Reason Podcast

Meet Bari Weiss, the Conservative New York Times Columnist Who Is Pro-Choice: Podcast

She's pro-Israel, #NeverTrumper who has chronicled (and criticized) the "intellectual Dark Web." Prefabricated ideological boxes need not apply.


By the time she arrived last year at The New York Times to help write and edit its Opinion section, 34-year-old Bari Weiss had already done stints at the online magazine Tablet and The Wall Street Journal. She had also made a number of enemies who accused her of being a narrow-minded, right-wing, pro-Israel, anti-Arab bigot. Far from bringing some fresh ideas to The Gray Lady's leftish commentary section, her hire, wrote The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, emodied the paper's "worst failings—and its lack of viewpoint diversity."

In Greenwald's reading, Weiss "has churned out a series of trite, shallow, cheap attacks on already-marginalized left-wing targets that have made her a heroine in the insular neocon and right-wing intelligentsia precincts." Her widely read pieces about the identity-politics excesses of a lesbian march in Chicago and of the #MeToo Movement, and her chronicling of the "intellectual Dark Web" didn't represent anything new, just more of the same. Greenwald wrote an attack on Weiss's student days at Columbia, claiming that she defamed anti-Israel professors as racists and tried to silence them academically. That charge prompted National Review's David French, who in a previous life was the president of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), to write that Greenwald and others were "sliming" Weiss.

I sat down to talk with Weiss at FreedomFest, the annual gathering of libertarians held every July in Vegas. She was in town to attend the Reason Media Awards because she was a finalist for the Bastiat Prize which "honors writing that best demonstrates the importance of freedom with originality, wit, and eloquence. Indeed, she took home the top prize, besting finalists Jake van der Kamp of South China Morning Post, Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic, Gustavo Arellano of The Los Angeles Times; and Bonnie Kristian of The Week. We talked about Israel and Jewish identity in America and her work, why she considers herself a liberal (among other things, she's pro-marriage equality and abortion), how to avoid becoming the cartoon version of your most-outspoken critics, and more. She's no libertarian, but she's also nobody's conventional liberal or conservative either.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Don't miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

NEXT: Are Plastic Straw Bans Just Late Socialism?: Podcast

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why does being “pro Isreal” make her a conservative? Tons of liberal Jews are pro Isreal. And if thinking that people like Jordan Peterson should not be run out of society makes her a “conservative”, then reason may have just issued the most stinging indictment of liberals in the entire history of the publication.

    1. Why does being “pro Isreal” make her a conservative?

      She’s white, believes in nations and borders, and thinks some brown people might not mesh well with Western society. I think it’s safe to assume she sleeps under a 1200-thread-count Nazi flag at night.

      1. But in fairness, I am pretty sure she only thinks Jews have a right to borders and national pride. So she is still good.

      2. Egyptian or German made? German thread count gets screwed up when they hit Nein!

        1. Only Indian cotton will do for fans of Aryans. 😉

      3. 1200- thread count Nazi flag?

        So shes a Lefty socialist?

    2. Tons of liberal Jews are pro Isreal.

      Sadly, that is becoming less true as time goes on. And that group will eventually realize that their party has replaced them with Islamists who deeply despise them…but I doubt they will do so quickly.

      And if thinking that people like Jordan Peterson should not be run out of society makes her a “conservative”, then reason may have just issued the most stinging indictment of liberals in the entire history of the publication.

      True. Jordan is a smart guy but not a word he says is ACTUALLY controversial. He even said he’d discuss calling somebody by their preferred pronouns if they had a discussion. He just vehemently opposes government forcing him to do so — which should be a big thing for Libertarians. But Reason deeply dislikes him for…reasons.

      1. I don’t think it’s all Islamists that hate Israel. Antisemitism is deeply ingrained in Arab culture, even in the otherwise moderate part of it. In its current form a byproduct of German WW2 propaganda, btw.

