mins, I'd like to continue to dig into it if you don't mind for such and such reason, but if you'd prefer we can move on to talk about Y".

[@familycorvette]

I suspect it was Alex O'Connor's invincible stupidity that burned through Hitchens's patience.

[@dougmasters4561]

Why would he present that option, the topics were seemingly agreed upon ahead of time. Ive seen both Alex and Hitchens and ive never seen Alex be uncharitable or doing any under false pretenses and I think he was fairly polite. Hitchens has a way about him, he is a crank (which is fine, im a crank) but this is a risk you run when you are a crank. But Alex was being very charitable here and Hitch just turned into a child. I sympathize with Hitch, i get like that too. I think Hitch is a lot more average than he knows, i think he has a fan base that convinces him he is super intelligent when in reality he is just very quick and pithy, and he just doesnt like his back being against the wall.

[@Pandamancer224]

@@dougmasters4561 I just think that setting clear expectations could have gone a long way and potentially prevented the breakdown. Part of interviewing/hosting is knowing when to move on, and it was quite clear that Hitchens was getting annoyed. So instead of sticking on the same subject, and risking an incident like this, present the option to move on so the guest can have some agency instead of feeling trapped in a cylcical conversation.

[@dougmasters4561]

@Pandamancer224 or, ya know, the human experience is dynamic and people are responsible for how they approach normal variations between them in conversations. When someone is just intent on being a grump, it isnt someone else's fault because they didnt predict it agead of time. This man is an adult for Pete's sake.

[@Pandamancer224]

@@dougmasters4561 This isn't a "normal variation", it was an interview for a podcast. Both individuals could have done things differently. I'm not condoning Hitchens walking off. My point was that maybe it could have been avoided if the interview/conversation were in a different manner. Maybe it would have turned out the same either way, who knows.

[@mischake]

I would like to counter balance most of the comments posted here with the fact that as much as everyone thinks hitchens answers were being ignored, alex' questions were utterly being ignored and he wasn't even given the chance to ask them properly. "How dare you not take my answer and move on to the next question?" Was the vibe i was getting

[@Enhancedlies]

this

[@painted_in_thick]

It's okay to leave the interview.

[@PeregrinTintenfish]

An important point.

[@brettmuir5679]

If he intended to leave he should have actually left

[@painted_in_thick]

@@brettmuir5679 good point

[@xLordOfNothingx]

dude was yelling out of frame, what a pansy

[@rodrigodepierola]

Yes, but the point made is that, after leaving, it's hard to look like the winner.

[@StillAliveAndKicking_]

My impression having watched discussions with Hitchens many times is that he routinely tries to dominate the other guests, he interrupts them, he uses his booming voice to talk over them, and he can be very condescending or rude. He is, in my view, a bully. What happened here is that the interviewer tried to explore his viewpoint, and I don’t think Hitchens could handle it. I honestly think the problem was that Hitchens had not thought through his views, and was not used to genuine discussion. Hitchens could have been the adult, and just asked to move on as they weren’t going to agree. I have discussions with friends, and we sometimes disagree. We move on. As for drugs, it’s a complex subject. Hitchens has a very black and white viewpoint. He might be right, but he needs to argue his viewpoint, and recognise why some might disagree.

[@edwardweaver6869]

Robert Downey Jr. was being interviewed about a movie and the interviewer kept pressing him about former drug and alcohol problems when hes proven time and again hea overcome them. RDJ stood up told them this wasnt going to work and left the building. In the eyes of the Public RDJ was applauded for that act. Because the guy got him in there and only attempted to smear him

[@musicalADD_theband]

