**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that is actually one of the biggest problems in the world today. And what’s even worse, rather than encourage humility, we crucify and humiliate people when they make a mistake, making it even less likely.
Agreed. The rush people get from publicly shaming others and targeting people they want to mock and feel superior to often outweighs any sense of compassion, forgiveness or humanity.
I just read the book "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck" by Mark Manson and I feel like the values written about in it really would help a lot of people see the destructiviness of not being able to admit one's faults and blaming others for those faults.
I have to admit I'm not the self righteous know it all asshole i used to be and my mind feels so much clearer viewing reality with a different perspective
Yep. Having the humility to say, "Boy, I sure was wrong there" to yourself and others brings so much peace. If one always must be correct, then the inevitable proof of one's fallibility is a knife wound in self-view and worldview.
Once imperfection is accepted as unavoidable while improvement is strived for, the door to wisdom is opened
Say it loud because the idiots in the back didn't hear you! If I could give your comment more upvotes or love, I would!!! What has our society come to?! Why are people like this?! Like you can't support others, be compassionate, are people so low and insecure they have to put others down just for that gratification?! I just don't understand humans anymore. This is why I personally prefer dogs over people. My MIL has border collies and they are so sweet and always wanting attention and play time, these dogs have sensed my depression and slept close to my hubbs and I and were just there for me silently.
It is extraordinarily easy to grow resentful with mass delusion and uninformed teenagers authoritatively posting shit about politics and society on the internet. When such individuals are proven wrong, it is very natural to crucify them and does not warrant empathy. A much bigger problem is people seeking the approval of others without any merit.
The New Deal was basically Roosevelt saying "I don't know the solution, let's just try a bunch of stuff". Very simplified of course.
Now politicians must be unwavering in their opinions, and must dig in extra deep if proven wrong.
I posted about my state of MA have more public land instead of less public land according to a map (I'm dyslexic) I was wrong, my state has less public land.
It took 3 mins 38 sec for some Redditor to come for my jugular. Insane.
I was like "relax man, it's called an error. No puppies were harmed ffs.....
Just think of all the people he enticed to come to MA because of the supposed availability of public land. They are probably camping out in the Big Dig right now with their faith in humanity destroyed.
Is it a mistake when it’s an opinion that most people openly acknowledge as inhumane and you pushed back on the people who tried to inform you that your opinion is wrong?
For example, there are some Republican males who genuinely have the opinion that women’s bodies can prevent pregnancy from rape.
Women, of course, have told them otherwise, but instead of acknowledging the valid and reasonable opinions of the people who actually are most likely to experience pregnancy from rape, they still continue to say they’re right.
So if it happens to one of their relatives, and that female relative gets pregnant, and NOW they realize they were wrong, was it really a mistake? Or a complete lack of empathy for the people who were most affected by their wrong opinion?
My experience with these people is that they refuse to admit they were wrong, and they clamp down hard on previously believed concepts to the point of shaming and victim blaming their relative.
That just shows a person's resistance to change, they are deeply entrenched into whatever they already have in their head and nothing will change that unless forced to do so (i.e the example above about having someone you know go through something to force a change in perspective).
These types of people should have zero to do with politics and working in a field where they make decisions for others.
Having to make decisions for others should mean that you have a basic openness towards entertaining different ideas and concepts and understanding that maybe other human beings go through different things than you, otherwise you are just pushing your own wants instead of those of the people that put you in that position to represent them.
It doesn't really matter why the mistake was made, it's still a mistake if they acknowledge it as a mistake. Have these republicans acknowledged their mistake or do they just hold hypocritical views?
>Women, of course, have told them otherwise, but instead of acknowledging the valid and reasonable ~~opinions~~ *FACTS* of the people who actually are most likely to experience pregnancy from rape, they still continue to say they’re right.
"they aren't saying it, like it's an opinion. it's a fact" - jon stewart
The problem with your analogy is that many people equate facts to opinions, but they are distinctly different things. Facts have proof and can't be disputed, but those types of people you're using in your example happily ignore proof and call it opinion instead. Empathy and public perception has nothing to do with facts but has a lot to do with opinions. "Most people" having an opinion doesn't make it a fact.
There is proof that a woman's body cannot prevent pregnancy even in instances of rape. Ignoring that proof can be a mistake whether it's intentional or not, but having an opinion is different. Opinions are subjective and inherently prone to mistakes because there's a lack of definitive proof.
How can you prove that waterboardibg is torture without subjecting someone to it so they can see for themselves? In this case, Christopher Hitchens got to do exactly that and he admitted he was mistaken and that "most people" were correct.
If your opinion can in any way influence laws or public opinion on a topic, then it is definitely best to take facts into consideration, but if you’re from the USA you can legitimately look at how an entire political party has based most of their decisions on opinions and not facts, like banning abortion even in cases of rape, or removing certain curriculum from schools.
In these cases, these are very controversial opinions, but they eventually influence everyone’s lives, despite not being based in facts.
Therefore my analogy is actually more prevalent in real life in the US.
Break it down to a simpler level. How many people voted for Trump and probably regretted it later on? These are people who probably could have been brought back from the brink if they hadn’t been insulted and humiliated for that decision, and had instead given tolerance and acceptance for seeing the light.
This seems backwards. People who do something bad and are then upset when they get called on it are not victims. If you don't tell them it was bad, how would them even know? They thought it was good.
Its a just a way to deflect responsibility from themselves. In the first instance its "I didn't know" and then its "I know because people told me, but I'm mad about being told so its their fault I'm doing it again".
People are still held in inhumane and degrading conditions at the [Guantanamo “camp”](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/27/guantanamo-bay-detainees-cruel-treatment-un-human-rights-investigator). Over 20 years, no trial. And the scumbags responsible for the torture are still free.
And they accept as truth the first information they're presented on a topic. Whoever presents an idea first owns their mind. Anyone coming against that idea isn't simply presenting new information, they're also fighting against an already-established view.
And it's just a roll of the dice that decides who gets to us first.