        1. On the progressive left, it tends to be the Islamists they support now who are driving the ideology against Israel in particular and Jews in general.

          Would Linda Sarsour be held up as a leader at all even 10 years ago? Would BDS be a staple of left-wing protests?

          1. The core of progressive philosophy is the idea that one culture will replace another through progressive evolution. The original path they favored was Jews getting replaced by Catholics who get replaced by Protestants. Progressive Judaism (Reform Judaism in the USA) was a compromise that allowed Jews to still be Jewish and respectable in the eyes of progressives provided they acted as “more evolved” Jews who didn’t follow all those Jewish traditions. Putting a Muslim anti-Semite at the front of the march allows progressives to guard themselves against the accusation of anti-Semitism and call their critics racist.

    3. It’s a matter of definitions. The news media in general and Republicans specifically, as well as half of Democrats equate being pro-Israel with being pro-Likud. Many Jews support Israel and find Likud to be harmful to that country. So, if your support of Israel means that you think the government should change its policies and that its actions are harmful, does that make you anti-Israel?

      1. From the Israeli perspective, that’s a bit like saying Putin was pro-American when he removed the Democrats from positions of power. 😉

    4. “Why does being “pro Isreal” make her a conservative? ”

      Because the Left has been throwing Jews under the bus for decades, and Israel just went full and open ethnonationalist.

      1. Meh, the federal government in the USA has an office based on ethnonationalism. There was a time when Baby Boomers viewed nationalism as a positive aspect of the post-WWII decolonialism.

  2. Glenn Greenwald was right. Name any columnist at the NYT that didn’t support the War in Iraq and doesn’t blindly agree with John McCain on whoever the baddie of the week is? Ross Douthat is probably the closest and even he falls well short.

    1. Douthat is a total internationalist NEOCON. He might be the most warlike of the lot.

      1. What? You must not be familiar with Douthat. I’m not going to hold him up as ideal, but he’s a hell of a lot better than Brooks and Weis and everyone else on that editorial page.

        1. I am very familiar. Douhat is a total moralistic asshole who is happy to send Americans to die for whatever moral crusade he has latched onto. He is in many ways worse than Brooks or Weiss. Here is a good example of what I am talking about


          American interests don’t matter. It is all about Douthat’s moral crusade. I can’t stand that guy.

          1. Yes, obviously Brooks and Weis would never push war in Syria, other than every other day. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to conclude that Weis and Brooks are less hawkish than Douthat.

            1. Which part of “he might be the most warlike of the lot” do you not understand? I didn’t say it wasn’t debatable. I said he is just as or maybe more so than they are.

              1. I understand that you don’t see it as “war” if it is waged against Arabs, but suggesting that Bari Weis is less warlike than Douthat is rather hilarious.

                Either way, my contention was that he is less worse than Brooks and Weis. And that is really indisputable

                1. I just gave an example of Douthat supporting war in Iraq as evidence of him being warlike. And your response is that I don’t think it is war if it is waged against Arabs.

                  Yeah, I think that pretty much gives me the better of the argument. You don’t have any proof or logic behind your claims. You are just calling me names and making slanders that are directly contradicted by the post you are responding to. That is losing an argument about as thoroughly as one can. Thanks for playing.

                  1. Oh my God, you didn’t even read the article that you posted as your evidence

              2. Maybe it was this part: “He might be the most warlike of the lot.”

    2. I can name a columnist who was consistently against the Iraq War from the beginning, but I don’t think you’d like him much.

      1. In the NYT editorial page? I’m not familiar with one. Due tell

        1. And in case you haven’t read my initial comment, I was supporting Glenn Greenwald’s thesis. So I’m not sure how I wouldn’t be amenable to a left-wing columnist that is non-interventionist considering that I like far-left Greenwald

          1. Krugman initially supported the invasion. Nice try, though

            1. That Krugman column was pre-invasion. When did he ever support?


                This column was in 2002, and definitely against the war. I doubt you can find one statement that is not against the war. There’s a reason he was nicknamed The Shrill One.