I remember this. I left an essay of a comment on that video 😂😂 found it! here it is(time stamps are from that video, I didn’t edit the comment): This is what happened. He felt like you weren’t really paying attention to what he was saying. He actually explains this from 19:00. Throughout his explanation of why it is that you’re not understanding him, it seems like you’re trying to ask him the next question. You try to cut him off a whole bunch of times before he finishes letting you know why he’s frustrated. I think he said it a whole bunch of times from 19:00 to 24:00 ecause he felt like you weren’t listening to what he was trying to say, You seemed more focused on trying to get your question out than on paying attention to what he’s saying. It gave the impression that you were trying to get all your questions asked before time ran out. Didn’t he say you’ll see how it goes as far as the length? Rushing it might not have been the best approach. Go back and listen to everything he is saying, and completely ignore whether you agree or disagree with any of it. Don’t even worry about whether it’s true or not.. doesn’t matter . listen to what he is saying, to the point he’s trying to make. Your responses to him don’t reflect what he says. He lays it all out very clearly 19:00 to around 21:30. he thinks it should be illegal because you can’t test for it in the blood like alcohol so you can’t test if somebody’s under the influence or not when driving. The fact that you can’t test it in someone’s blood easily on the side of the road has nothing to do with whether or not it’s illegal or legal to drive on alcohol. He says if there was a way to test for intoxication that wasn’t subjective, then that wouldn’t be an argument against cannabis legalization. I don’t think you’re not listening to him but you’re definitely not understanding his point most of the time. It’s like he’s saying “plant reproduction is a lot like fungus reproduction”, and then you respond, “hmm, I don’t think so because chickens lay eggs.” I don’t agree with his ultimate argument, however, he is making good points and you don’t seem to be understanding what he is saying at all. When he tries to explain that to you, you don’t seem to care to listen to him. I would go back and pay close attention to it. Not gonna lie. I think you dropped the ball on this one.

[@ApesAmongUs]

For something that you posted previously and then thought highly enough to repost here, this is amazingly difficult to read and understand. In particular, the paragraph that begins "he thinks" is a mess. I have read it a dozen times now and still have no clue what you are trying to say. The first sentence seems to conflict with the second (one saying ability to test matters and the other that it does not). Maybe the first is supposed to be Hitchens's position and the second your own? I really cannot tell contextually, because the structure seems to be that you are always talking about the position Hitchens presented. Then the third sentence seems to make that worse, since it agrees with sentence 2 (both saying ability to test doesn't matter), but starts with "he says". If the "he" in both sentences are the same, then 1 and 3 contradict one another explicitly. Really, the fact that you state that certain timecodes contain explanations, but do nothing to state those explanations using your own words. If it's so easy to understand just by listening again, then you should be able to paraphrase.

[@blumiu2426]

@@ApesAmongUs I understood it.

[@roddas26]

​@@ApesAmongUsthat would appear to be a you problem? I understood it completely also 😁

[@sgc1974]

Understood. He was very clear. And English is not my first language.

[@christopherpoplarchik2802]

​@@ApesAmongUsmade sense to me as well

[@yagsipcc287]

Hitchens has been well known for a long time to not caring about what people under 60 think, want and feel. He also regularly insults people who bring up any subject he doesn't think applies. He has become much worse as he got older as well

[@juzi68]

Alex exhibits trolling and juvenile behavior. Instead of trying to understand Hitchens position and ask relevant questions on how this man came to his conclusions (he wrote a book about this topic called "The War We Never Fought"), Alex gets stuck on repeat. No one comes out the wiser, especially his audience.

[@SM-mz2hz]

@@juzi68 💯

[@eagleclaw1179]

From what I saw, Alex asked for the reasons And hitchens answered So the video company proves your statement false, doesn’t it? If you don’t think so then by all means explain

[@PeregrinTintenfish]

I think it is a different idea about interviewing. A lot of people have the wrong idea about what makes a good interview. A good interviewer wants to get the interviewee to share his thoughts and worldview etc. The goal of questions should be to achieve clarity and new information, not to stump the other person.

[@golDroger88]

It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of tolerance. I feel like more and more people woke up to the fact that tolerance is not a virtue. You deserve what you tolerate. In this specific instance, if I had to intrepret Hitchens' thought process it would be that if you advocate for drug decriminalization you're essentially acting towards making society a worse place and harm people, intentions are irrelevant.

[@kaitzackpwong8411]

It would be good if one didn't have to guess at it though.

