Hitchens vs. Hitchens Press Conference (1 of 5)

[alwaysright10000]

@r0bbie8arc0de E-I Forgive me; I see now that you did reply to my challenge. As sometimes happens, your comment was not visible when first "posted" (Youtube's fault not mine.)

Anyway, you've done exactly what I thought you'd do, exactly what every other person who's tried to critique my prose on the internet has done (I can link you to a dozen examples to give you some sense of just how tediously predictable you are). You've simply suggested that I elide a few words on the alleged grounds...

[alwaysright10000]

E-II ...that the strict literal meaning would remain unaltered in their absence. I will now tear this to shreds on two grounds:

First, the implicit assumption that the meaning of language reduces entirely to semantics. This is just empirically false, but if true would render much poetry, and many idiomatic expressions and figures of speech, nonsensical word salad (it would also make language very dry and prosaic). 

Second, my literal meaning would NOT in fact remain unaltered...

[alwaysright10000]

E-III ...with the change of phrase you suggest. For example "'the confirmatory, or dis-confirmatory, perceptions of others" is not implied merely in "criticism". This was an allusion to the psychological literature on grandiose delusion and narcissism, and the confirmation bias of narcissists in failing to heed others "disconfirmatory" perceptions. But even without this there is at the very least a case to be made for emphasis, irony, and rhetorical flow (none the which are vacuous).

[prem288855]

This is a wonderful vignette of the Hitchens' complicated relationship.

The body language says it all. Christopher is laid-back, throwing ideas and thoughts out with abandon, and Peter uptight, uncomfortable and tongue-tied.

When the next big news story breaks one of my thoughts will be: "I wonder what Hitch would have said about it".

[arniemazmax]

9:06 says it all. 

[BritishArrow]

Christopher Hitchens had a wonderful self assurity and charmingly confident composure. He's just sitting there as if he's at a beach table not even having to worry about what he or they are going to say.

[1TheLoneWolf1]

The body postures between them , around 2:00 says it all

Can you feel the loove?!? lol

[fornasettidream]

are all american journalists THIS DULL

[thatdutchguy420]

i wonder do they ever go to hangout without eachother and drink or something

[angryafghan]

3:00 - 3:20 Peter basically explains why he has cultivated these ridiculous "beliefs" it's all an attempt to escape from his brother's shadow, to be defined by his own principles. Unfortunately Christopher had already come to be associated with the more logical school of thought leaving poor Peter confined to the wilderness of Anglican Christianity.

[HecklerBoy7]

I hate it when people tend to be pretentious and hifalutin when commenting on one of Hitchens's videos. It's like they want to sound as eloquent as hitchens. Case in point : 'alwaysright100000'

[mischstev]

@HecklerBoy7 iirroonnnyyy

[funkyleaf]

 I like the jazz in the background as they're speaking.

[writersblock26]

@funkyleaf Meh...I find it kind of distracting.

[Zimnyification]

They're the same person :O

[yatter1]

It used to be said that the idiot son would join the priesthood, which of these two would make a good priest?

[canaanite23]

and yet again, Muslim youth resort to violence.

shockerrr ..........

god help us all!

..or is it up to us...?

[MakeshiftEstablished]

I like Christopher's sunglasses haha

[capaldicorporations]

Interviewer is out of his depth

[bigbowlowrong]

not every sibling relationship is like the brady bunch.

[giantstingray]

I wanted him to say spontaneus.

[BARCACROSSESTHEALPS]

interviewer sucks balls...

[reezlaw]

The sum of their voices makes 30 Hz.

[lollygager3664]

The interviewers were complete shit.

[Zimnyification]

@lollygager3664 Shite*

[dardobartoli]

the problem is that those two make everyone seem 'shit' as you put it

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

weird body language...

[spud9er]

The initial interviewer is an idiot---poor guy!

[madameCecily]

Dose Christoper and Peter have any other siblings?

