Russell Brand V Peter Hitchens On Drug Addiction

[Big Man]

Really interesting debate on Newsnight last night about how drug addiction should be treated:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-wLc00kW2A&feature=plcp

 

 

It starts off seriously but then descends into chaos. Brand calls Hitchens a homophobe and sais he looks like something out of The Wind in the Willows.

[Ando]

Peter Hitchens. Vile Tory cunt that writes for the Daily Mail. Nuff said.

[Ke1t]

Peter Hitchens is a twat... the wrong Hitchens died, no question about that.

 

Having said that, Russell Brand has all the debating skills of a severely retarded chimpanzee suffering from serious ADHD.

 

Hitchens is correct in saying that Brand should be nowhere near the debate on drugs. Brand's a fucking idiot, clearly. That the BBC gives this muppet air time is indicative of the people running the BBC and their policy of catering to the lowest common denominator, and the fact that the lowest common denominator is also the mode number of the viewing public.

 

In summary

 

Hitchens - The wrong one got cancer

 

Brand - Absolute tosser with the mentality of a 5 year old

 

BBC - Absolute shambles of an organisation, catering to chavs, retards and the hard of thinking.

 

That clip makes me want to shoot myself in the face.

 

EDIT: Oh, and to add that that particular debate told me nothing about drugs, but a great deal about how Brand thinks Hitchens is a posh twat, and how Hitchens thinks Brand is a fucking moron.

 

They're both correct.

[Guest]

Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand...

 

 

This demonstrates just how excellent a man Russell is.

 

It also demonstrates that Paxman is capable of reasonableness. He leaves his obligatory persona behind during this.

[Guest]

Hitchens was surprisingly excellent on QT tonight.

[Guest]

He's a dick. Actually not even that just a fucking retard. I'm surprised that Paxman didn't implode faced with such a fud.

 

Honestly I want to eat my fucking hand watching this shite.

 

Can you be specific? What particular philosophy of his do you find so objectionable?

[Guest]

You have a serious issue which can only be addressed by education or by lobotomy.

 

Given that the latter has no scientific proof of rehabilitation, let's consider the former.

 

I sincerely hope that you're a young loon who hasn't got a fucking clue and that time will be your healer.

[Guest]

 

Ok attempt to explain to this humble lobotomy subject the merit of Brand's great plan for us all in the context of the world?

 

I'm pretty sure that he is more than capable of expressing himself and that he doesn't need me to repeat what he's saying.

 

It's about the capacity to listen. Listening is a skill. It means letting go of yourself and your fixed rigid maps.

 

Now the subject of which he speaks, the end of modern politics, this may be beyond your junior, inexperienced-in-life imagination?

[Guest]

The sheeple have been sleep-walking. There are growing pockets throughout the globe who are becoming aware of the reality.

 

The day the internet gets pulled is the day that the people will win. This will be the last resort for the controlling classes.

 

The momentum has been built beyond the capacity to stop it. The simple laws of physics and inertia take over now. It's small just now, but a decisive small.

[Guest]

Ad hominem seems to be flavour of this evening.

 

Onyway change isn't the same as progress why would I or you be better off in this new and yet to be defined reality?

 

That's ironic, quoting Hitchens in his futile attempt to defend his stupidity in the face of Brand.

 

There is nothing wrong with ad hominem, particularly on a forum where the written word is king.

 

Change is indeed not the same as progress. But either can only be measured with an understanding of what is now.

 

You can't know if it's changed or if it's better unless you know what now actually is.

 

Therein lies the rub.

[tommo1903]

 

 

 

"You have a serious issue which can only be addressed by education or by lobotomy.

 

Given that the latter has no scientific proof of rehabilitation, let's consider the former.

 

I sincerely hope that you're a young loon who hasn't got a fucking clue and that time will be your healer.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that he is more than capable of expressing himself and that he doesn't need me to repeat what he's saying.

 

It's about the capacity to listen. Listening is a skill. It means letting go of yourself and your fixed rigid maps.

 

Now the subject of which he speaks, the end of modern politics, this may be beyond your junior, inexperienced-in-life imagination?"

 

Having said that, Russell Brand has all the debating skills of a severely retarded chimpanzee suffering from serious ADHD.

 

Hitchens is correct in saying that Brand should be nowhere near the debate on drugs. Brand's a fucking idiot, clearly. That the BBC gives this muppet air time is indicative of the people running the BBC and their policy of catering to the lowest common denominator, and the fact that the lowest common denominator is also the mode number of the viewing public.

