Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

‘You Have to Have Some Hate’

Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld on The Joy of Hate

Greg Gutfeld is a host of the Fox News late-night political show Red Eye as well as the channel’s daily news roundtable, The Five. He is also the author of The Joy of Hate: How to Triumph over Whiners in the Age of Phony Outrage (Crown Forum). In November, Reason TV Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie spoke with Gutfeld about tolerance, liberalism, and why it’s so much fun to hate people. 

Q: Your book concerns itself with something called the “tolerati.” Who are they?

A: The tolerati are [people] who claim to be tolerant until they run into someone they don’t agree with—primarily a conservative or a libertarian or anyone who doesn’t hold their liberal assumptions. If you have anything that deviates from that belief, you are considered a bigoted, inconsiderate monster. 

Q: You started developing this concept of fake tolerance or repressive tolerance when you were a student at Berkeley. 

A: This is the early ’80s, and I think it was the beginning of the politically correct movement, where language was under fire. There were certain things you couldn’t say, or there were things that had meanings that you didn’t understand. And I think that came from deconstructionism. 

Q: And you had gone to an all-boys Catholic high school?

A: Serra High School, home of Barry Bonds, who used to sit behind me in Spanish class and cheat off me. 

Q: But did you come out of that as a liberal?

A: I remember there was a time when one of the religious teachers asked if anybody had done drugs, and I raised my hand and nobody else did. And he said that he had such tremendous respect for me because I said I’d done drugs in front of everybody. To me that was like: Wow, if you make a stand or draw attention to yourself in a certain way you get points. And I learned that. 

Q: So you come out of a high school where to be liberal is to be good. You go to Berkeley where to be liberal is to be good and then you realize…

A: …it’s an intellectual fascism. They dictate what’s good without ever having to experience the consequences of their own beliefs. The media will always give a pass to liberal humor, liberal ridicule, or liberal mockery—because they are liberal. 

Q: To bring it back to The Joy of Hate. You enjoy hating people. You kind of live on it, in the way that other people live off, I don’t know, Twix. 

A: Yes, hate is my love. 

Q: What do you want people to take away from The Joy of Hate?

A: The Joy of Hate explains the physiological response you get from hating something. When you’re online and you’re reading comments on a blog that you wrote, you can actually feel that adrenaline stuff, and you turn it around on Twitter or whatever, and it’s a nice rush. It is physically like fighting. That’s the joy of hate. People like that feeling. My feeling is that you have to resist that kind of hate because you have real people in your life. You have a family.

Q: And you should direct the hate at them, not the online world.

A: Yes, exactly! Direct the hate to the people around you! Actually, now you’ve blown my mind, because maybe online hate is a way to channel hate away from real people, so maybe it’s a good thing. Don’t buy my book! No, wait! The joy of hate is that you don’t have to love everybody and everything. In fact, if you love everybody and everything, then your love is meaningless; there is no love in a relativistic world. You have to have some hate. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    If I say, "I hated Greg Gutfeld before it was cool to hate Greg Gutfeld," does that make me a hipster and therefore a justifiable target of hatred?

  • PS||

    I've never watched Red Eye, but I heard him flogging his book on Adam Carolla's podcast and he was pretty entertaining.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Personally, I have no opinion of the man. I'm never up late enough to watch Red Eye and never home early enough to catch the Five.

    Just thought it relevant to express some "Phony Outrage" about something and...

    First!

  • PS||

    Well I'm shocked, shocked I say, that you think firsting is more important than intelligent and well-considered discourse.

    This place used to have standards!

  • Way Of The Crane||

    This place used to have standards!

    Did you read the interview?

    I'm not the one who threw the standards out the window. In Gillespie's defense, however, he probably has a quota to meet.

  • PS||

    Only proles read the articles.

  • An0nB0t||

    It's worth watching the VODs while you're on the treadmill, if for no other reading the frequent Gavin McInnis appearances and the infrequent showings of his Scottish father. It's Fox's version of what a libertarian show might look like (read: not libetarian), but Andy Levy self identifies and would probably make the cut for the more conservative "LAOL" circles, though the rest of us would likely savage him, as is our nature and right.