[dinkypoopstick]

like Frasier and Miles Cranes debating

[CaptainStern2]

LOL spot on

[polymath7]

It's nothing like that at all; the "Niles" and "Frasier" characters are supposed to be intellectually commensurate.

[caeruleastar2]

Christopher probably has the intellectual edge, but Peter is highly intelligent and is an interesting maverick character in his own right. Very British - and I disagree with him about almost everything.

[polymath7]

No.

Incorrect.

Peter most definitely is not highly intelligent.

He simply isn't.

[bernlin2000]

@caeruleastar2 Peter tends to get strangely hung up on manners I noticed in the debate: the idea that people don't open the door for each other anymore he finds to be a sure sign of moral decay.

[cott2696]

@caeruleastar2 Feel pretty much the same way.

[mpolzkill]

Yes, you're right, Peter was against invading Iraq, haha.

[polymath7]

Hi, mpolz.

Yes, that one is certainly to Peter's credit...

But let us consider some other things he says in this debate (I'm quoting from memory and haven't rewatched it in several months so this won't verbatim)

"When a society ceases to believe in Hell, Hell pretty quickly enters into it."

"The extreme intolerance and refusal to listen [to creationists] on the other side makes me wonder if there just might be something to this [creationism!] after all."

Sorry, but anyone who is...

[polymath7]

II. remotely capable of either of this statements -and many others Peter has made- stands inescapibally below a certain intellectual ceiling, nor is that ceiling terribly high.

Add to this Christopher's incontrovertibly superior verbal facility and and mental agility and it seems to me pretty obvious which is brother the smarter, and by a very wide margin indeed. Hey mpolz, I'd be happy to engage in friendly debate, but it's going to have to wait a couple days.

Tonight I am...

[polymath7]

III

...trying to get laid and am very drunk, and will no doubt be very drunk tomorrow as well.

Happy holidays

[illini554]

You've got yourself a bit of a conundrum there eh brew.

[polymath7]

Huh? You mean because I mentioned that I was both drunk and trying to get laid?

How is this a conundrum?

Truth be told, I'd forgotten I'd written that comment and would likely not have remembered it the day after.

Even more than a year later, I have to wince at "...which is brother the smarter..."

and would have expected the curious asymmetry in the ratings of the two parts to be inverted.

I suppose people read as carelessly as I wrote and failed to notice the quotes.

[illini554]

I'm curiously aroused by your rhetoric. Keep going...

[alwaysright10000]

I. *chuckle*

This is a refreshing change from from the usual unlettered cretins who accuse me of having rapidly exceeded my allotment of polysyllabic words, bitch that I've stuck my prose where it doesn't belong, and castigate me for my vanity as a pretext upon which to assuage the sting of insult to their own.

However among the intelligent, my rapier wit and seamless wordcraft do tend to prove sexy.

Reciprocally, I have a marked fondness for women whose IQ's exceed their weight.

So then...

[alwaysright10000]

...what are your "measurements"?

[alwaysright10000]

II ...oh damn, that was supposed to come from polymath.

I ordinarily use this intentionally invidious handle for disingenuous hoax comments (Poe's law, and all that).

[qqs764]

@alwaysright10000 Also, cocks.

[alwaysright10000]

@qqs764 Uh, come again? This seems like a complete non sequitur. I don't see how it fits in any way with the context of my previous posts.

[qqs764]

@alwaysright10000 I was mocking you. Poeticism in language is best practiced with the aim of practical explanation, not simply the employ of the most 'academic' words one can find.

[alwaysright10000]

@qqs764

*grin*

Do you think you're the first to say this to me?

Do you think you're among the first three hundred?

If I want advice on my prose style, I'll ask for it.

However if for some fanciful reason you think I ought to ask *you*, please don't feel slighted if I demure.

Whoever you are, you may be firmly assured that I am vastly more intelligent than you, and it will cost me not the slightest mental exertion to intellectually bitch slap the living shit out of you.