 

 

Kelt, Given your posting history, I'm surprised at your views on Brand. To call him a "fucking idiot" is well, just wrong. I'm also pretty sure he is far more "qualified" (for want of a better word) to debate on drugs than most. Hitchens is near impossible to debate with, that whole clip was painful viewing.

 

May I suggest reading up a bit on him, watching a few interviews etc? There's a good chance your mind will change. I used to detest him, I then educated myself.

[tommo1903]

Ok someone please, really tell me his plan and why you endorse it?

 

 

So "why would I or you be better off in this new and yet to be defined reality"? Simple terms, what is his plan?

 

Did you actually watch that video?

[Guest]

Ok someone please, really tell me his plan and why you endorse it?

 

 

So "why would I or you be better off in this new and yet to be defined reality"? Simple terms, what is his plan?

 

How about this?

 

He doesn't have a plan. He's just objecting to the status quo.

 

Surely the first debate is what is the staus quo?

 

Secondly, is it a good or bad status quo?

 

Only then, if the answer is it is a bad status quo, only then would be the time to put forward plans?

[Guest]

Yes it was an incoherent bag of havers. I'm happy with bullet points, what is the plan and why should I believe it will work?

 

Plan for what? What is the debate? What is now and what was he speaking about? Did you actually watch the video, as thommo asked?

 

Do you actually know where the world is right now?

 

Here's some meat for you to get stuck into, since the philosophical context of now and plans seems to be too hard.

 

He said there will be a revolution. Some of us have believed this for years.

 

Can you even think what the revolution will be against?

[Guest]

Revolution for what purpose aside from revolution? To get to where? (starting to get bored...)

 

Listen to the fucking question you fucking gnat attention span cunt.

 

What will the revolution be against?

 

Has your mind ever considered the possibility, knowing the world as you do?

 

I said the small was a decisive small. I said the sheeple were sleep-walking. I knew it was a massive majority. It must include you.

[Guest]

The wealth of 300 yanks = same as 85,000,000, he quoted.

 

I remember the 7:84 theatre company when I lived in the weeg.

 

Scotland's inequality pales compared to the Yoo Ess of Ayy, the worst "democracy" ever built.

[Guest]

Ah ok, I see, so no plan just change how new.

 

You find your inability to read, and therefore listen, funny? You celebrate your confusion and ignorance. That's a very modern trend.

 

For a third time... when he spoke about revolution, what was he talking about?

 

What, specifically, does he, and many others in every corner of the globe, believe that the revolution will be against?

[Guest]

 

There are whole real reports and proper names for the "stuff"* he is miss quoting. Read the wealth of nations and get up to date with 1776 before telling me to watch some tit spew out what he half remembers in 140 characters bites. "Admin bods"....

 

*i.e. economics

 

EDIT: Night night, disappointed in the level of "debate".

 

You had already responded to this post and are selectively ignoring my next, the one where I had to ask for the third time.

 

So that's three posts you've ignored and yet you have the stupidity and ignorance to complain about debate quality?

 

Shall I answer it for you? I'm more than willing to before you fuck off, having made a cunt of yourself?

[Ke1t]

 

 

"You have a serious issue which can only be addressed by education or by lobotomy.

 

Given that the latter has no scientific proof of rehabilitation, let's consider the former.

 

I sincerely hope that you're a young loon who hasn't got a fucking clue and that time will be your healer.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that he is more than capable of expressing himself and that he doesn't need me to repeat what he's saying.

 

It's about the capacity to listen. Listening is a skill. It means letting go of yourself and your fixed rigid maps.

 

Now the subject of which he speaks, the end of modern politics, this may be beyond your junior, inexperienced-in-life imagination?"

 

 

Kelt, Given your posting history, I'm surprised at your views on Brand. To call him a "fucking idiot" is well, just wrong. I'm also pretty sure he is far more "qualified" (for want of a better word) to debate on drugs than most. Hitchens is near impossible to debate with, that whole clip was painful viewing.

 

May I suggest reading up a bit on him, watching a few interviews etc? There's a good chance your mind will change. I used to detest him, I then educated myself.

 

I've recently watched a bit of Russell Brand, and he comes across as reasonably intelligent. He is, however, a fucking idiot.

 

If you're going to be debating a subject like drugs then acting whacky, in the face of someone (Hitchens) who rarely, if ever, seems to be up for a joke, then you should probably debate the man on a purely intellectual level rather than acting like a comedian.