  3. Props to Bari Weiss to correct Gillespie when he referred to Jordan Peterson as the “Philosopher King of the Alt-right or Intellectual Dark Web” by saying those things are not “interchangeable”.

    1. There is nothing “alt right” about Peterson. I do not understand why Reason feels the need to go out of its way to slander Peterson as some kind of alt right white supremacist. There is nothing alt right or racial about anything he says. He is a classical liberal and practical ethicist in the most traditional senses of the terms. If reason is too libertine to agree with Peterson, that is their right. But there is nothing about him that is inconsistent with Libertarian politics. Beyond defending his right to be heard, reason really doesn’t have a dog in the fight over Peterson. Yet, they let they constantly slander him. It is really infuriating.

      1. At ~12:00, it seems clear to me that Gillespie is annoyed by all of these people and requires more corrections from Weiss. Gillespie has made up his mind on a wide range of people with very different views. Yes, many do share a similar theme after a fashion, only that they’ve either observed or been victims of left wing hegemony.

        And many of these people (Weinstein, Brendan O’Neill to just rattle off two) still consider themselves members of the political left. O’Neill still refers to himself as a Marxist for chrissakes.

        I agree with Weiss completely, the Overton window is narrowing significantly. I still say that it’s not that it’s narrowing, it’s being reorganized and reshaped.

        1. The most significant development of the Obama years was the radicalization of the center-left. You simply cannot be center-left anymore. If you dissent on issues like transgenderism or BLM or any number of things which were considering completely radical just a few years ago, you are immediately expelled from the left regardless of your other views and even if you are, as in the case of O’Neill, are a self-professed Marxist.

          1. There’s a range of opinions on the left regarding trans rights and BLM. There are even pro-life Democrats in Congress!

            Compare that to Republicans, who excommunicate renegades no matter how entrenched they were. Christopher Buckley, Bruce Bartlett, etc.

            1. There are two pro-choice Republican senators. There are zero pro-life Democratic senators

              1. Three Democrats voted for the 20 week abortion ban.

                1. I should have specified in the Senate. Donnelly, Manchin, and Casey. Casey is pro-life, but his voting record is decidedly mixed.

                  1. None of them self-identify as pro-life and only one of two pro-life Democrats in the House had his opponent endorsed by sitting Democratic senators

                    1. The Democrats are far less willing to allow dissenting points of view on abortion since the industry provides a large amount of its campaign funds

                    2. Yeah, the teacher’s union is a big part of the left, and they don’t want any more work. They get paid based on the value of the houses in a town, not based on the number of kids in the school.

                    3. Casey identifies as pro-life.

                2. “Three Democrats voted for the 20 week abortion ban.”

                  WTF? That doesn’t make them pro-life.

        2. I remember when O’Neill use to be published here.

        3. And many of these people (Weinstein, Brendan O’Neill to just rattle off two) still consider themselves members of the political left. O’Neill still refers to himself as a Marxist for chrissakes.

          Dave Rubin as well. The “IDW” is hardly far right. It is, quite bluntly, one of the more bipartisan and centrist things out there.

      2. There is nothing “alt right” about Peterson. I do not understand why Reason feels the need to go out of its way to slander Peterson as some kind of alt right white supremacist.

        Yeah, I don’t get it either. To me he comes across as a pretty reasonable guy and pretty damned sharp-witted. I don’t agree with his religiosity, but I haven’t really seen him bash anyone over the head with it (maybe he has, I don’t really pay attention). He’s kind of like Tom Woods, a smart libertarian type who is religious yet agreeable to the non-religious. I just don’t get what Welch and Gillespie have against him. I just think they’re envious or something.