;-)

[qqs764]

@alwaysright10000 Oh, I'm sure you'll try. Unfortunately for you I've been insulted by professionals.

[alwaysright10000]

@qqs764 A crushingly banal reply. You're not off to a` good start.

Never mind; you show no promise of being at all interesting.

[qqs764]

@alwaysright10000 I wasn't aware that interesting you was something I should aspire to. Remind me to file that along with the rest of the shit nobody cares about.

[alwaysright10000]

Were you aware that I'd even faintly suggested any such aspiration? That would make one of us.

Two strikes. It's getting rapidly worse for you, litttle boy.

Now, I'll provide a far more useful reminder than that you request:

In the future, if you're trying to sound clever, make at least some attempt to craft a remark of your own, rather than pulling from an old drawer some ragged, hackneyed quip that's passed through so many hands it lost the shape of wit long ago.

You lose. As always, I win.

[qqs764]

@alwaysright10000 If you have to declare a victory...

[r0bbie8arc0de]

@alwaysright10000

If more than three hundred people have told you your language sounds pretentious and wordy for the sake of it you might want to think about taking it on board. Your sentences are clumsy, someone as 'intelligent' as you profess to be ought to know the skill of eloquence is efficiency with words - merely peppering convoluted phrases with adjectives does, indeed, look pretentious. No 'intelligent' debater would ever make claims about their own intellect - look up irony too.

[alwaysright10000]

@r0bbie8arc0de I.

I didn't say those three hundred voices were *univocal*, and indeed (for what it's worth) they are heavily countervailed by compliments upon my fine command of language (one of which appears on this page).

So then, If I'm to modulate my self-assessment (in this case of my own prose) by heeding what may -or may not- be the confirmatory, or dis-confirmatory, perceptions of others, how am I to decide which of these groups' feedback to "take on board"?

[alwaysright10000]

II. One way -indeed as far as I can see the only way, really- is to assess in turn the quality and acuity of the respective detractors and plaudits themselves, as best I can discern. (This may sound tautological, but If you can propose a better alternative I'm curious to hear it.)

Now, it seems entirely obvious to me that the plaudits are, by and large, much more intelligent and erudite than the detractors -and at the *very* least are clearly far less confused by...

[alwaysright10000]

III. ...my allegedly convoluted phrasing and inordinate use of polysyllabic words, than the detectors profess (or confess) to be.

Let us examine your comment, which, like absolutely every single other reproachful one I have received, shows at best no particular gift for or insight into language, and at worst a mere philistine's frustration with what he takes to be the abstruse character of fancy book learnin' ("Talk normal, dammit!").

You say,

"Your sentences are clumsy..."

[alwaysright10000]

IV. This is a subjective literary judgement made as if it were an intersubjective consensus already widely accepted, or patently obvious on its face. It is neither, but this might be fine if you'd adduced some specific reason to think it at as self evident as you appear to.

Not only do you fail to so much as hint at any such reason your judgement should supplant my own, it appears to the latter, un-displaced as it sits, that *your* sentences are awkward.

For example....

[alwaysright10000]

V. ....you join two separate clauses with a comma that probably ought be separated by a period, resulting in a mishmash of a sentence that is at best graceless if not outright ungrammatical. As for the content, one can say little other than that your thoughts themselves (such as they are) come very close to breaking new ground in banality.

[alwaysright10000]

errata:

...than the *detractors profess...

[r0bbie8arc0de]

@alwaysright10000 I wasn't making any claims regarding my own talents. Your style is hilarious, I'll direct you to Orwell's advice, you certainly need it - 'Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.'

Ad hominem insults, straw men and absurd claims to your own greatness (all the top writers are found commenting on youtube, aren't they?) - not the tools of a master debater, but remove one syllable and you're there.

[alwaysright10000]

A-I.