[@franklyanogre00000]

My body, my choice. That freedom only ends when I interfere with someone else's right. The state is a poor physician and has no liability.

[@kaitzackpwong8411]

@franklyanogre00000 This. Also, prohibition/criminalization doesn't work and punishes victimless crimes, creates black markets and violent crime.

[@golDroger88]

@@franklyanogre00000 Druggies like you make society worse. My body, my choice is only a valid argument if you're debating a Liberal, I'm a Conservative and so is Hitchens. The entire point of my post is that not everyone shares your values nor do they have to. Liberalism has failed.

[@JumboCod91]

@@kaitzackpwong8411 This implies that just because something doesn't work 100% the way YOU think it should in an ideal world, then there's no point trying. Prohibition/criminalization does in fact work, but obviously a biproduct is black markets and crime. It's the same as Murder, it's illegal, it is punished, but that doesn't stop it completely... does that mean we should legalise it?

[@Renato404]

5:00 A politician in Portugal (Santana Lopes) once abandoned an interview because a football coach (José Mourinho) had arrived at the airport and they cut him off to show images at the airport. When they return to the interview, he was pissed and went away... I think he was right then.

[@Abuamina001]

The response of Tarantino was a classy example to everyone.

[@randywise5241]

I was with Alex on this. But I still like Peter. I think he is getting old and tired. Peters anti-drug stance has a background. He is tired of the cycle of arguments in it. He should have researched the host before excepting to do the interview.

[@JumpCutThis]

I don’t know that research would have caused his acceptance to change course- Peter has always seemed to be fighting paper tigers based on Christopher, even after his death.

[@johnricercato740]

Alex is only about 26 and is still learning how to conduct himself: he is less adversarial now, as he acknowledges, and tries to understand other perspectives rather than trying to win the argument. It is more of a discussion than a battle - see his with Jordan Peterson. Incidentally, Shapiro’s spat with Neil was ironic as they probably agree on most things: but as he said, Brit interviewers of Andrew Neil’s generation and stature always take the adversarial position, testing the interviewee in the pursuit of truth. Now, sadly, most just toe the Guardian’s line: see Kathy Newman et al versus Jordan Peterson and others. (Fellow Guardianistas get an easy ride.)

[@MrBasforce]

Can you start linking used videos in the description? It will be easier to find original content.

[@farzadjahanfard]

He sounds like the succulent Chinese meal guy 😅

[@ocdmusic]

😂😂

[@chesscomsupport8689]

That guy wished he could just walk out.

[@jag2039]

Thanks young man.Old man says keep on explaining truth so ppl can open there eyes plus helps out how to be respectful when speaking with any other Human on Earth then your always one step Ahead ! Common Law of Mankind for over 2000 yrs

[@masterphillips]

I hope Warren covers the Joe Rogan 2020-22 covid arc. Season finale being the Dr. Gupta JRE. "I can afford people medicine, motherf***er."

[@MKPB-sy7dz]

Do people not get the context? Hitchens had written an entire book about drugs and was invited to discuss two topics, one of them was drugs!! So Alex is the a**hole for asking questions about a topic they had agreed to discuss?

[@coletteharman378]

I now want to check out Alex O’Connor!

[@Snikit]

In this world as it is now, we need you Warren. ✨✅✨

[@SuperEgo19]

Robert Downey Jr, Tim Cruise and Quentin Tarantino all came out on top with intrusive interviewers.

[@duarteleonardo8352]

I thought about those same examples.

[@Curtis-y9r]

Guy who went by the name " Doctor D David Schultz choked slammed an interviewer ( maybe Geraldo but don't quote me, and I'm not looking it up) after he declared that pro wrestling was fake. That's coming out on top.

[@duarteleonardo8352]

@@Curtis-y9r probably staged, no? Anyway, I'm definitely looking that up 🤣

[@duarteleonardo8352]

@@Curtis-y9rI just saw two slaps, they did seem to connect pretty hard, but you know how even then, it could have been staged. Old school wrestler would hurt each other pretty bad, but they were still following a script

[@Curtis-y9r]

@duarteleonardo8352 saw the Doctor gir the first time watching Stampede Wrestling in tbe early 80s and I paid attention to whatever he did. He wasn't fucking around and he talked about it more than a few times after it happened. It was real but ge choke slammed him with a Wrestling move , it wasn't full force to the ground because that's mot how it's done ir else ge would gave killed him and that isn't how the move is done.