    They also typically do an excellent job of filling the leg chair with attractive, mostly tolerable conservative ladies.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    It's Fox's version of what a libertarian show might look like (read: not libetarian),

    So Penn Gillette hasn't made an appearance yet?

  • An0nB0t||

    Penn's become too high profile for Red Eye by half. He does a much better job spreading the big-tent libertarian gospel by filling the nut chair for Mahr or inspiring Glenn Beck to behave like a sane human being for minutes at a time.

  • An0nB0t||

    And by big-tent, I mean statist, this-sounds-like-a-good-idea libertarianism rather than the Rothbard canon.

  • Jeff||

    Penn is on Red Eye fairly frequently.

  • Bam!||

  • Broseph of Invention||

    I enjoy Gavin and Bill. And Tom Shillue is a delight.

  • ||

    McInnes' father is absolutely hysterical. This past week he even made having Ann Coulter in the leg chair somewhat tolerable.

  • Specail Sauce||

    "Serra High School, home of Barry Barnes, who used to sit behind me in Spanish class and cheat off me."

    Really Gillespie???

    This is why we can't have nice things.

  • pmains||

    Barry Barnes?

  • pmains||

    Ah. Maybe that was corrected.

  • Mumu Bobby||

    Marvin Barnes?

  • Broseph of Invention||

    Greg's half-collar over, half-collar under is eating away at me like no inside-out dog ear ever has.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Obsessive compulsives everywhere sympathize with you.

  • Red||

    There are lots of things you can't do or say, on Reason.com:
    *That white people are smarter than black people.
    *That homosexuality is anti-natural, deviant behavior.
    *That women are biologically different from men.
    *That Hispanics are not proto-entrepreneurs just waiting for the wonderful open borders free market so they can "build that."
    *That a real libertarian society would not include many serious drug users or single mothers.

  • An0nB0t||

    You can say any of those things, some of which are correct, some of which aren't, and some of which are profoundly anti-libertarian. I don't see any forum nazis lurking around to silence you, though you'll probably get it from both the ancaps and the cosmos for being a conservative on a libertarian forum.

  • Red||

    "profoundly anti-libertarian."

    I'm not really seeing it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Seems like you don't see much if the above are the things you waste your time fretting over.

  • jacob||

    +1

  • Shine on, Nikki Diamond||

    Well (1) and (4) are profoundly collectivist.

  • Virginian||

    Technically, a non-coercive collectivism is not incompatible with libertarianism.

  • Shine on, Nikki Diamond||

    Yeah but anti-individualism isn't a great all-around indicator of libertarian-ness.

  • Virginian||

    Eh, I have a lot more respect for some white separatist who moves to Idaho to get away from anyone darker then eggshell tan then I do for a busybody city dweller who's ideal world is a rainbow of all colors marching in lockstep toward the Glorious Future.

  • Shine on, Nikki Diamond||

    Sounds like the city-dweller is a super-collectivist too, if he thinks the rainbow of colors matters. And his actions sound more collectivist, so your ranking makes sense. Identity politics is a killer though.

  • JSebastian||

    How is a statement about populations collectivist? The subject is populations, not individuals.

    Seriously...collectivism is something else entirely. I've seen this hyper-vigilant, Pavlovian response before. Some things cannot be described in terms of an individual. That doesn't make them automatically "collectivist" and therefore invalid.

  • Rhino||

    you can't talk about populations without talking about individuals as populations are merely groups of individuals. it's like saying, "the subject is forests, not trees."

    Of course all things can be described in terms of the individual. All you have to do is break it down to it's basic components.

  • An0nB0t||

    *That homosexuality is anti-natural, deviant behavior.

    *That Hispanics are not proto-entrepreneurs just waiting for the wonderful open borders free market so they can "build that."

    Condemnation of homosexual acts is a condemnation and rebellion against nature.