It is patently, painfully obvious that you haven't the first idea what an ad hominem is (hint: it 's not even *synonymous* with "insult") nor what a straw man argument is (here I can scarcely even guess at your meaning, as I did not attribute any argument to you at all, let alone distort it) and so it is massively ironic that you should then proceed to admonish me not to use a long word where a short (to say noting of appropriate) one will do.

I use "long words"...

[r0bbie8arc0de]

@alwaysright10000 Granted (or should I say 'errata'?) insult was a needless addition to 'ad hominem'. 'Long word' was an Orwell quote, but then you're clearly a better writer.

"[A] mere philistine's frustration with what he takes to be the abstruse character of fancy book learnin' ("Talk normal, dammit!")." - I think that's attributing a fair bit to me.

I am humbled, I will give up my job as a software developer and join the youtube intelligentsia, if you'll have me.

[alwaysright10000]

@r0bbie8arc0de Pitifully otiose (look it up).

Do better, or this coversation is over. One more time:

Can you provide me the slightest reason I ought to pay the slightest attention to your disapproval of my prose style, let alone adjust it to suit your tastes?

(And bear in mind once more your own appraisal is *by no means shared* by everyone.)

[r0bbie8arc0de]

@alwaysright10000

You're by no means shy of offering your own unique brand of unconstructive criticism to all and sundry, perhaps it's by the same merit that I offered you some genuine pointers.

'Balloons upon a cactus'? It's a genuine tragedy that you are unpublished, it would be a shame to see such talent, such a dab hand with simile, wasted on trolling youtube comments, but you can't be long out of school, there is still hope.

This conversation is over, have a nice life.

[alwaysright10000]

You're right I'm not long out of school, which is why yes, I'm unpublished -for now.

You're not in the least shy, sir, of *soliciting* my unconstructive criticism.

If you want to offer pointers, make damn sure they be sufficiently sharp, as I've plenty of barbs of my own and can't be bothered to cork them to avoid puncturing any empty heads that may carelessly drift against me.

You got your head handed to you and are in NO position to cry, nor am I hard of heart if I remain unmoved.

[r0bbie8arc0de]

@alwaysright10000

It is obvious enough, you have every hallmark of it that you will wince when recalling later on, just as surely as we do. Declarations of intelligence, 'proving' this with lexical overload - you remind me so much of my 16-yr old self it's painful!

On a more civil note, if you wish to be a writer I genuinely wish you the best of luck, it's a better aspiration than one might expect in this day - your style only lacks humility and economy and both will come with age.

Good luck

[alwaysright10000]

C-II

...to harbor a self assessment that is commensurate to one's abilities?

Why can't ego keep pace with intellect?

If you think in my case ego overtakes intellect, you haven't given any reason why -at all- and frankly I see no reason I can't just dismiss everything you've failed to say with a wave of the hand.

Why not?

One last chance: improve upon my verbal economy.

Amend one phrase, and give your reasons why your wording is to be preferred.

This is not a truculent challenge.

[r0bbie8arc0de]

@alwaysright10000 You've not replied since I took you up on your, ahem, 'challenge', I just hope you've taken my response onboard.

"Why can't ego keep pace with intellect?"

You're confusing arrogance with narcissism. C Hitchens was certainly arrogant, but never reduced to making claims of his own superior intellect (I'd have loved to see his response to it though). Stating it mid-debate, the theatre where it ought to be evident without being pointed out, looks rather silly.

[alwaysright10000]

Reread the exchange to which you're referring.

I was not engaged in a propositional debate, I was responding to someone who, just like yourself, complained that I'd stuck my prose where it doesn't belong.

My assertion of my intelligence was clearly not intended to modify any proposition external to myself or itself, and so your use of the words "reduced" and "resorted" are solecisms as categorically and egregiously incorrect as your total misuse of "straw man" and "ad hominem" .