[@simiangimp2282]

How two brothers became the absolute opposite of eachother is crazy.

[@YugaKhan]

Robert Downey Jr walked off on an interview in a triumphant way when an interviewer kept bringing up his past drug problems when they're interviewing him about his new movie coming up.

[@mischake]

Oh man here we go. I am excited you found this video

[@roblewis8227]

Alex O'connor is a very intelligent person and is very well read particularly in moral theory. If I remember correctly, he backed Hitchens into a bit of a corner, and he think he just wanted an answer and kept pressing on that point.

[@KAPTAINmORGANnWo4eva]

Something can be optically bad but still justified. The lesson to be learned isn't that everyone deserves your respect or engagement, it's that if you want to be a pundit you cannot exude anything but cool confidence on camera because the second you get mad that somehow vindicates every opinion you've ever disagreed with in the minds of some viewers.

[@LeanFuture]

I just can’t see Chris Hitchens pulling up his skirt, running away and demanding the interview not be shown. Imo almost any time somebody runs away during a disagreement, it’s a sign of failing the debate completely. The only time it’s somewhat acceptable is if the one fleeing is doing so because they’re losing control of themselves and a physical fight might occur. Even then, they should practice self-control until that doesn’t happen. But most of the time, I see it as a massive sign of weakness.

[@stupidhandles]

You've clearly never debated a moron, sometimes ppl aren't worth the effort of the words, especially they are being disingenuous, contrary or too stupid to understand your points. Walking away from a debate does not mean you've lost it, often the opposite but the other party refuses to acknowledge it.

[@stupidhandles]

In short everyone has a limit to their patience

[@dukecity7688]

It's interesting how different two brothers can be. RIP Dear Christopher

[@benboyland4205]

Yes one died from taking drugs and the other didn't

[@b_g_c3281]

There's an aborted interview with Robert Downey Jr. that I believe is emblematic of a walk-out being the right move. The interviewer was instructed to _not_ bring up Downey's past drug addiction and subsequent incarceration, but he did it anyway... I believe that [ the aborted interview ] has been archived, and you can dredge it up through a casual search...

[@Tom-dv6ei]

Where in the interview is the interviewer told not to ask about RDJ's past?

[@b_g_c3281]

@Tom-dv6ei I didn't say _in_ the interview; I had meant to convey that he was prepped aforehand, i.e. he was instructed _in advance_ of the commencement of the interview... Edit::.. Almost (( if not exactly )) always, instructions such as, for example, 'don't bring up X, Y, Z topic during the interview', are given _well in advance_ of the interview....

[@Tom-dv6ei]

@@b_g_c3281 Yes almost always...and yet that part of RDJ's life was already old news at least the drama of at the time. So did they stipulate that? My point is, it is fairly common for what you say to happen. Yet we dont know what was exactly said. So... YOu point a finger at the journo without any proof. I back the journo for his efforts in that vid. I would not if I knew for sure he was specifically told not to.

[@yinoveryang4246]

That was Krishnan Guru-Murthy, the same man who goaded Tarantino. In my book that guy is one step away from Martin Bashir in terms of integrity.

[@Tom-dv6ei]

@yinoveryang4246 he's actually quite a ways ahead of Bashir and Tarantino really showed himself up as being entitled Hollywood elite in that interview. I love Tarantino movies but as a person, he comes across as a complete ass. Go watch guru-murphy with sam jackson. Similar lines of questions to tarantino. Watch how a secure, well balanced, mature person deals with an interviewer asking the slightly more weighty questions. It's chalk n cheese. Initially at least, im pretty sure s.jackson has his feathers ruffled. And yet...no hissy fit, no "im more important than you" attitude was shown.