        1. Peterson has very pointed ideas of how you should live your life if you want to be happy and fulfilled. But he has never as far as I know advocated that the government impose these ideas on people. Thinking Peterson is “alt right” is like thinking Richard Simmons is a communist because Mao required everyone to go to government exercise classes. It just makes no sense.

          1. Peterson has very pointed ideas of how you should live your life if you want to be happy and fulfilled.

            Ah. Well, you know I’ve only seen him in interviews and other things where he’s not giving out life advice. So, maybe that’s what rubs them the wrong way. I guess I have to look for one of his lectures or seminars or whatever he does and see what that’s all about. Maybe it’ll be a total turn off and I’ll understand why he’s being called alt-right. *shrug*

            1. I am not an expert on him either. But the things I have seen is him talking about how ethics are lived and how if you work hard and have good morals, you will be successful and happy. He also isn’t really partisan. He states that you have to have a mix of conservatism and liberalism for a society to thrive. If it is too conservative it stagnates. If it is too liberal it breaks down into chaos. I see him as an Aristotelian in a lot of ways.

        2. I suspect that Reason staffers don’t like Peterson, because he refused to abide by pronoun laws. Make of that what you may, but that’s clearly why the Left hates him and Reason is all in on the Left’s cultural attitudes.

          1. Nothing says “liberty” like the government forcing people to lie. If that is the case, and I suspect you are right that it is, that says very bad things about the reason staff.

          2. It is more than that. Peterson believes that sex differences are more than merely social constructs, have real world impacts in statistical behavior and identity is not infinitely malleable. Also, he is trying to stake his position at the center, where Gillespie imagines his “independents” to be. Peterson does criticize rhetorical excesses of the Left and the Right as being dangerous to society though he tends to view the Left as currently more dangerous due to the institutions they control including his country’s government. I suspect Gillespie’s dislike towards him is the hate directed at the heretic rather than the infidel.

            1. Are you insane? Science has proven that sex differences are a real thing. This comment section is full of retarded extremist.

              1. Yes it has, and social progressives are in denial about that and deeply resent it..

          3. I was a bit annoyed by Gillespie intimating that Peterson “interpreted” bill C 16 to mandate the use of pronouns.

            First of all, Peterson has been crystal clear on this: He has no problem with transgender people and would always use their preferred pronoun, except when it was demanded by law.

            What’s doubly hilarious about the supporters of bill C16, is they will loudly dismiss critics of C16 and claim that “no one will be sent to prison” for using the wrong pronoun. Then quietly admit that the provision can actually lead to that, but no one will actually apply that penalty because we’re all friends here.

            Here’s an article doing exactly that. Bill C16 is specifically about Hate Speech– legislation that Reason has railed against continually.

            1. Go a bit further into the article above:

              In terms of hate speech, it is forbidden to incite “hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace” in a public space. As is plain from the text of the law, it will not suffice to disrespect a person by using the wrong pronouns. By inciting a breach of peace, you will open yourself up to two years imprisonment. Prosecutors are generally unwilling to charge people under that provision, and in the most famous hate speech case, R.V. Keegstra, the perpetrator was not sentenced to prison but rather to probation and community service.

              The point which Peterson has made loudly and clearly is the Canadian Human Rights commission is essentially a parallel justice system built on entirely vague concepts and it has enforcement powers. Sure C16 only carried a fine… what happens if you refuse to pay the fine?

              It shouldn’t give one comfort to know that a provision of law won’t be enforced as long as The Right People Are In Charge.

      3. “I do not understand why Reason feels the need to go out of its way to slander Peterson as some kind of alt right white supremacist.”

        Cocktail party invites require strict adherence to The Narrative.

        1. I would wager there is a high degree of this.

      4. I think it’s just that the Reason staff is pretentious and because Peterson is grouped with what he considers “non-intellectuals,” so they view Peterson in the same light.

      5. The funny thing is that some people quite firmly on the alt-right, such as Vox Day, loathe Peterson because they realize he is definitely not alt-right and not an ally to their cause.