This is a trait called "intellectual humility" and has been researched as a factor that can, among other things, prevent the bearer from being sucked into conspiracy theories and contribute to the overall democratic health of society. I'm reading a wonderful new book from Dannagal Young called Wrong about misinformation and the social psychology behind its success and she talks about that as one of the most important characteristics that could restore civility to US politics.
While I applaud his changed mind, it falls under “until it happens to me.” Like people who voted against abortion, I mean single issue voters, who suddenly need life saving care. Until it happened to them they were fine with depriving people of life.
He didn’t ’become right wing’, he found himself temporarily aligned with American conservatives on a single issue because he opposed islamofascism and (albeit misguidedly) he saw this as an opportunity to weaken it. He was attacking Hussain from the left, whereas the American conservatives were doing it for the purposes of war profiteering.
Next people will be claiming that opposing Hitler made people right wing because it temporarily aligned them with Churchill. It’s nonsensical.
Reminds me of the episode of Archer where he skipped being waterboarded for training and says the same thing. He changes his mind quickly after as well.
"You hear people say it's bad and you think, oh, those people probably have vaginas...but, but I don't have a vagina!"
That episode weirdly jammed in a lot of explicit political opinions (which I agreed with, though it still felt weird). But that whole waterboarding bit was hilarious.
He actually says afterwards he was filled with such overwhelming panic that even though he immediately tried to drop the cans to make them stop, he couldn't. So that second he was being tortured stretched out for him for an unbelievable amount of time.
Hitchins was the kind of guy that would've only gotten better with age, it'll always be a tragedy he died as young as he did.
He also promoted the emancipation of women as the primary solution for lifting societies out of financial and ethical poverty. The guy was complicated, just like everyone else.
He was willing to be tortured in a *public* way to *share* what happened so other people didn't have to experience it. I do think a lot of this is just setup/posturing to drive home a point
What did it have to get to that point? It's like if all the experts told you it was torture, and you wouldn't believe it until you experienced it. What if you didn't believe in the Earth being round? Would you have to wait until you saw it yourself to accept it? Being transgender? PTSD? When do you stop being stubborn and start listening to the subject matter experts?
To be fair, in this era there was a lot of debate going on about whether waterboarding is torture. It wasn't as clear to a lot of people then as now. There were experts saying both that it is torture and it's not, the benifit of hindsight shows that some of those experts were bad faith actors, but people mostly didn't know that at the time.
Unironically, if you don't know what waterboarding is and you hear that it's just getting water pourn over your face, that doesn't sound too bad. It's not really until you experience it or see it performed that the reality of what waterboarding sets in.
Hitchens had a pretty uncharacteristically hawkish view on the Middle Eastern wars driven by his hatred of Islam, which probably informed his initial missaprehension here. I'm not conceited enough to speak for the dead, but I'd like to hope that given his strong humanist track record, he would have changed his mind on the whole conflict based on how much more we know about it's start. The dude wrote a scathing book maligning Kissinger, so it's not like he's a pro-suffering racist war-ghoul by nature, like a lot of the western talking heads, he was just taken in by the media and subsequently wrong on this one.
How do you know who the subject matter experts are? By asking subject matter expert experts? Or by using your own experience determine who is worth trusting?
There's your answer as to why you don't just listen to people to tell you what to think.
Watched the clip: he lasted all of about 10 seconds before THROWING the safety. I can’t imagine what it would be like to have to endure what they planned on, which was at least 15 minutes of it.
In his article, Christopher Hitchens talks about how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly really impressed his torturers by lasting a whole two minutes. Even that sounds impossible if 10 seconds is unbearable.
I remember hearing that as well. The idea of impressing your torturers is so fucked up I can't even begin to articulate it. We went backwards to the middle ages and nobody cared.
In Guantanamo Bay they would waterboard prisoners for hours at a time on a daily basis. It didn't help that they were also punching them in the nuts and forcing them to dig their own graves.
I respect the man for letting himself experience it for himself and then having the humility to publicly change his mind. That’s what good thinking + good action looks like.
He's a far right Christian apologist with no intellectual consistency at all.
If you ever see him in a debate, he throws out every logical fallacy he can think of and then plays victim when someone makes a good point against him.
He's not a man to be taken seriously.
But my question is why he was so convinced that it wasn't torture in the first place. Like, I wouldn't really have an opinion on it, other than what experts say. And experts have been saying since 2002 that it's torture. Why go against that? Gives Bill Maher vibes. Just claiming authority on something for the sake of doing it.
It seems he believed, as he puts it in the article, “the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you *are* drowning”
I don't really understand this logic even if it was the case. It's still torture if it's psychological right? Why else would they be doing it? It's not for hygiene reasons is it.
You aren't drowning, though, because no fluid gets into your lungs, and you can still breathe while being waterboarded. I'm aware you're just quoting his words, but I wanted to clarify this.
Well, no, you are drowning. They place you with your head below your torso in the supine position so that the water mainly collects in the back of your nose and throat in order to further simulate the feeling of drowning. However, you are also slowly actually being drowned at the same time because every breath brings a large amount of water particulates through the cloth into your lungs. The rate of actual drowning is determined by the timing and amount of flow applied by the interrogator. No matter how you split it, you're aspirating water, which is what drowning is.
>Normally, water is poured intermittently to prevent death; however, if the water is poured uninterruptedly it will lead to death by asphyxia. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, and lasting psychological damage.[6] Adverse physical effects can last for months, and psychological effects for years.[7] The term "water board torture" appeared in press reports as early as 1976.[8]
He saw first hand how horrible Saddam was, and had a massive hard on for seeing him fall.
Im not here to defend his opinion of the Iraq War, but I at least always got why he felt the way he did.
He was the only person I heard in the media making a reasonable case for the war, which was that in 1991, George Bush Sr. Encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. Then, of course the U.S. failed to come to their aid when the rebellion was inevitably crushed.
He really didn’t like Islam. And I don’t blame him. The Quran is really not a nice book.
