Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
but the daily mail guy with the booming voice was an utter knob too
and Peter Hitchens seems like a cunt
you're not an olympic commentator, you've got no need to put your hand one me
I hope we all have an national day where we rise up against The Daily Mail. It seems like it has to happen at some point.
Thought he dropped the ball here though, came across as petty and resorted to insults when he's got enough about him to have made Hitchens look a dick with reasoned debate.
Although he kind of does himself in by banging on about having a reasoned debate, before dismissing Brand's suitability for presenting such a programme on wholly unreasonable grounds.
I'm sure that my position on the matter is completely opposed to Hitchens' one, had he gotten the chance to fully air it (I don't think you'll get a single organisation/charity that deals with addiction agreeing with him either). But Brand made a total prick of himself so the whole thing turned exceptionally tedious.
Credit to him though - you've got to work REALLY hard to come across as a bigger prick than Hitchens...
(Have to say though - his comments on twitter are a lot closer to reality than most who use it would care to admit...)
Hitchens' position is/was bullshit. Brand gave it as much credence as it deserved.
Hitchens uses a very robust form of logic. That's why he's able to rally certain people behind him. But his logic is ultimately flawed cos it's based on an ignorance of basic facts and evidence that undermines his position.
Hitchens' simplistic argument can be set out in a few seconds. Brand's slightly more nuanced premise requires a few more seconds. They both said their piece. From that point on it's not really about the question any more. (Mainly because Hitchens' argument doesn't have any depth to it worth exploring.)
To paraphrase something Brand said whilst being talked over by Hitchens: "There's more to debating than being deadly serious at all times."
So unless you're gonna have a fundamental discussion about fundamental philosophical issues (which, on newsnight, they are not, thank goodness) all that's left is shouty-bants and tit-for-tat: a debate resting solely on personality.
If y'all wanna be a bunch of sarcastic fringeheads and side with Hitchens cos Brand has been more foppish or louty than you'd prefer, go for it.
no one here is denying that. he just came off a a total twat thats all
Newsnight is a piss poor programme that wastes screen time doing exactly what Question Time does, just without the audience, but what makes it worse is that it's on every chuffing weekday rather than once a week. That Brand didn't take the 'debate' portion of his appearance particularly seriously is hardly surprising. Hitchens, however, seems to think that his shit 5 min debate invitation was a valuable opportunity in the furthering of his crusade.
Wish this'd been here before I hit reply myself... could've saved me some time.
Certainly less so after reading his blog where he reveals that his reasoning for appearing on the programme was little more than `shabs and bants` in essence. And the fact he has no respect for position that Brand, having BEEN there y'know, has a fair shout for presenting a programme about drug addiction. The man is a tedious fool.
The end result is one of two buffoons having a meaningless slog over a serious issue. Ultimately, the thing that comes off worst out of it is the bullshit format of `debating` issues in a limited timeframe on a show that isn't cut out for it. We learnt nothing. The audience learnt nothing. Broadcasting looked stupid. Yeah. At least, in my view, Hitchens was more prepared to have a debate based on reason and fair presentation of point. No matter how abhorrent his points most probably are.
I'll sign up to that if I can abstain from agreeing to Hitchens being credited with a proper level of reasoning.
For all his claims of being prepared to have a debate based on reason, he pretty much dismissed without countering all the arguments of the guy who helped get people off addiction and the former drug addict. And you can't ignore the viewpoints of people who are more informed on a subject than you are, and fail to acknowledge they have information you don't have, and still stake a claim to reason.
I was more coming from a position about their respective behaviours during the discussion, as opposed to the foundations of their respective positions but... sure.
I just think that Brand had the chance to undermine Hitchens entirely by being the bigger man, if you want to put it that way. He went the other way and didn't do himself, nor the views that he wished to get across, any credit. But, as mentioned upthread, the medium in this case is very much the message. A pointless, shambolic message.
I think he's thoughtful and articulate. His mistake was not realising how to take Hitchens on. He was being too hippyish and soft so it was easy for Hitchens to dismiss him. At least there was no mention of his ballbag. He's gonna need to learn how to make his points better before he joins the cultural commentator gang like Will Self and Billy Bragg. Self would have eaten Hitchens up and shat him out there and then.
Hitchens is weird though- he ranted about Brand being unqualified, but I failed to see what credibility Hitchens has to speak on the subject. I thought the other two came out quite well.
Also this 'the experiment has failed' angle. Wait a minute, the 'war on drugs' position that Hitchens believes in has failed worldwide for over half a century, and that is accepted by large swathes of those who have been involved in it (apart from those for whom being outspoken would damage their career).