    Living beings respond to incentives. Open the borders of a welfare state and you'll have more welfare recipients. Open them within a free market and they'll find feed their families and contribute to a rising tide of wealth. That you live in a welfare state doesn't mean that you're forced to adopt an immoral stance and violate the property & right to association of others to ensure that the state can limp along a few more years.

  • ||

    +1

  • Way Of The Crane||

    I don't see any forum nazis lurking around to silence you...

    Speak for yourself, I've already reported him to the proper authorities within the Obama administration.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Da drone! Da Drone!

    /tattoo

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Has someone done a YouTube spoof of this yet?

    Herve Villechaize and Ricardo Montalbán on Fantasy Island surrounded by terrorists (or kids, same difference) pointing up to the incoming drone.

    Cut to drone deploying ordinance.

    Back to Tattoo, Mr. Roarke, and friends getting blown up.

  • ||

    Cut to drone deploying ordinance.

    That and ordnance, too.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Once again, spell check has failed to interpret my intentions.

  • JSebastian||

    He may indeed be just stirring the pot, but can you define what "anti-libertarian" means, and what the implications of your label are? If something is valid can it be "anti-libertarian" too?

    Just curious....NOT trolling. I see a lot of intolerance in political philosophy and have been very disappointed to see the extent to which it has infected Libertarianism as well.

  • ||

    Anti-libertarian simply means that that position doesn't stem from the NAP. Boiled down:

    A person can do as he wishes, PROVIDED in doing so, does not infringe upon the rights of others.

    Validity has nothing to do with libertarianism. Things are valid or they aren't. They are true or false. Denying fact is absurd. Libertarianism is a philosophy based upon maximizing liberty. Validity and libertarianism are NEVER in conflict.

  • ||

    Yeah, but I don't think any of his assertions (though I disagree with all of them) actually violate the NAP, as they aren't actually advocating a particular course of action. If it's who I suspect it is, the person likely advocates statist courses of action for at least one of those, but I don't find the assertions themselves, as silly as I think they are, inherently anti-libertarian.

  • John||

    That a real libertarian society would not include many serious drug users or single mothers.

    That is probably true. In a world without welfare, people would be forced to make more responsible decisions.

  • Fluffy||

    That depends on your definition of "serious".

    19th century America had plenty of winos.

    And 21st century America has plenty of high-functioning alcoholics.

    I imagine that Libertopia would have drug addicts living in alleys (which we already have anyway) and high functioning drug addicts going about their lives.

  • John||

    We already have all of that anyway. We would also have a lot of people who when kicked off the dole deciding drinking and drugs were a lot less of a priority than they once were.

  • Fluffy||

    My point was more that in the 19th century there were plenty of consequences for being a wino, and people still went ahead and became winos anyway.

    So if the argument is that removing the welfare state would increase the consequences of being a drug user, and all the drug users would disappear, I think that argument doesn't hold water - because winos. The consequences for being a low-functioning drug addict might increase post-welfare-state, but low-functioning drug addicts wouldn't care.

    But then again, I think eliminating the welfare state and eliminating the fear of arrest would be a wash, in terms of consequences, anyway. We would probably net out to the same number of drug users we have now - but we probably would shift usage up, and end up with more high-functioning users. (Since the low-functioning users would "...hurry up and be about it, to remove the surplus population!")

  • John||

    There would still be winos. The temperance movement didn't come out of nowhere. In the days before child support and welfare, men abandoning their families to go be degenerate drunks was a real problem.

    Yes, libertopia would not be Utopia.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Not for everyone. You would have to make your own Utopia, and live with the consequences. Which is pretty much the whole point in the first place.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Libertopia would be the recognition that there is no such thing as a Utopia.

  • Zeb||

    I think you'd get more drug addicts over all, but many more high functioning ones. It is a whole lot easier to be a functioning addict if you don't have to spend all your money to get drugs. Most "hard" drugs would be incredibly cheap without the black market premium. If you can get a consistent, cheap supply, it is not too hard to be a highly functioning opiate addict, for example.

