Talk:Peter Hitchens

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Pet peeves

Sorry to be so heavy-handed on the citations front, but some of these really do need some evidence - and much as Pete's a bit of an arse, I don't like the idea of accusing him of various things on that basis. I realise that some of them back each other up, in which case why keep the redundancies? Webbtje (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My issue is more around the "Content Creep" aspects, i.e., calling it "pet peeves" when he may have only mentioned it the once - we know Richard Littlejohn is obsessed with gays, for instance. But I can't recall anything from Peter Hitchens that he's that obsessed with, apart from Leo Blair during the MMR hoax. The list is fairly extensive and single words with a fact-tag can probably get removed, a "pet peeves" thing should be a fairly short list of things that occur very regularly. ^pathetic 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to resurrect an old discussion, but when I saw the article I assumed the long list was actually the point -- given that one of Peter Hitchens' defining characteristics is that he seems to treat absolutely everything as a pet peeve --Lord Shang (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

Peter Hitchens has never written anything for the Daily Mail. ^{— Unsigned, by: Elliottstv / talk / contribs}

Really now? The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 16:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. The word "cult" appears three times in this article.

Everything is now a cult. Everything. No but seriously referring to ADHD and "belief in dyslexia" as a "cult" is so silly there should totally be a section about cults. Even if those were the only four things he's referred to as such. (I was seriously expecting the last paragraph of the Core Beliefs section to say something about homosexuality as a cult.)--Duth Olec (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, because criticizing medical orthodoxy is so much the purview of the extreme homophobe. Where are you bill maher, you gay basher? Burkean (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Useless article

It appears that every misrepresentation of Peter Hitchens that has ever been made has been assembled in one place. For more accurate information I would recommend consulting the wikipedia article, or even looking at some of the articles he's written and see how badly written this page is.

I don't know if this is intended to be a serious website, but if this article is any indication then the answer is obviously no. ^{— Unsigned, by: 96.42.45.62 / talk / contribs}

Thank you for your contribution. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome.^{— Unsigned, by: 96.42.45.62 / talk / contribs}

An Opportunity

I won't be here long, so if you'd like to bury my contributions under the sand that's fine with me. But on the off-chance that any of the contributors here are people of integrity who don't believe in spreading misrepresentation, I'd like to offer you an opportunity to make this site appear fractionally less ridiculous. When you link to an article in which the author is clearly saying one thing, and then represent him here as saying something completely different (I allude to the Mail on Sunday article of 15 February 2008, in which Hitchens attacks the idea that women should be shamed away from raising children at home - clearly not the same thing as an argument that their "place is in the home"), it would probably be a better idea for you to not actually put the link up, as doing so may result in someone clicking on it to see what was actually written. The mischaracterisation of Hitchens' comments on the rape issue follow similar lines. 96.42.45.62 (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Super cool story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disgraceful story, actually. 96.42.45.62 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the Mail on Sunday piece would seem to cross the line into attacking the idea of not staying in the home. Peter ^mqzp 08:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. I'd suggest taking a closer look at it. In the article, he gives examples of the banal, uninspiring work that many people, men and women, do in modern workplaces, and he attacks the idea those those jobs are necessarily more useful or more fulfulling to women than child-rearing. To characterize the article as him as saying "a woman's place is in the home" is flatly false. 96.42.45.62 (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Watching this bloke on telly now

And what a depressing prick. Scherben (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I love me a bit of Hitchens

He's a great politician and his stance on the Iraq war makes him a good guy in my eyes. He supports Israel as a state but not militarily, criticizing the Gaza offensive. --AlanA (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not citations

Considering the our article on it, it doesn't look good when a huge number of citations for this article are from the Daily Mail. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 18:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens is (or at least has been) a Daily Mail columnist. A Daily Mail column is entirely appropriate to cite when it is backing up claims about the opinions of said columnist. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry didn't see that. Master Necromancer(fear me!) 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Mental Illness