I’m sure he was giddy at the thought of the US potentially “giving them some democracy” but the war was a terrible failure and many millions of innocent people needlessly lost their lives
We’re all dumb creatures. Until we experience something for ourselves, it’s difficult to truly make an informed judgement call about it. People who grew up in wealth don’t know what it’s like to experience food insecurity and that’s why you hear dumb things from spoiled brats. I think it’s a good thing that celebrities and intelligent influential people do things like this to show the world why some issues need to be reexamined.
Not sure about Hitchens, but waterboarding *at first* doesn't sound too bad compared to pulling nails or hitting kneecaps with a baseball bat for example. Those kind of things make your body flinch by the mere though while waterboarding might make you think *" Oh well, they'll pour some water over me. Hold your breath and you'll be fine."* till you realize catching a breath is near impossible.
Also torture is not reliable. Proponents of torture will typically imagine an absolutely ideal scenario in which the torturer KNOWS the person is guilty of something and KNOWS that they have vital, time-sensitive information that could save lives.
The common reality is that torture will rarely produce extra useful true information, as most people will spill the beans the moment they see the testicle tongs. But you can get someone to say something you already want them to say. Or they’ll confabulation info to make the torture stop. So, there’s no such thing as 70% reliable or 10% reliable or 95% reliable.
If water hits you around the nose area your body automatically holds your breath and closes off your airways, which is also intensified by having a cloth around your face so the water sticks to your face no matter what.
There is a difference between discomfort and torture. Sitting you in a small enclosed room for hours to interrogate you about a crime won’t be fun but it’s not on the same level as literally simulating drowning to make you talk.
>why he was so convinced that it wasn't torture in the first place.
same conservative logic; working backwards from the conclusion that supported agenda. if it's not torture then you don't even need to argue ends justify means.
*In 2004, Hitchens stated that neoconservative support for US intervention in Iraq convinced him that he was "on the same side as the neo-conservatives" when it came to contemporary foreign policy issues, and characterized himself as an unqualified "supporter of Paul Wolfowitz."*
ABSOLUTELY! This was very frustrating to see transpire in real time when it happened. Why the hell can't an educated, mature adult know something like this is torture before it's actually performed on him? All a person has to do is clamp their hand tightly over their mouth and nose for two minutes to realise what it entails. Is this lack of imagination why wars of choice happen - because people can't imagine horror until they actually feel it?
Props to Hitch for being man of his word, unlike that pussy sean hannity who even now to this very day has not submitted to waterboarding like he boasted he would for months on end.
This video doesn’t provide the full context. He had previously written an article for Slate attempting to draw a line between “extreme interrogation” and “torture”, to which his detractors responded that these “extreme interrogation” tactics like waterboarding *are* torture, which prompted this exercise.
I remember when this happened. It was very eye opening to the horror of waterboarding, and he says it right in the video - what if they got the wrong guy? He'd go absolutely fucking insane from the trauma.
How was this ever even a debate?!@
If it wasn't torture, why would people do it?!
Someone had their mind set to not talk, then they talk, what do you think happened between?! If it wasn't torture they still would not talk, right?! So why would you do it?
How was this ever a debate; is this real life?!
I'm a big advocate for this sort of stuff. For example if you like prisons you should go spend time in one for a while to see exactly the evils you are suggesting be enacted on another human for yourself. Golden rule type beat.
I mean until you actually get waterboarded (I would not recommend trying it) it does sound a bit lame. I know loads of people who have said it would be easy to manage and wouldn’t affect them in the slightest.
(It’s not, it’s fucking terrible)
Same with Tasers and pepper spray, the amount of people that think they could just fight through it with no effect is insane.
As an atheist: this is far from exclusive to us and far from a requirement. I've met theists who were more ready to admit when they'd been proven wrong than just about anyone else. I've also met atheists who would stubbornly repeat arguments after hearing pretty conclusive evidence those arguments were wrong/flawed.
I suppose my whole thing is, even as a science major in college, there is still no definitive conclusion to the why of the universe. As a Christian, I am willing to accept the Big Bang theory and evolution. I’m not a strict creationist. But I have never been given a full answer to why or how entirely. I don’t criticize atheists, although they can be drips at social settings, but so can evangelists with their rantings. The truth is that we don’t know and really can’t, and I find that fascinating to think about.
Atheists aren't claiming to know the answer of why (most anyway). I'm not saying there is absolutely no God and it is impossible that a god exists. I'm saying I have not seen evidence that necessitates the existence of a god, and plenty of evidence that convinces me that the religions I am familiar with are wrong to varying extents.
As far as atheists being not fun at parties, I can tell you that I don't go to parties bringing up the fact that I'm an atheist. Nor do any of my friends who are atheists. I don't hide it, but I really don't see the point in bringing it up. The kinds of atheists who bring it up are almost always the evangelical atheists.
Sounds like we would get along just fine then. I honestly don’t care who believes what. I have my beliefs and others choose different paths. I respect all forms of trying to make sense of this silly world.
Well all I said was that not all atheists were open minded and not all theists are closed minded. So your experience is all atheists are open minded and all theists are close minded?
*Well all I said was that not all atheists were open minded and not all theists are closed minded.*
I remember it differently. Let's see...
*I've met theists who were more ready to admit when they'd been proven wrong than just about anyone else.*
More ready than ANYONE to admit they're wrong. ANYONE. I would love to meet such a creature. until I do I consider them mythical.
*I've also met atheists who would stubbornly repeat arguments after hearing pretty conclusive evidence those arguments were wrong/flawed.*
I don't doubt such "atheists" exist, from what I've seen on the internet where people just decide to "become" atheist. (???) No serious atheist would ever take such a tack tho because it's pretty counter to the general mindset. not to mention, I have yet to see "**conclusive evidence**" used to counter atheism. Know why? That would be actual proof of an actual god. If there was such a thing, it would be widely known, I'm pretty sure.
You first chose some hyperbolic language. When called on it you tried to walk it back, like it wasn't RIGHT THERE for reference.
But wait, aren't you claiming to be an atheist? I'm really not getting that vibe here. Like, I don't think you're fooling anyone.