  • ||

    Maybe. Opium bans weren't just because of the Yellow Menace. Laudanum got a bad rap as the original "Mother's Little Helper".

  • JSebastian||

    I think his point is that without artificial subsidies of laziness and poor choices that there will be less of each.

    Certainly removing the welfare state would tend to discourage the over-procreation that we see among the lower classes because there would be no financial incentives for having more children and a lot of dis-incentives against having children.

    As for chronic alcoholism and other substance abuse issues, it also is subsidized by the welfare state, because it add disposable income into the alcoholics life and extends and makes easier the life of an alcoholic. If you took away the government compulsions placed upon the private sector to cover or treat alcoholics then more of them would die and die sooner, thus decreasing the population of alcoholics.

    Another factor in the rates of the usage of illicit drugs is Prohibition economics. Because it is the illegality created by government that gives the suppliers of these drugs a profitable market, Prohibition has increased the costs and the availability of hard drugs, making the problem much more severe. Look even at things like marijuana, the use of which is more prevalent in the US than in the Netherlands. Why? Prohibition.

  • ||

    "Certainly removing the welfare state would tend to discourage the over-procreation that we see among the lower classes because there would be no financial incentives for having more children and a lot of dis-incentives against having children."

    Why is it that in countries with none, or very little state welfare, say in Africa or The Middle East or South Asia, that the 'lower classes' continue to propagate at a very high rate?

  • AlmightyJB||

    You just did say those things.

  • Virginian||

    Looks like you just said all those things.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    Is this that same AmRen moron from the other day?

  • ||

    Undoubtedly. He'll say something stupid enough to get this handle banned soon enough.

  • John||

    Question. Is he a real not shit racist paleo trolling the site or a liberal pretending to be a racist paleo so he can show the world how racist the libertarians are?

  • ||

    What is the sound of one hand clapping?

  • Almanian!||

    My hand spanking your mom's sweet, sweet ass.

  • ||

    Her ass is not that sweet.

    Maybe if she washed it occasionally...

  • AlmightyJB||

    No difference in my book.

  • Zeb||

    Probably the same racist idiot that shows up with a new handle every week or so. I would think that a liberal troll would have given up long ago as most on here are pretty solidly anti-racist and he can't get far in making libertarians look racist.

  • ||

    I've watched this guy through all his different handles, and I have to say I think he's the real deal. He seems to really believe what he's saying, and he seems to be too well-informed on how his arguments (supposedly) work to be faking it. I doubt too many people who aren't true believers would go to that much trouble for the sake of (pseudo)consistency.

  • An0nB0t||

    And here I am feeding the trolls.

  • Almanian!||

    NOM NOM NOM! COOKIE!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah I have a definate policy against that but every so often the sun hits that shiny spinner at just the right angle. Either that or I'm bored enough to respond.

  • ||

    You can say any of those things. But if you mean them, you are NOT a libertarian.

    And you will rightfully be confronted about them. (or most of them)

  • JSebastian||

    You don't believe that 50 years of intelligence testing is accurate and that white people are more intelligent than blacks?

    If you don't , do you have a reason, other than an emotional one based on some utopian irrational premise about "equality" or some other leftist trash?

    When did being Libertarian require giving up rationalism and the scientific method?

  • ||

    You don't believe that 50 years of intelligence testing is accurate and that white people are more intelligent than blacks?

    Some white individuals are more intelligent than some black individuals. Some black individuals are more intelligent than some white individuals.

    And IQ tests do not necessarily measure what you or I would call "intelligence".

    If your point is just that, on average, people labeled as "white" score somewhat higher than people labeled as "black" on IQ tests, then fine. But so what?

  • Proprietist||

    Because melanin content is definitely related to brain function and educational socioeconomic disparities have nothing to do with intelligence measurements?

  • ||

    You don't believe that 50 years of intelligence testing is accurate and that white people are more intelligent than blacks?

    Please note: (or most of them)

  • Cavpitalist||

    "When did being Libertarian require giving up rationalism and the scientific method?"