When mentioning Peter Hitchens' views on ADHD, you link to a page called mental illness denial. Am I to take it that ADHD is to be viewed as a mental illness? Burkean (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The varying opinions on that is already discussed in the ADHD section of the RW page linked to and if "mental illness" is defined as those diagnoses covered by such systems as DSM-5, then yes, ADHD is a mental illness. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you not find that to be a rather broad definition of what categorizes someone as mentally ill? Burkean (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In order to fit the definition of mental illness, all you need is 1) something 'mental' 2) that's considered pathological (i.e. it has a bad effect). 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

By that definition someone who is extremely mean or merely shy could be categorized as mentally ill Burkean (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What happened, finally get a diagnosis? Seriously, considering the drastic change in your conversation style and focus on mental illness. The level is a bit subjective, but where those impair daily function they are illnesses now. It is an illness to be trapped in your own home at the fear of going out. It is an illness to get angry enough to do significant damage to things or hurt people. People don't fit into neat boxes of yes and no...that's why professionals are educated, trained, and experianced in doing this. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice potshot. Anyway, I did take psych 101 and have a psychologist father in law and just seemed to think the classification of ADHD as a mental illness seemed a little over the top. Clearly, my impudence on this point upsets you a great deal. Burkean (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Aww, thanks...there's that spunk like old times :-) ADHD is visably real and it can be devistating to people. I have known more than half a dozen people that lost education opportunities, jobs, families, and homes because of the impulsive behaviors. As well as 2 families where those meds were saving to their children's health and future. It's certainly been overused in the past and as more information is researched on the disorder it gets better. It's hard to see from inside it but it's usually pretty transparent that it's real. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You have unfairly assumed that I take the Peter Hitchens line on this. I'm merely saying that I'm not sure classification as a mental illness helps the issue. I myself had a very negative experience with Ritalin, but I'm sure that was not the case for everybody. Saying it maybe shouldn't be classified as a mental illness isn't the same as saying that it isn't real. Hitchens point I don't think was "who cares about these people" so much as the fact that an education system and a society helps to create people who can't seem to fit into its rigid walls, then the big machine of that society goes "does not compute" and we begin classifying and medicating people instead of actually dealing with the problem. I don't think the school systems classifying and medicating these kids (and the people prescribing and marketing the meds) really have children's best interests at heart. I don't know why that has to be construed as mental illness denial. I think parents should be aware that often time teachers, administrations, pharmaceutical companies, and yes even mental health professionals may have a hidden agenda. Is that really so reprehensible a position? Burkean (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, again you start making up what I said...which was the issue last time we spoke. We can talk when you get a more truthy :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you did that when you implied that I was saying it wasn't real. Burkean (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Mental illness denial is the denial of the existence of mental disorders as real medical conditions." Thanks for playing, and throwing in the hidden agenda in there previously. 8-D -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please explain when and how I denied that it was a real condition. Playing? What, are you 12? Burkean (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's the most pathetic thing I have seen when someone tries to get out of what is clearly written above. Your failings at justifying your position shouldn't reflect against Hitchens so feel free to continue it on a user page. This is a great example why it has been said you problems with the truth and most people are sick of dealing with it. You can always read your talk page for more. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that ADHD exists and that it is a real problem. Whether it is a classification exploited by the system or not, the fact remains that there are kids who share these characteristics. Now you're calling me a liar without a shred of evidence. In my response which you describe as pathetic, I was merely echoing what you said when you said there were problems with medication. Burkean (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Really?

"Unlike most modern conservatives (who tend to pick and choose, and usually reserve out-and-out condemnation for hip-hop and forms influenced by it), all pop and rock music, in totality.[17] He even implicated Engelbert Humperdinck in the Great Moral Decline of the 1960s.[18] Many Mail readers who agree with most of his other views are out of sympathy with Hitchens on these issues. Ironically, though, many leftists would also sense the continuum he senses (which Richard Littlejohn and Jeremy Clarkson don't sense) between Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones and the modern British working-class appropriation of hip-hop"-uh huh. Clarkson's and Littlejohn's views might have something to do with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgETLvRQNmc

Pissed or not

It's hard to tell from his posting whether Hitchens is genuinely pissed at us or not. Perhaps we should coin a special word for his feelings, "nonpissed" = pissed + nonplussed:[1]

“”I find if very useful to see exactly how those who loathe me have managed to misconstrue and misrepresent my arguments while never wholly departing from a factual basis. … Anyone with any sense can see that it is the work of a wildly-distorted, hopelessly-biased and hostile mind, and so can enjoy it, and work out what I really think without much difficulty.