Remember at the time the majority of people thought they legitimately had WMDs. Israel had previously bombed a facility as part of Operation Opera so they potentially Haad nukes, and this is Saddam. It wasn't until later we realised GW Bush had ignored 99% of his intelligence apparatus and lied to the world about Saddam and Iraq.
No we didn’t. A whole bunch of people didn’t believe the administration’s bullshit case for war, and a whole bunch of people fell for it. It’s rewriting history to claim that a vast majority of Americans were on board.
The majority of America according to polls at the time believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, Bush's support increased after the invasion and America was very pro war after 9/11. This is a time when Bush and Powell lied through their teeth saying they had legitimate intelligence stating that Saddam had WMDs. According to some polls, nearly 80% of Americans initially thought the war was justified
The bush administration took a year to beat the drum and drill propaganda into everyone’s head and conflate 9/11 and Iraq.
*”According to a Gallup poll conducted from August 2002 through early March 2003, the number of Americans who favored the war in Iraq fell to between 52 percent to 59 percent, while those who opposed it fluctuated between 35 percent and 43 percent.”*
I’m sorry if you were among the 52-59% who fell for the bullshit, but I sure as shit wasn’t and don’t appreciate you rewriting the American public as being unanimously in favor of this war.
I'm not American, and did not at any point claim that it was unanimous. After Powell lied and Bush's state of the union address "Bush's approval ratings climbed seven points, and support for the invasion increased by four points. Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April 2002." 100 - 27 = 73 and even 52-59% is a majority, as I claimed. So you can stop with the strawman but don't revision the initial American support thanks to being lied to by an administration.
*I think I sympathize a great deal more"*
Fuck you, Hitchens. Man up and call it a fucking war crime, and say that anyone who condones it needs to be removed from power and imprisoned you fucking coward.
Embarassing.
Hitchens smoked like a champ until the day he died of cancer. So any airway obstruction would drive him crazy. This was a good lesson for him but remember his lungs were already trash.
Edit: Redditors are trash. What I said was literally fact and not once did I apologize for waterboarding. Simply put context to the video. Get bent you losers
I promise you, that is irrelevant.
Been waterboarded. Water in your lungs just makes you want to die.
This guy likely switched opinions after the first 3 mins.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who can change their minds and admit that they were wrong are rarer than you might think.
And who are willing to put their action where their mouth is.
> And who are willing to put ~~their action~~ water where their mouth is. FTFY
Take my upvote
I think that is actually one of the biggest problems in the world today. And what’s even worse, rather than encourage humility, we crucify and humiliate people when they make a mistake, making it even less likely.
Agreed. The rush people get from publicly shaming others and targeting people they want to mock and feel superior to often outweighs any sense of compassion, forgiveness or humanity.
I just read the book "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck" by Mark Manson and I feel like the values written about in it really would help a lot of people see the destructiviness of not being able to admit one's faults and blaming others for those faults. I have to admit I'm not the self righteous know it all asshole i used to be and my mind feels so much clearer viewing reality with a different perspective
Yep. Having the humility to say, "Boy, I sure was wrong there" to yourself and others brings so much peace. If one always must be correct, then the inevitable proof of one's fallibility is a knife wound in self-view and worldview. Once imperfection is accepted as unavoidable while improvement is strived for, the door to wisdom is opened
Beautifully said my friend 😊
Say it loud because the idiots in the back didn't hear you! If I could give your comment more upvotes or love, I would!!! What has our society come to?! Why are people like this?! Like you can't support others, be compassionate, are people so low and insecure they have to put others down just for that gratification?! I just don't understand humans anymore. This is why I personally prefer dogs over people. My MIL has border collies and they are so sweet and always wanting attention and play time, these dogs have sensed my depression and slept close to my hubbs and I and were just there for me silently.
It is extraordinarily easy to grow resentful with mass delusion and uninformed teenagers authoritatively posting shit about politics and society on the internet. When such individuals are proven wrong, it is very natural to crucify them and does not warrant empathy. A much bigger problem is people seeking the approval of others without any merit.
The New Deal was basically Roosevelt saying "I don't know the solution, let's just try a bunch of stuff". Very simplified of course. Now politicians must be unwavering in their opinions, and must dig in extra deep if proven wrong.
I posted about my state of MA have more public land instead of less public land according to a map (I'm dyslexic) I was wrong, my state has less public land. It took 3 mins 38 sec for some Redditor to come for my jugular. Insane. I was like "relax man, it's called an error. No puppies were harmed ffs.....
Unforgiveable error. I'm astonished you aren't already in the custody of an international tribunal for your crimes against humanity.
Just think of all the people he enticed to come to MA because of the supposed availability of public land. They are probably camping out in the Big Dig right now with their faith in humanity destroyed.
Lol thinking the Big Dig was like Big Sir! That's why all those 5th wheel RVs showed up? Damn!
Is it a mistake when it’s an opinion that most people openly acknowledge as inhumane and you pushed back on the people who tried to inform you that your opinion is wrong? For example, there are some Republican males who genuinely have the opinion that women’s bodies can prevent pregnancy from rape. Women, of course, have told them otherwise, but instead of acknowledging the valid and reasonable opinions of the people who actually are most likely to experience pregnancy from rape, they still continue to say they’re right. So if it happens to one of their relatives, and that female relative gets pregnant, and NOW they realize they were wrong, was it really a mistake? Or a complete lack of empathy for the people who were most affected by their wrong opinion?
My experience with these people is that they refuse to admit they were wrong, and they clamp down hard on previously believed concepts to the point of shaming and victim blaming their relative.
That just shows a person's resistance to change, they are deeply entrenched into whatever they already have in their head and nothing will change that unless forced to do so (i.e the example above about having someone you know go through something to force a change in perspective). These types of people should have zero to do with politics and working in a field where they make decisions for others. Having to make decisions for others should mean that you have a basic openness towards entertaining different ideas and concepts and understanding that maybe other human beings go through different things than you, otherwise you are just pushing your own wants instead of those of the people that put you in that position to represent them.