    The scientific method says that your thesis is full of shit. I guess you weren't aware of the whole "repeatable" and "predictive" concepts?

    Scientifically, race is an artificial construct.

  • Killazontherun||

    That homosexuality is anti-natural, deviant behavior.

    Deviant from what? nature? There is something fundamental about sentient beings that goes over heads of most every socon. Sentient life is like the thrush caked under the foreskin of God's limp, diabetic dick.

    When you finally get that, you'll stop concerning yourself with fictional distinctions between natural and unnatural.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Sentient life is like the thrush caked under the foreskin of God's limp, diabetic dick."

    I have no idea what that means but I applaud your imagination.

  • Killazontherun||

    More people should drink high ABV wee heavy stouts for breakfast.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Amen to that:)

  • Zeb||

    Got a new account, eh racist dickbag?

  • AlmightyJB||

    The only good thing about Red Eye is that they always have some really hot chick on. That's the first place I saw SE Cupp. Otherwise the show is pretty silly for the most part. I would never say "Damn I missed Red Eye."

  • John||

    S.E. Cupp is kind of annoying. I really don't see how she is in any way smart or interesting enough, looks aside, for anyone to pay much attention to her. But God Damn is she hot. I will give her this, she may not be a genius, but she knows her assets and knows the way to get on TV is to wear a short skirt and sit with your legs crossed perpendicular to the camera.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You mean she says things?

  • John||

    Nothing interesting or annoying enough to take your mind off her legs and the rest of her. I read somewhere where she said she was really annoyed and found it creepy that men commented on her looks on the internet. Honey you never buy a skirt that isn't a size too small and at least two inches above your knees and you are shocked someone notices. Really?

  • Fluffy||

    SE Cupp only looks hot when Jennifer Rubin is hanging around to be the ugly friend.

    OK so not really. But I wanted to say that.

  • John||

    The trick is ignore Cupp and hit on Rubin. If you chat up Cupp, she will just write you off and let it go to her head. Chat up her ugly wingman in contrast and she will get all pouty about it.

  • Killazontherun||

    You would make a great wingman, John. That was my go to back in my dating days, too.

  • John||

    It took me a while to wise up. But women really are incredibly predictable.

  • ||

    noobs. Pretend to be gay. CHICKS DIG THAT.

  • John||

    That is all fun and games until you realize you are stuck with a fag hag. No thanks.

  • Fluffy||

    BTW this Gutfield guy may think that sticks and stones don't hurt his bones, but that's only because he hasn't checked his privilege.

    If you aren't wounded to your core by the thoughts and speech of others, it just proves that you've got a Settler psychology.

  • John||

    What pray tell is a "Settler psychology"?

  • ||

    Something to do with cisgender privilege?

  • Fluffy||

    Well, you see, straight while males tend to walk around saying that they don't care what people say about them, because words never hurt anybody.

    Straight while males also tend to say that they're not worried about cultural repression and what not, because they feel at home in whatever culture they happen to be in at any moment in time, and like to learn new shit about cultures that aren't their own, anyway.

    And straight white males tend to think that the past is gone, and has limited impact on the future, because starting from any particular moment in time you can make your own way in the world if people just stay out of your way.

    That's because they are Settlers.

    If they had the experiences of, say, a Wise Latina, or if they knew what it was like to be Othered, they wouldn't think things like that. Hence, Settler psychology.

  • ||

    Huh, so I was completely correct.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So settler as in settling for the status quo?

  • Fluffy||

    No, settler as in "colonialist expropriator who took the land of others and lived on it".

    Like the Civilization unit.

  • Almanian!||

    You said "unit" - huh huh, huh huh, huh huh...

  • AlmightyJB||

    Ok. Got it. Heroes in other words.

  • Fluffy||

    Right, exactly.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    We aren't the only culture that has expanded into lands that used to be populated by others. Going back to Out of Africa, you would have to condemn the entire human race, and look around for a Homo Erectus or Neanderthal to hand back their Ancestal Lands.

    We aren't the only one, we were just the most successful. Haters gonna hate.