[@RemnTheteth]

Peter Hitchens actively demonstrates precisely what he accuses Alex of. I remember watching this and being embarrassed for Hitchens, because the optics on this conversation are precisely the opposite of what he supposed. He had presuppositions in his head around specific topics that he never communicated, blew a gasket, and accused someone of bad faith with no evidence. Very childish, for a man probably twice Alex's age, demonstrating that age does not beget wisdom in a linear fashion.

[@franklyanogre00000]

"Well, you have a good day."

[@pippacarron1861]

I don't for a moment think that his brother, the late and extraordinarily brilliant Christopher Hitchens would have walked out ... poor show Peter.

[@OlympiaCHUD]

We could use a video on minimal use of force in a political warfare situation where truth seeking is to be used to topple power games. Context is Olympia WA

[@Gojiraa666]

The guy who says “I don’t like being challenged “ better be very careful with that rhetoric.

[@RaffsterTabs]

People here saying they understand hitchens even tho through the email we can clearly see that he agreed to talk mainly about 2 topic,drugs and god. When questioned about the drugs topic he barely gave an answer amd acted somehow offended and annoyed to the interviewer trying to build a conversation on the agreed topic. If he didnt wanna talk about it he should have said it and moved to the next topic not act like a poorly mannered teenager.

[@caeserromero3013]

When he says: "You're obsessed with drugs," I'd have been so tempted to say: "Yeah. Have you got any?"🤣🤣

[@brettmuir5679]

If Hitchens intended to leave he should have actually left

[@IronDruids]

Tbh his biggest mistake was hanging around to explain why he wasn't going to stay. If he had just said what he did and walked off we would be left with "This guy has no patience for drug debates." and because he stayed that is not what we are left with. We're left thinking he's emotional and deeply biased and kinda silly. You have to commit when you do that. He should've politely and _quietly_ removed the mic if he had one on and excused himself.

[@touge242]

walking off an interview is like stepping out of a boxing ring mid fight. The quitter has to prove the other side was blatantly wrong and the fight was unfair.

[@samhilton4173]

As a Christian I'm disappointed in Hitchens lack of patience. However, as a person, I understand his frustration.

[@familycorvette]

I can't stand Alex O'Connor. If you listen to his actual words, he reasons very poorly, but because he affects a set of mannerisms that are associated with intelligence, he fools his stans into believing he is a shining intellect.

[@rouninpanda6318]

True. Hitchens is far above Alex's league in terms of intelligence, eloquence, knowledge, and usually wisdom. I've never seen Peter express such frustration. Alex must have really annoyed him. Hitchens telling you he's bored with the interview is damning.

[@Tom-dv6ei]

@@rouninpanda6318 Alex is no doubt a very well versed student of Christopher. Peter on the other hand has always been a petty, entitled belligerent fool.

[@rouninpanda6318]

@@Tom-dv6ei I see nothing of Christopher Hitchens in Alex. I see glimpses of him in Peter for obvious reasons.

[@familycorvette]

@@Tom-dv6ei Chris was glib and witty, but his arguments were usually very weak constructions. With regard to religion, he began with an irrational animosity and all the rest was question-begging. I watched a very ill Christopher Hitchens, near the end of his life, debate the value of religion with the brilliant mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski. Berlinski appeared to be pulling his punches out of pity for Hitchens.

[@Tom-dv6ei]

@@rouninpanda6318 I just said Hitchens is someone Alex has studied in depth. Hes a student of Hitchens. I didnt say Alex was like Hitchens.

[@AlexReynard]

Peter "people only think I'm smart because I have the same voice as my brother" Hitchens

[@melissakennedy5897]

The only thing I’m gonna say is that if Peter Hitchens is considered conservative in the UK, no wonder they’re so messed up

[@yinoveryang4246]

A great example of a 29-year-old exhibiting greater emotional maturity than a 71-year-old. Hitchens often comes across a but like a perpetual teenager. For example, about 18 months into the COVID pandemic, Christopher claimed he was definitely planning to leave the UK for good, and even participated in interviews about it. In the end, nothing came of those claims.