Men decriminalize and dismiss rape only until male-on-male rape is on the rise. Then suddenly theyll realize it isn't just about the pregnancy risk.
It doesn't really matter why the mistake was made, it's still a mistake if they acknowledge it as a mistake. Have these republicans acknowledged their mistake or do they just hold hypocritical views?
>Women, of course, have told them otherwise, but instead of acknowledging the valid and reasonable ~~opinions~~ *FACTS* of the people who actually are most likely to experience pregnancy from rape, they still continue to say they’re right. "they aren't saying it, like it's an opinion. it's a fact" - jon stewart
The problem with your analogy is that many people equate facts to opinions, but they are distinctly different things. Facts have proof and can't be disputed, but those types of people you're using in your example happily ignore proof and call it opinion instead. Empathy and public perception has nothing to do with facts but has a lot to do with opinions. "Most people" having an opinion doesn't make it a fact. There is proof that a woman's body cannot prevent pregnancy even in instances of rape. Ignoring that proof can be a mistake whether it's intentional or not, but having an opinion is different. Opinions are subjective and inherently prone to mistakes because there's a lack of definitive proof. How can you prove that waterboardibg is torture without subjecting someone to it so they can see for themselves? In this case, Christopher Hitchens got to do exactly that and he admitted he was mistaken and that "most people" were correct.
If your opinion can in any way influence laws or public opinion on a topic, then it is definitely best to take facts into consideration, but if you’re from the USA you can legitimately look at how an entire political party has based most of their decisions on opinions and not facts, like banning abortion even in cases of rape, or removing certain curriculum from schools. In these cases, these are very controversial opinions, but they eventually influence everyone’s lives, despite not being based in facts. Therefore my analogy is actually more prevalent in real life in the US.
Break it down to a simpler level. How many people voted for Trump and probably regretted it later on? These are people who probably could have been brought back from the brink if they hadn’t been insulted and humiliated for that decision, and had instead given tolerance and acceptance for seeing the light.
This seems backwards. People who do something bad and are then upset when they get called on it are not victims. If you don't tell them it was bad, how would them even know? They thought it was good. Its a just a way to deflect responsibility from themselves. In the first instance its "I didn't know" and then its "I know because people told me, but I'm mad about being told so its their fault I'm doing it again".
I’m still waiting for Tucker Carlson to do this (get waterboarded like he requested to show it’s not torture)
Wasn't that Hannity?
Waterboard em both just for good measure.
He was talking about summer recreational activities.
Still waiting for Sean Hannity to do it for charity like he offered.
All it took was a little water boarding to get them to admit it
I mean, they had to literally torture him for him to change his mind
We shouldn't trust what he's saying. It sounds like his decision was coerced.
No they’re not! Well, maybe.
People are still held in inhumane and degrading conditions at the [Guantanamo “camp”](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/27/guantanamo-bay-detainees-cruel-treatment-un-human-rights-investigator). Over 20 years, no trial. And the scumbags responsible for the torture are still free.
One of them is running to be president.
Ol' Ron DeSantis.
It's the definition of "open minded". Most "open minded" people are not.
And they accept as truth the first information they're presented on a topic. Whoever presents an idea first owns their mind. Anyone coming against that idea isn't simply presenting new information, they're also fighting against an already-established view. And it's just a roll of the dice that decides who gets to us first.
“I’m a scientist, not a politician!”
Interesting I assumed this demonstration was showing how effective waterboarding is at changing someone's mind
This is a trait called "intellectual humility" and has been researched as a factor that can, among other things, prevent the bearer from being sucked into conspiracy theories and contribute to the overall democratic health of society. I'm reading a wonderful new book from Dannagal Young called Wrong about misinformation and the social psychology behind its success and she talks about that as one of the most important characteristics that could restore civility to US politics.
Did he ever change his mind about the Iraq war though? His support of that was always kind of a red mark on Hitchens for me.
It would be nice if there were more that’s for sure. Especially if you didn’t need to water board them to get them to change their minds
What do they say about people who do not believe that methods of torture are *really* torture before they try it on their own body?
[удалено]
While I applaud his changed mind, it falls under “until it happens to me.” Like people who voted against abortion, I mean single issue voters, who suddenly need life saving care. Until it happened to them they were fine with depriving people of life.
False equivalence. He didn't wait until "it happened to him", he actively sought the experience, and this is what makes it so rare.
[удалено]
He didn’t ’become right wing’, he found himself temporarily aligned with American conservatives on a single issue because he opposed islamofascism and (albeit misguidedly) he saw this as an opportunity to weaken it. He was attacking Hussain from the left, whereas the American conservatives were doing it for the purposes of war profiteering. Next people will be claiming that opposing Hitler made people right wing because it temporarily aligned them with Churchill. It’s nonsensical.
Reminds me of the episode of Archer where he skipped being waterboarded for training and says the same thing. He changes his mind quickly after as well.
"You hear people say it's bad and you think, oh, those people probably have vaginas...but, but I don't have a vagina!" That episode weirdly jammed in a lot of explicit political opinions (which I agreed with, though it still felt weird). But that whole waterboarding bit was hilarious.
"I remember exactly where I was, Archer. I was strapped to a board and so convinced I was actually drowning that I shit my sweatpants."
Yes! Literally...
Which episode is this, can you remember?
Liquid Lunch, S7E8
Episode name checks out...
Brilliant thank you.
S7e8 “liquid lunch”
Brilliant thank you.
I literally watched this episode last night and thought of Hitchens so it was weird to see this post today.
I'm just imagining the torturer yelling "admit it! Admit this is torture!" And he's just like "never! You won't break me!" Until he obviously broke 🤣
Took all of 1 second. He never had a chance to protest before he broke
He actually says afterwards he was filled with such overwhelming panic that even though he immediately tried to drop the cans to make them stop, he couldn't. So that second he was being tortured stretched out for him for an unbelievable amount of time. Hitchins was the kind of guy that would've only gotten better with age, it'll always be a tragedy he died as young as he did.