  • Almanian!||

    The science is Settler, then?

  • John||

    So straight white males reject living in their own misery and self pity. Got it.

  • Almanian!||

    John, don't argue - the science is Settler.

  • Zeb||

    Wise Latinas aren't descended from settlers?

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    No, Spanish colonization of the new world was entirely peaceful and without racism or bloodshed. Also the Native Americans were pacifist nature worshippers who lived in harmony with all their neighbors.

    Really, didn't you learn any of this in public school?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Ugh, you just made me have a flashback to living in DC. So many libtards with their revisionist history.

    I had a co-worker who was about 1/16th native american and she was always going on about how peaceful her ancestors were and how the white man came here solely to wipe out the indigenous people because they were different than them... Yeah, the stupid, it burns.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well he does a little rant monoloug during every show so obviously certain things do get under his skin or wouldn't go off on them. That being said he does seem like a guy who would not get angry easily probably because like most of us he's already numb from the stupidity that permeates the world.

  • Virginian||

    I am terribly disappointed that no one has yet linked to this clip.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTil0-smOJQ

  • Almanian!||

    This is the worst chatroom EVER

  • Thane of Whiterun||

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    lower quality but more content http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yrh_1zoIIo

  • Jeff||

    I'd go with this one .

  • A Mathematician||

    Why read the article when you can watch the interview?

  • Libertymike||

    How about taking the theme of Red's post above at 10:54 AM and applying it to The Volokh Conspiracy.

    Apparently, I have been banned by The Volokh Conspiracy. I say "apparently" as I was not notified that my comments were no longer welcomed or that I had violated their posting policy. In addition, I was not advised to cease posting certain comments.

    The day upon which I learned that "you do not have permission to comment on this thread" I had posed the following question:

    "Do you like being a slave, slaver?"

    The topic of the thread was broached by Prof. Orin Kerr. He asked commenters to post the most frivolous legal arguments they had ever encountered. One commenter recounted his days at the United States Attorney's Office and his work with cases involving so-called tax protesters. He made it clear that he had nothing but contempt for them.

    Thus, my posted question.

  • John||

    The volokh conspiracy is an entire community of law profs and former US attorneys and such. They don't like their conceit being questioned.

  • Libertymike||

    True, I agree, though there are non-lawyers like dunphy and ole frined Elemenope who post there.

    Why not come out and say that you are banned and we do not want you posting here anymore because............?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Are you seriously unsure why they would want to ban someone who thinks "Do you like being a slave, slaver?" is a meaningful contribution to the discussion?

  • Libertymike||

    Are you serious? Your question is one of the most inane ever posted here.

  • ||

    That was not serious. You can quote me on this. That was not a serious question.

  • ||

    Having read Gutfeld's book, I found some good points and some interesting things.

    I like this paraphrase - I became a conservative by hanging out with Liberals; I became a Libertarian by hanging out with Conservatives.

    Having read the book, Gutfeld is 'no true scotsman', but does (like Stossel) get a lot of the message out.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I became a conservative by hanging out with Liberals; I became a Libertarian by hanging out with Conservatives

    ... and I became a misnthrope hanging out with Libertarians.

  • Libertymike||

    Should you be banned for posting such drivel and thereby failing to contribute to the discussion?

    Should you be banned for your orthographical ineptitude?

  • John||

    I wonder sometimes if that is actually Joe from Lowell.

  • Libertymike||

    Didn't you and Joe go at it from time to time? Yeah, stupid question as he went at it with just about everybody as far as I can recall.

  • the other other alan||

    For an interesting take on the difference between Christain and Jewish approaches to hatred, may I recommend "The Virtue of Hatred":
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....of-hate-26

  • lap83||

    That is an interesting article, although technically modern Judaism has changed considerably since the ancient Hebrews. They started becoming more political and militaristic in the 1st century, they have the Talmud now, and there is no longer redemption of sins through sacrifice. It is a different religion.