[@akamurphyslaw7190]

Hallo 🙋‍♀️ You’re Videos are really extraordinary good! Super interesting in itself and the way you present that it - great!! The way you combine it is completely new (at least for me!!). I’ve never see these forms of presenting an example and put some real great comments on it. Adding facts and opinions with great explanations (for the opinion) is simply awesome. I’d love to see more of that, maybe in a little bit longer form, because the whole presentation is one of a kind!! Thank you - and congrats to you!

[@joshuatrott193]

I'm surprised by the number of comments that are on side of Hitchens, especially when Alex gave some olive branches to continue.

[@vikingfortiesfaeroes]

He could always have put out the interview, but just titled it 'Debate with Peter the Chair'

[@Joethesensei]

Peter was projecting the spirit of his late brother, Christopher, on to poor Alex.

[@fantinyney7798]

All the talk of drugs had Hitchens craving some drugs and he left to get drugs. Obviously what was going on here.

[@MO-ss7qt]

There was an interview that Robert Downy Jr. walked out of the interview and he absolutely won in the eyes of anyone that saw it.

[@kunsagigyula8091]

The Key and Peele interview storm out was quite epic though. That was the only well justified one 😅

[@catherineclock4878]

I see comments here more aligned with what I thought at the time. Alex is generally a great interviewer-- here he really didn't respect or pick up on the fact that Peter Hitchens intimated he wanted to move on. Hitchens had an absolutely infantile response, but he's a famous curmudgeon and has never pretended to be anything else. Alex might have admitted it wasn't his best interview, but he didn't.

[@antivirusdictionary]

Alex is amazing. I liked how he squeezed J. Peterson as well.

[@raed.1883]

It seems disindisingenuous how long Hitchens lingers to insult the interviewer, power-playing to adamantly get the last word. If he was genuinely *done* there wouldn't have been 5+ minutes of derogatory comments: it may have sounded polite but it I see an obvious stubborn insistence on grandstanding.

[@evalramman7502]

Always admired Peter Hitchens. Read his 'Phony War.' Amazing history book - scathing, too. I think he should have stayed for the rest of the interview. I'm neutral on Alex O'Connor. And, I suspect, with no proof, that Hitchens is largely right about the future of the West without belief in God and the acceptance of recreational drugs.

[@ryanarmstrong3321]

When Robert Downey Junior walked off, he won.

[@NathanNostaw]

If i recall correctly, Alex only released this interview after Peter dissed him on social media.

[@kabr0ne]

Hitchens is an alright bloke he's just no-nonsense and getting old. he cant be fucked with this.

[@MG-me7iw]

Translate = Manbaby

[@zetdota3163]

That was nonsense

[@jasoncook9898]

From this it seems the opposite, he is not an alright bloke, he is a bully and dishonest.

[@QEsposito510]

Nonsense

[@BillsYoutubeAccount]

Seemed like a stubborn biggot. Literally stating how intollerant he is of people with different ideas.

[@uruson]