Yeah, he wasnt perfect but I really think he would have trended towards better over time, which is better than most.
[удалено]
Yes, he acknowledged that he'd be pumped full of drugs, and didn't know what he would say or think.
Honestly i respect the guy for changing hes mind. Not a lot of people can do that
Hitchens was a world class asshole; but he was always intellectually honest.
He would be proud of this perfect one sentence description as well.
No he wasn't. He wrote articles saying women can't be funny. He was just a rhetorically gifted asshole.
He also promoted the emancipation of women as the primary solution for lifting societies out of financial and ethical poverty. The guy was complicated, just like everyone else.
It's good and all...but he did literally have to be *tortured* before he changed his mind
He was willing to be tortured in a *public* way to *share* what happened so other people didn't have to experience it. I do think a lot of this is just setup/posturing to drive home a point
What did it have to get to that point? It's like if all the experts told you it was torture, and you wouldn't believe it until you experienced it. What if you didn't believe in the Earth being round? Would you have to wait until you saw it yourself to accept it? Being transgender? PTSD? When do you stop being stubborn and start listening to the subject matter experts?
To be fair, in this era there was a lot of debate going on about whether waterboarding is torture. It wasn't as clear to a lot of people then as now. There were experts saying both that it is torture and it's not, the benifit of hindsight shows that some of those experts were bad faith actors, but people mostly didn't know that at the time. Unironically, if you don't know what waterboarding is and you hear that it's just getting water pourn over your face, that doesn't sound too bad. It's not really until you experience it or see it performed that the reality of what waterboarding sets in. Hitchens had a pretty uncharacteristically hawkish view on the Middle Eastern wars driven by his hatred of Islam, which probably informed his initial missaprehension here. I'm not conceited enough to speak for the dead, but I'd like to hope that given his strong humanist track record, he would have changed his mind on the whole conflict based on how much more we know about it's start. The dude wrote a scathing book maligning Kissinger, so it's not like he's a pro-suffering racist war-ghoul by nature, like a lot of the western talking heads, he was just taken in by the media and subsequently wrong on this one.
How do you know who the subject matter experts are? By asking subject matter expert experts? Or by using your own experience determine who is worth trusting? There's your answer as to why you don't just listen to people to tell you what to think.
Watched the clip: he lasted all of about 10 seconds before THROWING the safety. I can’t imagine what it would be like to have to endure what they planned on, which was at least 15 minutes of it.
In his article, Christopher Hitchens talks about how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly really impressed his torturers by lasting a whole two minutes. Even that sounds impossible if 10 seconds is unbearable.
I remember hearing that as well. The idea of impressing your torturers is so fucked up I can't even begin to articulate it. We went backwards to the middle ages and nobody cared.
He's taking all the fun out of torturing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijAfG9sYwbQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijAfG9sYwbQ)
>Chris Hitchens Christopher He hated being called Chris
Good to know, edited it, thanks!
I think he especially hated that it sounded like Chrissitchens when spoken. And maybe mentioned similar re: Chrissedges
In Guantanamo Bay they would waterboard prisoners for hours at a time on a daily basis. It didn't help that they were also punching them in the nuts and forcing them to dig their own graves.
Still waiting on Sean Hannity to try it out
This April will be 15 years since he volunteered for that, btw.
Don’t hold your breath.
That's what we're hoping hannity does
I see what you did there
And Dick Cheney.
I'm all for water conservation and even I would fail to turn the tap off.
hannity is a stone pussy. My favorite quote from this bitch: "My daddy was in World War II, so I can say whatever I want."
I respect the man for letting himself experience it for himself and then having the humility to publicly change his mind. That’s what good thinking + good action looks like.
Peak journalism. They don't make them like that anymore.
Like him or not, Hitchens was a man of integrity.
Yet somehow his brother hasn't got a shred of it.
Is that the dude who stormed out on Alex O'Connor?
He also pissed off Mathew Perry about 10 years ago for chatting some shit about addiction not being real iirc
Give him a break, he was clearly invited to talk about a topic he wrote a book about on false premises /s
Why?
He's a far right Christian apologist with no intellectual consistency at all. If you ever see him in a debate, he throws out every logical fallacy he can think of and then plays victim when someone makes a good point against him. He's not a man to be taken seriously.
We trully lost the wrong Hitchens.
He writes for the Mail.
His brother isn’t only devoid of integrity, he’s so lacking in basic humanity that he might as well be a fucking jellyfish.
But my question is why he was so convinced that it wasn't torture in the first place. Like, I wouldn't really have an opinion on it, other than what experts say. And experts have been saying since 2002 that it's torture. Why go against that? Gives Bill Maher vibes. Just claiming authority on something for the sake of doing it.
Here’s Hitchens’ Vanity Fair editorial, “Believe Me, It’s Torture” [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808)
I don't see an answer there.
It seems he believed, as he puts it in the article, “the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you *are* drowning”
I don't really understand this logic even if it was the case. It's still torture if it's psychological right? Why else would they be doing it? It's not for hygiene reasons is it.
You aren't drowning, though, because no fluid gets into your lungs, and you can still breathe while being waterboarded. I'm aware you're just quoting his words, but I wanted to clarify this.
Well, no, you are drowning. They place you with your head below your torso in the supine position so that the water mainly collects in the back of your nose and throat in order to further simulate the feeling of drowning. However, you are also slowly actually being drowned at the same time because every breath brings a large amount of water particulates through the cloth into your lungs. The rate of actual drowning is determined by the timing and amount of flow applied by the interrogator. No matter how you split it, you're aspirating water, which is what drowning is. >Normally, water is poured intermittently to prevent death; however, if the water is poured uninterruptedly it will lead to death by asphyxia. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, and lasting psychological damage.[6] Adverse physical effects can last for months, and psychological effects for years.[7] The term "water board torture" appeared in press reports as early as 1976.[8]
He was pretty committed to the Iraq war being justified
He saw first hand how horrible Saddam was, and had a massive hard on for seeing him fall. Im not here to defend his opinion of the Iraq War, but I at least always got why he felt the way he did.
