The fact she's repeating what various American alt-right brain vacuums have been saying makes it all the more absurd ...and unsurprising
Well that guarantees some nuanced takes founded in facts and logic... please log in to view this image
Un-fecking-believable! The interviewer is polite and tries to actively debate the issue. He is clearly well-researched and necessarily probing. Hitchens knew the subjects to be discussed and clearly had been briefed on the interviewer so was surely expecting to be challenged. But the prick let the cat out of the bag by shouting 'i don't like bring challenged'! You have to wonder whether Hitchens is the one with the marijuana problem judging by his level of paranoia!
I rarely agree with Peter Hitchens, who is the polar opposite of his late great brother Christopher Hitchens, but he is often interesting to listen to from the point of view of presenting a case with which I entirely disagree in a clever and detailed way. This interview was ridiculous with Hitchens behaving like a spoilt child. I wonder? Christopher was an intellectual heavyweight his close friends Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie, and Ian McEwan give a clue to the nature of the man as I said the complete opposite of his surviving brother in everything from God, Politics, Mother Teresa, alcohol and so on. Peter Hitchens presenting the God fearing anti alcohol case and inadvertently showing us why people use alcohol and drugs.
Good to see that the Tories are not vindictive towards the innocent 'victims' of their Draconian anti-protest legislation.... Turns out they refused a press pass to the freelance news photographer who was arrested at a Stop Oil protest a couple of months ago, was held for 11 hours and had his house searched before Police admitted his arrest was unlawful. Their attempts to blame the Police for the refusal were met with a loud '**** off - not our decision' from Plod.
And yet none of the hard centre extremists are screaming "TOREEE INABLUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!" at him, I notice...
I saw a few comments saying that, so I listened to it again on headphones. He says, "I don't mind being challenged", to be fair to him. He clearly does, of course! I think that the whole interview is just Hitchens reflecting on his own failures. He thought that his book would be praised and would sell. It wasn't and it didn't. He thought that he could influence government policy with his writing. He couldn't. He thought that he'd be remembered as a great thinker and orator. His brother is, instead. Alex O'Connor was open and gave him a great opportunity to advertise to a new audience. He reacted like a petulant child who has never been told no or questioned on any subject. He actually did have some vague points, in my opinion, but he utterly failed to present them well. He started badly and got progressively worse, then flounced. Absolutely humiliating.
Thanks for the clarification - it really did sound like the reverse on first listen. You're 100% correct (as with Spurfs comments above) - although I doubt I'd ever find myself agreeing with him on just about anything, there was the potential for a good debate and certainly he had ample opportunity to put his own case across. I mean....he's so bored with the subject that he wrote a ****ing book on it and has spent many hours and thousands of column inches spouting his opinions. If he's bored with it, he's only got himself to blame! O'Connor could not have been more open with him and frankly, the restraint he showed under the verbal barrage at the end was impressive. I think I'd have lamped him at some point!