 

Brand acting like a goofball gives Hitchens all the excuse he needs to dismiss Brand out of hand, whether legitimately or not, I'll leave the legitimacy of that dismissal to the individual to decide.

 

An addict discussing addiction is probably a good idea. An addict discussing addiction while acting like a twat is probably not a good idea, because it's not just Hitchens who will dismiss him.

 

He might come up with an absolutely genius solution to the drugs issue, but if he does it while talking about his 'Winkie' or wearing his clown costume and juggling bowling pins then the message gets lost, opponents just throw their arms up and say, "fuck this tit."

[Guest]

Opponents who consider the style or the method of message delivery more than the content are not opponents worth listening to.

 

Pride was always considered a deadly sin, but I suppose since it was an organised religion that said it, that's a heap of bollocks too.

[BrianFaePerth]

Katy Perry would get it though. Double bagger tho given where she's been.

[tup]

They're all posh wankers.

[tup]

Don't like the cunt he's a jakey.

[woohoo]

WOOHOO

 

Always liked Paxman me. But I hope he's playing the de'il's advocate here...

 

The woohoo thinks those that brand Brand a fool because he has stupid hair and sounds like a poof are idiots.

 

Paxman quizzes him for a solution... but it's a massive leap forward to identify the problem (as he sees it) and Russell Brand articulates it passionately and specifically.

 

Remember, the question was 'What gives you the right, as a non-voter, to edit a political magazine?' Jeremy does realise by the end that he's at least not dealing with an eejit.

[360]

Brand is an absolute cunt.

 

Talentless and unfunny.

 

Viz did a funny piece about him a couple of weeks ago.

[Sonoftherock]

Brand is an absolute cunt.

 

Talentless and unfunny.

 

Viz did a funny piece about him a couple of weeks ago.

 

I wouldn't say brand is talentless. He's an excellent public speaker, very quick witted and is certainly hugely charismatic. However, that doesn't disguise the fact he's full of shit. I don't believe a word he says, in fact I think he's a completely disingenuous individual who's only really interested in using his 'talent' for self promotion.

[tup]

He's one of those pretentious posh cunts who thinks his opinion is important.

 

Its no more important than that of the tramp lying buckled at the arse end of the Trinity centre.

 

He's irrelevant.

[Bluto10]

 

Did he use words you have no idea what they mean?

 

Do you see him trying to be funny in this latest piece? He's very articulate in what he says.

 

I can understand why people say he's a cunt - but to call him unfunny and talentless after this latest interview is absolutely wide of the mark. He isn't trying to be funny.

 

What he says is completely valid and he puts the point across better than I ever could.

 

People don't understand the words he uses and that's what I find amusing. He's a cunt because people don't understand him...errrr that makes sense. Some people call him a cunt for these reasons, totally bizarre.

 

he speaks english doesnt he?

 

ive not seen brand for years, and he wasnt great backl then.

 

but cause its your berts, ill believe you

[Bluto10]

He's one of those pretentious posh cunts who thinks his opinion is important.

 

Its no more important than that of the tramp lying buckled at the arse end of the Trinity centre.

 

He's irrelevant.

 

bit like you then.

[tommo1903]

 

I've recently watched a bit of Russell Brand, and he comes across as reasonably intelligent. He is, however, a fucking idiot.

 

If you're going to be debating a subject like drugs then acting whacky, in the face of someone (Hitchens) who rarely, if ever, seems to be up for a joke, then you should probably debate the man on a purely intellectual level rather than acting like a comedian.

 

Brand acting like a goofball gives Hitchens all the excuse he needs to dismiss Brand out of hand, whether legitimately or not, I'll leave the legitimacy of that dismissal to the individual to decide.

 

An addict discussing addiction is probably a good idea. An addict discussing addiction while acting like a twat is probably not a good idea, because it's not just Hitchens who will dismiss him.

 

He might come up with an absolutely genius solution to the drugs issue, but if he does it while talking about his 'Winkie' or wearing his clown costume and juggling bowling pins then the message gets lost, opponents just throw their arms up and say, "fuck this tit."

 

Why debate someone like Hitchens on a purely 'intellectual' level? Why should people conform to some "norm" when discussing political issues when they are both trying to get their points across? It is the same norm that has led us to where we are today - fucked. If opponents throw their arms up and say "fuck this shit!", surely he's doing something right?

 

Genuinely interested as to your views on the Paxman video.