  • the other other alan||

    Appreciate the response - some points: Clearly the destruction of the Temple drastically altered the way Judaism is practiced, but I'm not sure I follow your other points. Not sure what you mean by 'political', but its hard to argue modern Judaism is more militaristic than ancient eras of, say Joshua, or Samson, or King David. The Talmud is a distillation, a written record of the discussions regarding the oral law that had existed - and was practiced - from the time of Moses onward. The Talmudists constantly say who they heard various statements from to emphasize this very point. While sacrifices are no longer offered, even in ancient times sacrifices required repentance - and reparations, if applicable - in order to be effective. The fundamental tenets of Judaism are still very much practiced today, including (when physically possible) the observance of the commandments listed in the five books.

  • Waterside||

    just as Edward said I'm in shock that anyone can make $9973 in a few weeks on the computer. did you read this page http://www.wow92.com

  • Tony||

    The premise is faulty from the first response. Liberal tolerance means acceptance of people for things other than their political beliefs--skin color, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Conservatives constantly misinterpret this liberal touchstone as requiring tolerance of their stupid beliefs, even affirmative action for it in schools, and hence as representative of liberal hypocrisy.

    You are entitled to as free and fair a life as possible regardless of the way you were born. You are not entitled to believe stupid fact-averse bullshit and not be called out for it.

  • Jeff||

    Fact-averse bullshit such as "We don't have a spending problem"?

  • Tony||

    A debt problem isn't the same thing as a spending problem. People say "spending problem" when they have an ideological agenda to cut government. That's not a factual matter.

  • DarrenM||

    By the same logic, people say "revenue problem" have an ideological agenda to increase government.

    Your supposition is that revenue (taxes) can be increased substantially without a negative and self-defeating effect on the rest of the economy, given this is where these taxes must come from to begin with. You could be right, but this is still ultimately a matter of faith.

  • DarrenM||

    So Liberal 'tolerance' actually means 'acceptance', not 'tolerance'?

    From your definition, Liberal tolerance would not apply to religions since religions are based on beliefs. Nor, as you say, does Liberal tolerance apply to those of differing opinions (aka 'stupid beliefs'). I guess that's a decent reason why we have a First Amendment.

  • Tony||

    It's just silly that liberals are somehow worse for allegedly being hypocrites about tolerance than non-liberals who don't value tolerance at all. Nobody's perfect man, why not pay attention to the log in your own eye?

    I don't know about all liberals but I certainly don't subscribe to any notion about all ideas and belief systems being equally worthy of respect. Sometimes people are wrong, and we won't get anywhere until we can acknowledge it.

  • redneckchris||

    No. It's not that you're being hypocritical about tolerance. It's that you're not tolerant at all.

    If you understood the meaning of the word, you'd understand the problem. Then maybe you could address it. But you don't, so you can't.

  • redneckchris||

    How awesome are you! You've evolved beyond us lowly savages to the point where you are actually able to TOLERATE the existence of someone with a different skin color than you.

    " TOLERANCE:
    noun
    1the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with"

    You must exist in a constant state of bliss. 'cause you know what they say...

  • Hunter5||

    til I saw the receipt four $6575, I be certain that...my... friends brother was like they say realey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop.. there sisters roommate started doing this less than fifteen months and a short time ago paid for the morgage on there home and bought a top of the range Citroën DS. I went here, http://www.wow92.com

  • lucasw908||

    my friend's step-mother makes $63/hr on the computer. She has been fired from work for six months but last month her payment was $15870 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this web site
    http://qr.net/ka6n

  • WRBill||

    I don't see the benefit to libertarian or individual rights thought in catering to giggling right wing thugs. Surely it should be obvious that there are more alternatives than "love" or "hate" in responding to a person, group, or idea. Tolerance means respecting the rights of those you disagree with. It does not mean that you may not say you disagree with them, in the strongest terms if appropriate. For example, I don't hesitate to say that Mr Gutfeld seems to be an irresponsible ass and not worth featuring in a libertarian publication, but I don't suggest he should be imprisoned, fined or silenced. I don't hate him, he is not worth the effort.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online