[alwaysright10000]

D-IV

...held anywhere at any time -not merely because I command a fund of rhetorical and intellectual resources at least as rich as his, but because I'd also have enjoyed the insuperable advantage of having nearly all the facts aligned in a veritable epistemic phalanx on my side.

[r0bbie8arc0de]

@alwaysright10000

Self-recognition is fine, as a recourse in debate it is seen as something of a losing tactic.

I thought the Orwell (not, incidentally, an author I'm over-fond of) quote apposite as it is not encouraging moronic, 'short word' English, only recognising that using obscure, convoluted language for its own sake is more for rhetoric than substance, as it tries to imply a level of intelligence on the author's part which ought to give their words more weight.

[Gary88888able]

@alwaysright10000 I hope you're only like this on YouTube. When you look back on your teens in later life it should be at a fun-loving, carefree person; not a self-important, pretentious pseud.

PS I haven't misused that semi-colon have I? Please don't tell my girlfriend, I don't think she could stand the shame!

[mpolzkill]

Hey Poly, how are ya? No, no, I don't want a debate, I'm no P. Hitchens fan, I was just joking around & also making my usual point that intelligence isn't everything. It wouldn't take more intelligence for C. Hitchens to have not supported the Iraq debacle for the benefit of his Kurdish buddies, but more honesty & integrity.

Take care, see you around.

[padraic2001eire]

Does anyone find it strange (but not in a bad way) to hear Christopher laughing at 4:26? It seems to happen so rarely.

[williamhudson1]

"Faith hate crimes" - only in 21st century, Blairite England. Pathetic. And some in America still think Blair was a good man. History will not be so kind.

[mw2000]

Amen to that.

[Clemetsson]

I like both of them, and the antagonism between them is intriguing.

Actually prefer this press conference to the actual debate.

[PBSmithy]

5:39 "Anglicanised" What a fucking idiot!

[PBSmithy]

I typed in a five instead of a six which makes me the cerebrally-sloven fucktard! - How incredibly humiliating!

p.s. the guy should still be embarrassed at finding himself unable to use the word "Anglicised"

[andysnadden]

People who ask long questions never come off well.

[sozialprodukt]

the two brothers for themselves spread a certain feeling of dignity, but together it looks like comedy

[julianrod]

wow! peter interrupting christopher, at 5:10... how bout that?

[mattvansickle]

I think these guys are great characters.

[TomPiltoff]

Sucky interviewer. 'Is this the first time you've debated in the US? So it won't feel repetitive? Will you do more?'

[mindvirusdoctor]

Easy sun, CH needs a few under his belt to flow. Looks like he wishes his glasses were 16mg filtered dunhills too.

[sun2515]

I want to scream at 5:10 how bout IMPROMPTU !

it is painful to see such great minds stumbling around with what seems a very simple word.

[mjdoyza]

Surely they could have a mustered up a better interviewer than the awestruck intellectual lightweight pup who kept walking in front of the camera.

[lutestring]

I see what you mean, mjdoyza about the intellectual lightweight interviewer! Surprised CH didn't say anything, but of course, he's far too polite for that!

[sun2515]

Christopher I would want to have dinner and a beer with, his brother not so much.

[siavash8p]

A fuckin beer? Come one man...at least say some shit whiskey instead of beer. I'd like some JD Green

[linuxpenguin73]

I think Peter would possibly be more interesting to talk to, as I think he is a more internally conflicted man. He appears to be as smart if not smarter than Christopher, and yet clings onto his faith despite probably realising the futility of it.

[kzearo]

I can hear some sweet Jazz in the background.

[o8QWERTYo8]

C.HITCHENS tells the truth; others don't..

..simple as.

[gamerunknown]

Hey, I love the man, but he's fallible.

[bestdionysus]

Is there a man who isn't fallible?

[OmegaRage]

They're both great

[polluxandcastor]

Hitchens (left) is great

[richardcadbury]

Their left or our left ?!? or do you mean THE left?