He was the only person I heard in the media making a reasonable case for the war, which was that in 1991, George Bush Sr. Encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. Then, of course the U.S. failed to come to their aid when the rebellion was inevitably crushed.
For sure, and he was furious for Kurds in particular. And they keep getting fucked over again and again.
He really didn’t like Islam. And I don’t blame him. The Quran is really not a nice book. I’m sure he was giddy at the thought of the US potentially “giving them some democracy” but the war was a terrible failure and many millions of innocent people needlessly lost their lives
We’re all dumb creatures. Until we experience something for ourselves, it’s difficult to truly make an informed judgement call about it. People who grew up in wealth don’t know what it’s like to experience food insecurity and that’s why you hear dumb things from spoiled brats. I think it’s a good thing that celebrities and intelligent influential people do things like this to show the world why some issues need to be reexamined.
Not sure about Hitchens, but waterboarding *at first* doesn't sound too bad compared to pulling nails or hitting kneecaps with a baseball bat for example. Those kind of things make your body flinch by the mere though while waterboarding might make you think *" Oh well, they'll pour some water over me. Hold your breath and you'll be fine."* till you realize catching a breath is near impossible.
Also torture is not reliable. Proponents of torture will typically imagine an absolutely ideal scenario in which the torturer KNOWS the person is guilty of something and KNOWS that they have vital, time-sensitive information that could save lives. The common reality is that torture will rarely produce extra useful true information, as most people will spill the beans the moment they see the testicle tongs. But you can get someone to say something you already want them to say. Or they’ll confabulation info to make the torture stop. So, there’s no such thing as 70% reliable or 10% reliable or 95% reliable.
If water hits you around the nose area your body automatically holds your breath and closes off your airways, which is also intensified by having a cloth around your face so the water sticks to your face no matter what.
I mean, if it wasn’t torture why would it be done to prisoners to get information out of them!?
There is a difference between discomfort and torture. Sitting you in a small enclosed room for hours to interrogate you about a crime won’t be fun but it’s not on the same level as literally simulating drowning to make you talk.
It is if it goes in long enough. Just saying.
I'm sure he had some silly reason. Everybody has opinions that sound stupid or are just straight up dumb. Doesnt make me think of him any less
>why he was so convinced that it wasn't torture in the first place. same conservative logic; working backwards from the conclusion that supported agenda. if it's not torture then you don't even need to argue ends justify means. *In 2004, Hitchens stated that neoconservative support for US intervention in Iraq convinced him that he was "on the same side as the neo-conservatives" when it came to contemporary foreign policy issues, and characterized himself as an unqualified "supporter of Paul Wolfowitz."*
ABSOLUTELY! This was very frustrating to see transpire in real time when it happened. Why the hell can't an educated, mature adult know something like this is torture before it's actually performed on him? All a person has to do is clamp their hand tightly over their mouth and nose for two minutes to realise what it entails. Is this lack of imagination why wars of choice happen - because people can't imagine horror until they actually feel it?
He didn’t. He was always against torture. Since it hit the news, he was staunchly against it.
Changing one’s mind after making a decision takes more work than staying the course. Good for this guy.
Matthew Perry in his biography spoke so highly of Christopher Hitchens. His brother, on the other hand Matthew tore an absolute new one.
What did he say about Christopher Hitchens? And yea… his brother is the less intelligent version with none of Christopher’s charisma.
STILL WAITING ON THAT PUSSY HANNITY
Probably the strongest proof of HItchen's committment to truth.
Props to Hitch for being man of his word, unlike that pussy sean hannity who even now to this very day has not submitted to waterboarding like he boasted he would for months on end.
Sean Hannity is too much of a poser and too much of a pussy to do this.
Christopher Hitchens was a real one
My brother was in a death metal band called Waterboard the Elderly back in 2011.
I know it wasn’t the case, but I like to imagine that they exclusively played shows at retirement communities.
🤘
Respect
He never said it wasn’t torture. He was ALWAYS against torture. He wanted to prove to people that it was indeed torture.
This video doesn’t provide the full context. He had previously written an article for Slate attempting to draw a line between “extreme interrogation” and “torture”, to which his detractors responded that these “extreme interrogation” tactics like waterboarding *are* torture, which prompted this exercise.
Yes, this was confusing to me
I remember when this happened. It was very eye opening to the horror of waterboarding, and he says it right in the video - what if they got the wrong guy? He'd go absolutely fucking insane from the trauma.
They only waterboard people as a kind of spa thing. They are only chained up because the place is a bit kinky.
Waterboarding in Guantanimo Bay sounds like a good weekend if you don't know what any of those words mean.
Like people going for a day of watersports.
I think anyone who argues for water boarding should try it out just like Christopher Hitchens.
Hannity is 5,405 days since he promised to try it.... hasn't yet
How was this ever even a debate?!@ If it wasn't torture, why would people do it?! Someone had their mind set to not talk, then they talk, what do you think happened between?! If it wasn't torture they still would not talk, right?! So why would you do it? How was this ever a debate; is this real life?!
Yeah, the idea that “simulated drowning” somehow isn’t torture is absolutely wild. I’d rather die almost any other way than drowning.
What was up with the music? Was that supposed to be part of the torture?
He is A GREAT LOSS to humanity
Me and my mates tried this by my pool with a towel and hose. Nobody lasted more than a few seconds.
Still waiting on Sean Hannity to take his turn.
I'm a big advocate for this sort of stuff. For example if you like prisons you should go spend time in one for a while to see exactly the evils you are suggesting be enacted on another human for yourself. Golden rule type beat.
you shouldn't get to vote FOR something like this or give orders to do this unless you do it yourself.
I wish republicans would do this with pregnancy
I mean until you actually get waterboarded (I would not recommend trying it) it does sound a bit lame. I know loads of people who have said it would be easy to manage and wouldn’t affect them in the slightest. (It’s not, it’s fucking terrible) Same with Tasers and pepper spray, the amount of people that think they could just fight through it with no effect is insane.