    2. Nothing says “I know what I am talking about” like not knowing what you are talking about.

    3. Props to Bari Weiss to correct Gillespie when he referred to Jordan Peterson as the “Philosopher King of the Alt-right or Intellectual Dark Web” by saying those things are not “interchangeable”.

      I wish she asked Nick to specify what he means by “alt right”. Because his definition seems to have little basis in reality.

      1. Alt right is Lefty code for Nazis, which is wacky since we all know that Nazis are Lefty socialists.

        Anyone who uses ‘Alt-right’ for anything but a joke is suspect.

  4. Bari Weiss @7:00 is hitting on something very important, and it seems like something that Nick clearly doesn’t get– or worse, doesn’t want to get.

    Also, Nick seems to be more concerned with “who the audience is” vs what is being said.

    The audience is all over the map. Which is why this intellectual dark web (as Bari Weiss seems to get) is such a confounding group and full if people whose views don’t easily meld within the “Overton Window”.

    1. For those of us who cannot listen to this, what is she getting at that Nick doesn’t understand?

      1. Bari Weiss brings up a point, and it’s something that I’ve been pointing out and asking for some time now. I’ll paraphrase:

        She points out that Youtube (as one example) has become a place where you can see two people discuss their philosophical differences in viewpoints, peacefully while sitting in two leather chairs for three hours, and tens of thousands of people are willing to spend hours in line and pay money to see it. And what’s important is the venues that should be hosting these events… or at least used to (universities, the television networks) aren’t. And she’s fascinated as to why this is.

        Gillespie pivots to asking about Peterson (eliciting several corrections from Weiss) with an almost disgusted (maybe exasperated) tone in his voice– even grunting at one point, trying to figure out if Peterson is “the Sinatra of the Dark web or the Ramones” (that’s a quote). Then he describes it as being “very self flattering” in that they’re “too hot to be talked about”.

        Uhm, no, for most of these people, the organizations they worked for said they were too hot to talk about. Google determined that Peterson was too hot to talk about and unpersoned him until there was such an outcry, they quietly reinstated him without comment.

        1. Weiss is onto something in that people want real answers to things and not just dogma. Peterson is successful because he offers people a way to be happy and make sense of their lives. And his answers are effective because Peterson is a therapist and has spent years hearing about people’s problems seeing what kinds of things work and what kinds of things make people miserable. There is a real empirical basis to what he is saying. He is not some intellectual talking out of his ass.

          The left is dogmatic and oppressive because it is intellectually bankrupt and weak. They don’t run off everyone who dissents about even the smallest point because they are strong. They do so because the left is bankrupt and can’t take on its critics in any meaningful way. People see that and want something else. It is a shame that reason and Gillespie are so wedded to leftist culture that they are unable to stand up and offer their own ideas in a compelling fashion.

          1. There is a real empirical basis to what he is saying. He is not some intellectual talking out of his ass.

            This is really it… when he was a hot topic I saw a lot of him in my youtube feed. Then he disappeared for a while, and lately, I’ve been listening to his lectures again. They’re chock full of references to behavioral studies and most of his discussions are completely devoid of anything “political”. He talks about correlations between people with high IQ and high “conscientiousness” scores and what kind of profession they tend to be found in., etc.

            I don’t even watch his TV “interviews” any more because it’s all Cathy Newman shit where the news twinkie tries to hijack him and put words in his mouth he never said. Initially, it was amusing to watch him calmly bitch slap these people, now it’s just getting old. I only need to see videos of Hillary supporters crying so many times. I’d much rather just listen to the man talk where he talks about hierarchies in creative personality scores. Controversial stuff indeed!

            1. The main thing is people don’t want to believe it’s true that people can lived a restrained life and be happy.

              I would say that people like Gillespie don’t want it to be true. They have carved out a certain path in their life and are disgusted by some carving out a different path, ironically enough. Like somehow having a conventionally conservative restrained lifestyle leading to happiness with anyone undermines his whole lifestyle.