Bongolian (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens on COVID-19

Peter Hitchens participated in a 1-hour interview on the YouTube channel Triggernometry entitled Peter Hitchens: "The Lockdown is a Catastrophe"

It seems that Peter Hitchens goes with the “Oh, it wasn’t going to be very serious, so the reaction is overblown” style rhetoric that stops short of open denial or conspiracy theory in favour of downplaying the threat. Basically, he seems to subscribe to the “let them die” perspective expressed far more directly in the US and then rationalise it by presenting a grab bag of whataboutery. He also cites Sweden, which simply did things less formally, as the success story (despite it being the outlying Scandinavian country in terms of being far harder hit, which is why there has been a lot of internal criticism in Sweden of its strategy).

So, Hitchens claims that COVID-19 is really not that bad and Big Gub’mint shouldn’t interfere and is simply fear mongering with the collusion of the media.

The interview also features Peter Hitchens playing the Galileo gambit and makes some seriously stupid claims, such as that quarantining the healthy is unprecedented (similar actions were taken, as far as possible, during the Spanish flu), not to mention that this ignores that the quarantine of the “healthy” is also due to the risk of infection by those who seem healthy but are already infected. He also doubles down on his Galileo by invoking the latest bugbear: Big Tech censorship (something his hosts gleefully latch onto, speculating that tithe video might be taken down). Peter Hitchens then finishes off with another standard conservative canard: That the government can’t afford the response and that only the private sector is really productive.

The two dudes running the channel seems to be falling into the old trap of supposing that, simply because someone is being a contrarian, they must be a plucky defender of truth against the dastardly agents of “the establishment”. The comment track is a depressing confirmation of this idiocy with practically every comment cheering Peter Hitchens on, as if a regular writer in conservative media is some downtrodden rebel.

Peter Hitchens also conveniently ignores that the UK government was following his preferred “do nothing/little” approach and only did it abrupt 180 degree turn to draconian lockdown when infections and deaths began accelerating out of control (just the scenario it was warned about by almost every national and international health experts). Similarly, he spins the flaunting of the lockdown rules by Dominic Cummings and other senior figures as a sign that the rules aren’t sensible and the threat from COVID-19 isn’t serious, which is obviously an idiotic claim (like claiming that running a red light is evidence that traffic lights are useless and that not obeying them is harmless). Unfortunately, his hosts completely fail to challenge him on or even mention any of this.

Basically, he comes off like a smug, pompous, yet curmudgeonly old toff, who likes to play the Monday morning quarterback, including the unbearable British (or, perhaps, English) World War II fetishism.

I also think that this is reflecting one conservative story about COVID-19: That it was never going to be serious, that anyone saying otherwise is fear mongering, and that pushback against them (or even their nonsense being pushed down in online searches) is censorship and the product of collusion between government, the media and Big Tech. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that Peter Hitchens’s view on COVID-19 and government response is totally in line with his other views, which appear to be Victorian (God, not government, will see us through; laissez-faire economics and charity are better than government sponsored welfare systems; rural England is an idyllic “real Britain/England”; and then of course there is the weird obsession with sex and particular sexual practices as signs of moral issues). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That all sounds right. Peter Hitchens belongs in the class of people I care next to nothing about, who is only notable, to me, for being Christopher's brother. I guess my opinion on him is that he is not sufficiently accomplished to receive a strong response outside of GB. How influential do you take him to be? Ariel31459 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a hard time estimating if Peter Hitchens is simply a “scribbling head” in the usual style of UK conservative hacks that thrive on its many newspapers that agree with and are only too happy to publish their columns. I guess that, given his views and last name, he might have some cache in the US, but I doubt that he has much traction in continental Europe, as continental conservatives tend to subscribe to a different mix of views than those in the UK and US. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)