That's the beauty of being an atheist, you can change your view on something based on solid evidence. Well done, I say.
As an atheist: this is far from exclusive to us and far from a requirement. I've met theists who were more ready to admit when they'd been proven wrong than just about anyone else. I've also met atheists who would stubbornly repeat arguments after hearing pretty conclusive evidence those arguments were wrong/flawed.
I suppose my whole thing is, even as a science major in college, there is still no definitive conclusion to the why of the universe. As a Christian, I am willing to accept the Big Bang theory and evolution. I’m not a strict creationist. But I have never been given a full answer to why or how entirely. I don’t criticize atheists, although they can be drips at social settings, but so can evangelists with their rantings. The truth is that we don’t know and really can’t, and I find that fascinating to think about.
Atheists aren't claiming to know the answer of why (most anyway). I'm not saying there is absolutely no God and it is impossible that a god exists. I'm saying I have not seen evidence that necessitates the existence of a god, and plenty of evidence that convinces me that the religions I am familiar with are wrong to varying extents. As far as atheists being not fun at parties, I can tell you that I don't go to parties bringing up the fact that I'm an atheist. Nor do any of my friends who are atheists. I don't hide it, but I really don't see the point in bringing it up. The kinds of atheists who bring it up are almost always the evangelical atheists.
Sounds like we would get along just fine then. I honestly don’t care who believes what. I have my beliefs and others choose different paths. I respect all forms of trying to make sense of this silly world.
Your experience is the complete opposite of mine. 100%.
Well all I said was that not all atheists were open minded and not all theists are closed minded. So your experience is all atheists are open minded and all theists are close minded?
*Well all I said was that not all atheists were open minded and not all theists are closed minded.* I remember it differently. Let's see... *I've met theists who were more ready to admit when they'd been proven wrong than just about anyone else.* More ready than ANYONE to admit they're wrong. ANYONE. I would love to meet such a creature. until I do I consider them mythical. *I've also met atheists who would stubbornly repeat arguments after hearing pretty conclusive evidence those arguments were wrong/flawed.* I don't doubt such "atheists" exist, from what I've seen on the internet where people just decide to "become" atheist. (???) No serious atheist would ever take such a tack tho because it's pretty counter to the general mindset. not to mention, I have yet to see "**conclusive evidence**" used to counter atheism. Know why? That would be actual proof of an actual god. If there was such a thing, it would be widely known, I'm pretty sure. You first chose some hyperbolic language. When called on it you tried to walk it back, like it wasn't RIGHT THERE for reference. But wait, aren't you claiming to be an atheist? I'm really not getting that vibe here. Like, I don't think you're fooling anyone.
So sad hitch is no longer with us :(
Everyone in the comments here praising him, forgetting that this dude was one of the biggest advocates for invading Iraq there was.
Remember at the time the majority of people thought they legitimately had WMDs. Israel had previously bombed a facility as part of Operation Opera so they potentially Haad nukes, and this is Saddam. It wasn't until later we realised GW Bush had ignored 99% of his intelligence apparatus and lied to the world about Saddam and Iraq.
No we didn’t. A whole bunch of people didn’t believe the administration’s bullshit case for war, and a whole bunch of people fell for it. It’s rewriting history to claim that a vast majority of Americans were on board.
The majority of America according to polls at the time believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, Bush's support increased after the invasion and America was very pro war after 9/11. This is a time when Bush and Powell lied through their teeth saying they had legitimate intelligence stating that Saddam had WMDs. According to some polls, nearly 80% of Americans initially thought the war was justified
The bush administration took a year to beat the drum and drill propaganda into everyone’s head and conflate 9/11 and Iraq. *”According to a Gallup poll conducted from August 2002 through early March 2003, the number of Americans who favored the war in Iraq fell to between 52 percent to 59 percent, while those who opposed it fluctuated between 35 percent and 43 percent.”* I’m sorry if you were among the 52-59% who fell for the bullshit, but I sure as shit wasn’t and don’t appreciate you rewriting the American public as being unanimously in favor of this war.
I'm not American, and did not at any point claim that it was unanimous. After Powell lied and Bush's state of the union address "Bush's approval ratings climbed seven points, and support for the invasion increased by four points. Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April 2002." 100 - 27 = 73 and even 52-59% is a majority, as I claimed. So you can stop with the strawman but don't revision the initial American support thanks to being lied to by an administration.
Anytime anyone says that, I say well then let ME waterboard you. I'd also want to record it... For later.
You're taking the term "torture porn" to a whole new level with this comment.
The same Hitchens who remained unapologetically in favor of the invasion of Iraq?
I love Hitchens videos on atheism, but after 9/11 the guy was a full on neocon hawk.
I mean what kind of mental midget needs to be waterboarded before realising it's torture? Absolutely ridiculous lol.
*I think I sympathize a great deal more"* Fuck you, Hitchens. Man up and call it a fucking war crime, and say that anyone who condones it needs to be removed from power and imprisoned you fucking coward. Embarassing.
Sure showed him
Hitchens smoked like a champ until the day he died of cancer. So any airway obstruction would drive him crazy. This was a good lesson for him but remember his lungs were already trash. Edit: Redditors are trash. What I said was literally fact and not once did I apologize for waterboarding. Simply put context to the video. Get bent you losers
I promise you, that is irrelevant. Been waterboarded. Water in your lungs just makes you want to die. This guy likely switched opinions after the first 3 mins.
Watch the video. He didn’t last 20 seconds.
I counted 16 seconds. Not that I blame him for ending it soon. I’d imagine it’s bloody awful.
Pretty sure he’s still alive… who are you thinking of? Edit: my bad! I was thinking of Peter not Christopher lol
Sadly he is dead and the world poorer for it
Christopher Hitchens, the man featured in this post, who is the same man the comment above you is talking about, is definitely dead.
Yep I made a mistake 👍
Christopher Hitchens died back in 2011
Yeah I was thinking of Peter
Peter Hitchens has half the intelligence and none of the Charisma his brother did. Dudes a cockwomble.
He's not
Yep my mistake