              It’s stupid, I feel like there are choices because people chose to live their lives differently. What works for Peterson may not work for Gillespie, and vice versa. I suspect that the people that flock to Peterson are the kind of people that have been Enculturated to think that the swinging sixties free love and debauchery is the path to happiness and have found this to be unfulfilling. People love to bash millenials a lot but they fail to understand that baby boomers were the worst role models that we could have ever had, it’s no wonder we are so screwed up.

      2. She then goes on to discuss just HOW uncontroversial Jordan Peterson’s views are and wonders why these views are considered so fresh and radical, and that’s where Gillespie pivots to asking who his audience is– with further comparisons to the punk music scene around the Ramones and the CBGBs.

        I kind of get where Gillespie is going– he’s trying to decode this movement by comparing it to bands which had different styles and different audiences, but were in the same “musical space”. It all just seems kind of flip.

        1. Flip is putting it mildly. Sometimes analogies just don’t work. Not everything is punk rock. Peterson’s ideas are not new and are mostly common sense. The fact that he is some kind of renegade shows the insanity of mainstream thinking today.

          1. The fact that he is some kind of renegade shows the insanity of mainstream thinking today.

            That’s essentially Weiss’s entire point.

          2. Flip is putting it mildly. Sometimes analogies just don’t work. Not everything is punk rock. Peterson’s ideas are not new and are mostly common sense. The fact that he is some kind of renegade shows the insanity of mainstream thinking today.

            It is becoming clear that Nick is a profoundly shallow thinker. He has his buckets and everything must fit in its bucket (tres libertarian of him). He seems unable to grasp that most things aren’t as easily described as he wishes they were. Punk rock is a terrible metaphor for many things. Trying to stuff everything into that corset is just idiocy.

            In a rational world, Peterson would be a smart but fairly dull guy. But in today’s world, he is a maverick-y truth teller. All for saying true and gob-smackingly OBVIOUS things. But the world wants to live in fantasies only.

            1. “He has his buckets and everything must fit in its bucket (tres libertarian of him).”

              I would say this is true of most people, myself included. I have become more aware of this in part to reading on here where supposedly “free thinker” libertarians really don’t do much free thinking, they just echo Bastiat or Friedman or Hayek or Rothbard. If even avowed free thinkers cannot break free from ideological chains, what are the chances anyone else will?

              1. Or worse…they just invoke the nonaggression principle.

            2. Nick’s not a Libertarian but fancies himself one.

              Trump got many votes for mixing truth and exaggerations in 120 characters.

        2. Ah! So he’s the Lou Reed of the dark web!

        3. The Ramones want to be sedated, and Peterson can prescribe pills, right?

          1. No because he’s not an MD, he’s a PhD. Different kind of doctor.

            Sorry, didn’t mean to rain on the parade or nothing.

    2. ‘ Nick seems to be more concerned with “who the audience is ‘

      Progressitarian Moment!

      The Left is all ad hominem all the time.

  5. “why she considers herself a liberal (among other things, she’s pro-marriage equality and abortion)”

    …and she works on the NYT editorial page. Why not take her at her word instead of calling her “conservative”?

    1. And does she say “how dare you call me pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice”?

      And the feelgood term “marriage equality” is an attempt at base-stealing, an attempt which I suppose has been successful.

    2. Because this reason write is celebrating a hack false opposing viewpoint. Clearly has not learned from John stossel when it comes to counter arguments or opposing viewpoints. And i doubt he could be call any thing more than a hack.

  6. God she’s just awful. Maybe it’s time to retire all prizes. I feel like no more good will come of them.

  7. “Meet Bari Weiss, the Conservative New York Times Columnist Who Is Pro-Choice: Podcast”


    The political axis is realigning
    Globalists to the Left
    Nationalists to the Right

    The Right has moved on from NeverTrumpers. They’ll all *openly* be Democrats by 2020.