I remember this interview. I've never liked Peter Hitchens, and I have been subscribed to CosmicSceptic, or 'Alex O'Connor' as he is now known. I am also rather unskilled in reading people. Yet even I can see that Hitchens repeatedly signalled his irritation and wish for O'Connor to move to the next topic. As I recall, there was a point when O'Connor jumped in to speak when Hitchens had a slight pause in his answer to a question. This resulted in them speaking over each other for a moment when Hitchens resumed from said 'slight pause.' I believe Hitchens viewed this as O'Connor interrupting him, as Hitchens then 'behaved in kind' to O'Connor. And O'Connor returned the favour. I no longer remember whether this was before or after Hitchens had signalled his wish to move on to the next subject. At any rate, I believe this interaction is part of why the 'interview' went the way it did. Hitchens' mistake was more in how he exited the interview, than the fact that he did it. He should have remained seated, and declared his wishes so that there was no ambiguity for O'Connor to appeal to. And for the record; Still don't like Peter. No longer subscribed to CosmicSceptic. And I think he was disingenuous in this interview in 'not understanding the problem.' To me the point of learning about logical fallacies and debate strategies was always to aid in finding the truth. To learn how to spot when someone's reasoning is fallacious, not in order to 'win the debate' but instead to know that a debater is engaging in deceptive practices. These 'debate tricks' or 'strategies' are only of use to those who seek to deceive; Those who seek to 'appear' victorious in a debate without regard for whether they're right or not. For example, Ben Shapiro isn't seeking the truth. He seeks to win. I know this because I've seen videos of him debating, where he concedes that his argument was wrong to his opponent, only to use that very same argument again in a later debate. He doesn't care about the arguments he's using. He doesn't care about the truth. He argues to win. While that sort of thing can be fun for a moment, it isn't something I respect, or want to spend my time on. Which is why I unsubscribed to Cosmic. I'm not interested in this gamesmanship. Because I don't believe 'winning' is worth anything if you can't do it with the truth. And that people advocating the truth have no need of lies, deception, misdirection, or similar trickery. I subscribed to Cosmic in the first place because I used to follow all the debates between 'the four horsemen' and the religious types. The debates fascinated me. So I followed various 'sceptical' types; Cosmic among their number, and I saw as one after another these so-called 'sceptics' proved to be anything but. And how, one after another, many scientists I'd thought were interesting turned out to be kooks misleading the public. Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, et cetera. I don't care whether someone is right or wrong. What I value, instead, is open-mindedness, and the pursuit of truth. Because with those things, there is hope. Without them, we are lost to our own delusions. What's worse is that no-one can 'fix themselves.' It just isn't possible to know whether everything you believe is true or not, no matter how hard you strive thereto. We must help rid each other of the falsities we accrue throughout life. And this cannot be done through deception, which only adds to the problem at hand. It is with this in mind, Warren, that I address you. What is the purpose of this video, truly? Is this the kind of thing you want to cover? These are for you to think on, rather than to answer. Hitchens is neither 'proven right' or 'proven wrong' in this video. This video isn't about truth. It's about appearances - he looks bad in this video, primarily because of how he disengages. As a last thought, I don't think it's particularly difficult to conjure up a decent enough 'exit' to the interview for Hitchens; "Listen, we discussed multiple subjects for this interview. I've already told you that I've written books on this subject, and provided answers to your questions that you don't seem particularly interested in hearing. Further discussion on this, in my estimation rather boring subject has little prospect for success. So let us move on." Then if O'Connor insists on asking questions about drug legalisation Hitchens can just reply 'So you are refusing to discuss other subjects, as we agreed prior to this interview? Then I think this interview is over. I'd say it was a pleasure, but I've grown to rather dislike you over the course of this interview. Good day.' Followed by *actually walking out the damn door.* Perhaps less antagonistic than that is advisable, but I at least tried to capture Hitchen's mode of speech and apparent attitude and issue with what was happening.

[@Gallowmere]

Hitchens vs Matthew Perry, there's your answer

[@anthonybrett]

We know who won there. lol

[@ricklyons6125]

technically. its hitchens v perry's doctor.

[@empoweryou1]

I feel like I'm watching Hitchens slowly transitioning into irrelevance.

[@hosiequad]

I didn't see what caused him to have that outburst. The journalist said he was in good faith, but the video didn't show the interaction.

[@dalisllama]

Mike Tyson had a great response to a bad interviewer.

[@tiredman4540]

Honest answers, who skipped most of the interview to get to the juicy bit?

[@Luke_Stoltenberg]

I think Peter is a little old and he doesn't understand podcasts. He thinks he is in a regular 'gotcha' tabloid interview and doesn't realise it is a free flowing conversation, or that he will look like the villain.

[@CSUnger]

Peter Hitchens is one of the few who seems to have his hand on the real problem with the West, how it got to where it is, and is seriously troubled by its intractable nature. I wonder if Peter wasn't simply tired of giving his time to someone he recognizes as part of the problem.