    1. Many are right now.

      Does anybody think George Will, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, or Bill Krystal can ever return to the Right at this point? Would any conservative actually take them seriously ever again?

      1. When was Jennifer Rubin ever part of the right? Dave Rubin has a much better claim to it and he describes as a leftist and even worked for TYT. The labeling is the msm is completely disconnected from reality

  8. In America there is little true conservatism, that is, “conservatism” that is not another name for “classical liberalism”:

    1. I’m reading me some Edmond Burke to try and understand proper conservativism.

  9. So according to the NYT and now Reason-all it takes to qualify as a conservative is to be pro-Israel. That’s pretty pathetic.

    1. Exactly. This notes just celebrates having a fake opposing viewpoint. She is just a fake conservative hack that leftist extremely biased news have as a token conservative to falsely claim they have people with opposing viewpoints. Of course only people with an extremely biased mindset,casual watchers that barely watch the shows she appears in or straight up idiots are the only ones that believes this.

  10. Im not that big of a fan of Jordan Peterson but are Nick’s comments at the 2:20 mark not kind of absurd? Saying he’s the Philosopher King of the alt right is pretty ridiculous and then Bari saying the so called “intellectual dark web” and the alt right are interchangeable is also a joke. A group of people such as Sam Harris, Bret Weinstein etc being the thought leaders of what are essentially white nationalist doesn’t really make any sense to me. Now there seem to be a lot of young people who politically lean right/support trump and they do view Jordan Peterson as some kind of philosopher King and that’s a really bad thing but it seems to me not many libertarian types have offered a good alternative (at least in the public eye) to people like Jordan Peterson, and there seems to be some envy coming from people at reason of Jordan because of his success. There are a lot of criticism you can pose against Jordan’s world/Philosophical views but the only thing I ever see from people who write for reason are shallow ones (maybe because they don’t understand philosophy themselves?).

    1. Sorry she said “I don’t think those two things are interchangeable” I misheard her. But she said it so passively it was hard to tell

  11. This bitch is as false of a conservative as Candance Owens. I would say even more. You cannot be pro abortion,have no public support for gun rights,like Isreal and call yourself a conservative. She is just a 90 porcent leftist that labels herself a conservative so bias news can have a conservative and claim to the idiots that just casually watch the show or are to biased to realized they have an opposing view point. Fox news as much as people use it as a punching bag has a literal leftist that is actually an opposing viewpoint in their discussing table. How can you make a positive note on someone that is the definition of not actually opening yourself to other viewpoints? She a terrible hack. Some of Reason of writers are so trashy.

    1. ‘Liking Israel’ is one of the things that make you a leftist? Just how many Republicans in Congress are leftist then?

  12. This lady is as much a conservative as Gillespie is a Libertarian- 0%

  13. Jesus Christ no wonder why I never really listen to Gillespie, he’s awful.

  14. Jesus Christ no wonder why I never really listen to Gillespie, he’s awful.

  15. Jesus Christ no wonder why I never really listen to Gillespie, he’s awful.

  16. Jesus Christ no wonder why I never really listen to Gillespie, he’s awful.

    1. Listen to the squirrels.

  17. Bari Weiss is another liberal that the NYT pretends is a conservative. I’m not surprised Gillespie can’t tell the difference. And come on people, Jordan Petersen is a liberal too. Just like Weiss, he also calls himself a liberal. The place sinks lower every day.

    1. ‘Liberal’ means something very different outside the US.

  18. I’m relatively new to Reason, so I may be missing something here… but Weiss hardly sounds like a “conservative” in the traditional sense. Sounds to me like she’s a liberal who’s not batshit crazy. Rare enough these days, so I guess I can pardon the confusion.

    Also, what’s with Gillespie’s beef with Jordan Peterson? I can’t think of anything Peterson says that would be against Libertarian values, but it seems Gillespie is intent on pinning him with the alt-right. Ridiculous.

    1. Nick is not alone. Reason seems to dislike Jordan for reasons utterly unclear to most who have heard him.

      1. I’ve been quite surprised by their animosity towards him. I think it’s them trying to distance themselves from being considered alt-right, even though Peterson is not actually alt-right, but that’s how he’s perceived by many on the left. Alternatively, I think that the Reason staff thinks they are more intellectual than him and are upset he is getting more attention than them.

        1. Alternatively, I think that the Reason staff thinks they are more intellectual than him and are upset he is getting more attention than them.

          Compared to Jordan Peterson, the Reason staff are like a group of those chimps that they teach sign language. My God do those idiots have a false sense of superiority.

        2. A good number of the Left “perceive” anyone to their right as Nazi sympathizers, white supremacists, and so on. The libertarians I know are keenly aware of this. So why should Gillespie and any other Reason staff give a rat’s ass how the Left “perceives” Peterson, unless they’re trying to woo the Leftist progressive crowd for God-knows-why?

  19. I enjoyed the interview and find Weiss interesting. I do wish Nick would not interrupt her so much. I think he did more talking than she did, which is a bad thing in an interview.

  20. Gillespie butchered this so badly and I’m really disappointed. He should do some research before he smears people in the “IDW” and for god sakes he needs to shut up once in a while and stop telling too many jokes. Like sometimes they’re funny, but it really interrupted the conversation a lot.

  21. Nick, you gotta do some more homework, man, do some more research other than watching Real Time or relying on Glen “triggered” Greenwald for a balanced take on one of his many enemies.

    You dismiss the whole IDW when the best thing you could do is consider them allies–not 100% on everything but enough to find strong common ground. You dismiss Sam Harris as essentially an Islamophobe and ineffectual athiest. You dismiss Jordan Peterson as alt right or old right. You try to convince Bari Weiss she’s a conservative (your podcast title seems like a sad attempt at click bait or something I dunno). You dismiss Dave Rubin for not being an intellectual (what a crime!) when in reality he’s one of your biggest allies.

    In fact every time I listen to Rubin he’s clearly and openly putting himself in the Libertarian camp. He’s one of your loudest megaphones. He’s got a huge audience who loves to hear people talk about ideas. For godsake, the best and most obvious thing you could do for yourself and for Reason is to get booked on Ruben’s podcast. I’d put money on Reason’s stock jumping way up if that ever happened. Come to think of it, I first heard about Reason just last year after hearing John Stossel on Rubin’s podcast. True fact.

    I’m making an assumption here, and I may be wrong, but you sound like you’ve never listed to a full podcast, nor read a full book by the likes of Harris, Peterson, Rogan, Ruben, et al. Come on, Nick.

  22. I approve this message!

    1. (referring to Andiobe above… not sure whether I’m using the comments section correctly)

  23. Reason is fine with neoconservatism, so long as it allows for abortion. Meanwhile, pro-life libertarians (they exist, because they actually affirm the NAP) are brushed aside.

    None of this is surprising when you consider that many of Reason’s leading writers supported the Iraq War.

  24. I like Nick G., but I was screaming, STFU and let her talk. If a word count doesn’t show 2 words from Nick for every word from Bari, I’ll vote for Trump in 2020 (and I hate Trump, just to be clear).

    And while I’m criticizing Nick G., he puts down Sam Harris? Nick, who can’t utter a complete sentence without pausing, restarting, stammering, inserting another thought, then going back and finally getting to a period, criticized one of the most articulate and witty pod casters in the business?

    Anyway, love ya Nick, but this was not one of your better efforts.

  25. I listened to the podcast with her on The Federalist. I remember thinking that she’s kinda cute. How does that Frank Zappa song go again?

Please to post comments