[@theresearcher253]

I often agree with Peter Hitchens, but I'm in favour of drug legalisation. I've lived in Colombia and I've seen the damage that the trade has done there and I'm sick of it being seen as a Western society problem, when really it's a producer country problem where a small handful of people make vast sums of money, a lot of politicians, judges and other officials are corrupted, and a lot of poor people end up dead.

[@Nopquar]

UK politicians making fools out of themselves, sign me up.

[@khandallah4725]

alcohol is first on list, yet most opponents of decriminalization demand their drug of choice be treated differently.

[@carolinekerr9950]

Peter Hitchens is usually always up for a debate and not usually one that would back out unreasonably.

[@koneda_6425]

I really can't stand P Hitchens. I just see him as a pompous, irritable, snob. I think there's something symbolic in an old man, too irritated by the youth to set a good example. This world renown intellectual allowed his emotions to get to him and he resented Alex for the fact.

[@yuukichan5685]

I actually think Alex handled this very poorly even when Hitchens is more wrong. His argument for running it--that people knew he was going to have the conversation--is not a strong one. If that was his true motivation he should have said something like "OK, I won't run it, but instead can we record a brief segment that just says we tried to have a conservation, but there were some miscommunications around the topics and it ultimately was not productive." It gets even weirder when he then says he was not going to upload it (after constantly telling Peter he would), but Peter started tweeting about it immediately after leaving so he was forced to. Ultimately, I think he was right to upload it but his handling of the situation does reflect rather poorly on him.

[@linedwell]

You should try and have a chat with Peter. A lot of people consider him to be some high thinking intellectual...

[@JumboCod91]

The problem with spending your life debating with people who hold ideas you find repugnant is that you get very tired with the activity, particularly when you feel most people seem to agree with those repugnant ideas. Imagine debating communists or fascists all your life, and having society still produce people who will happily join the debate against you. In this case it's drug legalisation, which is a lower from of evil, but still entirely evil, yet it is defended with such levity and polite discord...

[@adamuadamu5081]

Sounds like fun to me

[@Jeipr]

Now we Know why Chtistopher was the liked one !!

[@agenticmark]

I think Hitchens' team fucked up and didnt explain what the consversation was going to be about. Peter notoriously hates vices after losing his brother.

[@garyphisher7375]

Peter's opinions are inconsistent. When those inconsistencies are exposed, he throws his toys out of his pram.

[@hbtwov8227]

it's incredibly frustrating because anyone who knows hitchens knows he's better than this

[@teddybearisms2505]

I think Peter Hitchens can be a very bright man at times, but he fell off the hoarse on this one. I think this is a topic he was not prepared for, and rather than saying "can we move on to the next topic" he seems to have panicked. Maybe hes getting too old to debate?

[@StoicGore]

There was a Trump interview , if memory serves me correctly, where he said they were nasty and left. I think he won that interview.

[@mike-k6y]

This was like watching an awkward bf gf final break up meeting

[@functionmaster1503]

Just an FYI Alex has played "Devils Advocate" on multiple sides of the drug issue.

[@MichaelBruceTaos]

Hitchens is one of the most dis likable people in the world.

[@badplaysdeadmeems6489]

Long and short Hitchins ia a cowerd

[@larrydugan1441]

Peter sees the deterioration in society and has little tolerance for the fools. Understandable.

[@BillsYoutubeAccount]

Not tollerating open discource is probably the main problem with the woke left. Would be careful about idolizing intollerance of discussion.

[@xtr1092]

thats old news and hitchins never likes being challenged he cant see daylight from where he is

[@CringePanda]

Now do Nixon and Frost, from the meme 🤣🤣

[@robertbaker1893]

I think Ales and Peter both made fools of themselves, to some extent. Peter more so than Alex, because as the older, more experienced man, he should have controlled his emotions better and realised that, whether Alex was annoying him unintentionally, or deliberately, to provoke a reaction, anger was not an appropriate response. Assuming that Alex was acting with good intent, he was naive in persisting with his "Socratic dialogue" type arguments with a person whose objections to that line of reasoning were clearly based more on intuitive morality than actual reason.