Michael: Here’s a wild thought, Kevin: what if the most intolerant people in our society are the ones who talk about tolerance the most? What if our obsession with not offending anyone has actually created an 'Age of Offense'? Kevin: Whoa, that's a spicy take. You're saying being too tolerant is the problem? That sounds like a paradox. It’s like saying the best way to be a good swimmer is to stay out of the water. Michael: Exactly. And that very paradox is at the heart of the book we're diving into today. We're talking about Greg Gutfeld's The Joy of Hate, a book that is every bit as provocative as its title suggests. Kevin: Greg Gutfeld… the satirist and Fox News host. I can already imagine the tone of this book. It’s not going to be a gentle, reassuring pat on the back, is it? Michael: Not even close. Gutfeld basically wrote this as a counter-assault on what he calls 'phony outrage.' And you're right about the reaction. The book is highly polarizing; readers on sites like Goodreads either praise its boldness and humor or are completely put off by its aggressive, almost gleefully mean-spirited style. There's very little middle ground. Kevin: So it's a literary grenade. I'm in. Where does he even start with an argument like that? Michael: He starts with this core idea that we're drowning in 'manufactured outrage.' And he uses some hilarious, if not completely absurd, real-world examples to prove his point.

Kevin: Okay, 'manufactured outrage.' That sounds like a modern buzzword. What does he actually mean by that? Give me an example, because my outrage is usually very, very real, especially when I see the price of coffee. Michael: (Laughs) Well, Gutfeld would probably say your coffee outrage is legitimate. He's talking about something else. He calls it "The War on Moobs." Kevin: The war on… what? Please tell me this is not what I think it is. Michael: It is exactly what you think it is. He tells the story of a wanted poster for a criminal named Eduardo Ibarra Perez. The police released his photo, but because he was shirtless and a bit heavyset, they blurred out his chest. Kevin: You're kidding. They blurred out his 'man-boobs' on a wanted poster? For a criminal? Were they afraid of offending him? Or offending the public with the sight of a slightly flabby chest? Michael: That's the million-dollar question! Gutfeld's point is that our culture has become so terrified of causing even the slightest offense that we've reached a point of absurdity. We're censoring reality to protect people from… what, exactly? A non-ideal physique? It's a perfect example of what he calls 'repressive tolerance'—the idea that our quest for tolerance has become a tool to shut down common sense. Kevin: That is genuinely hilarious. But it feels like a pretty low-stakes example. Does he have anything with a bit more… bite? Michael: Oh, absolutely. He brings up a political incident. A Dallas County Commissioner named Kenneth Mayfield was in a meeting, and he described a department with a lot of lost paperwork as a 'black hole.' Kevin: Uh oh. I can see where this is going. Michael: Immediately, another commissioner, John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupts him and takes offense, interpreting the term as racially insensitive. A judge in the room then demands an apology. Mayfield is baffled, explaining it's a common scientific term, a figure of speech for a place where things disappear. Kevin: Right, like where all my socks go in the laundry. That’s a black hole. But I can also see how, in a heated political environment, that phrase could be misconstrued. Where does Gutfeld land on this? Michael: He argues that the person who immediately jumps to the most offensive interpretation is often the one revealing their own prejudice. He asks, if you hear 'black hole' and your mind instantly goes to race instead of astrophysics, what does that say about you? He uses another example: after the gymnast Gabby Douglas won an Olympic gold medal, NBC ran a commercial for a TV show that happened to feature a monkey doing gymnastics. People erupted, accusing NBC of racism. Kevin: Wow. That’s a stretch. You have to be actively looking for a racist connection to make that leap. Michael: That's his entire point about manufactured outrage. It's performative. It's about scoring points, showing you're on the 'right' side, or as he puts it, it’s for people who are bored. And this 'repressive tolerance' becomes a weapon. If you can label any opposing view or even a clumsy phrase as bigoted, you don't have to engage with the argument. You can just shut it down. Kevin: Okay, I see the logic. It’s a way to short-circuit debate. If someone’s a 'bully' or a 'racist,' you don't have to listen to them. But isn't there a risk in Gutfeld's thinking? Where is the line between calling out manufactured outrage and just dismissing someone's genuine feelings of being hurt or offended? Michael: That is the perfect question, because it leads right into Gutfeld's second, and even more controversial, major point: the outrage is almost always selective. He argues there's a massive double standard in who we're 'allowed' to be intolerant of.

Kevin: Selective outrage. I think I know what he means. It's like how a joke about one group is fine, but the exact same joke about another group will get you fired. Michael: Precisely. Gutfeld argues that in our culture, certain groups are designated as acceptable targets. He points to conservative women, religious people, and especially, the military. And he uses a really intense example to test this idea. Kevin: Let me guess, it’s not about moobs this time. Michael: No. This is much heavier. He brings up the infamous video from 2012 that showed a group of American soldiers in Afghanistan urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters. Kevin: Oh, I remember that. The backlash was enormous. And rightly so. I mean, that's a war crime, isn't it? How can he possibly defend that? Michael: And that’s the reaction he anticipates. He’s very clear: he says the act was wrong, crude, and stupid. He's not defending the act itself. What he's questioning is the scale and nature of the public outrage. He describes the media reaction as a revulsion from people who have no concept of what war is actually like. These are young men, he argues, who just minutes or hours before were in a firefight where these same dead men were trying to kill them. Kevin: Okay, but even in war, there are rules. The Geneva Conventions exist for a reason. You can't just desecrate bodies. Michael: Gutfeld's argument isn't about the rules of war. It's about the hypocrisy of tolerance. He says the same media and public that erupts in fury over this act will turn around and romanticize movements like Occupy Wall Street, which he details as being rife with crime, filth, and assaults, or they'll advocate for the rights of convicted terrorists. His point is a deeply uncomfortable one: why is our 'tolerance' so readily extended to our enemies, but so viciously withheld from our own soldiers who are acting, however horribly, in the dehumanizing crucible of war? Kevin: That is… a really difficult pill to swallow. He’s forcing you to compare two things that feel incomparable. He’s saying, look at this horrible thing, but now look at this other horrible thing that you excuse. Michael: Exactly. He's exposing the selective application of our moral compass. And this ties into another concept he introduces: the 'Bully Gap.' He says that in today's world, everyone claims to have been bullied, but no one ever, ever admits to being a bully. Kevin: (Laughs) That is so true. It's like how everyone thinks they're an above-average driver. I've definitely felt bullied, but I can't remember a time I thought, 'Wow, I was a real bully today.' Michael: Gutfeld shares a personal story about it. As a kid, he was bullied by a bigger, dumber classmate named Patrick who would force him to let him cheat. One day, Gutfeld finally stood up to him, and Patrick sulked off, convinced that Gutfeld had bullied him. He then flips it and confesses to being a bully himself, pulling a cruel prank on a teacher in high school. His point is that bully and bullied are not fixed identities; they are roles we all play at different times. Kevin: So the 'Bully Gap' is this massive societal blind spot where we all see ourselves as victims. And when you apply that to politics, it means any disagreement can be framed as 'bullying.' If you criticize my ideas, you're not debating me, you're bullying me. Michael: You've got it. And the anti-bullying movement, which starts with the noble intention of protecting kids, gets co-opted by adults. It becomes a tool to demand sympathy and shut down criticism. He says if you don't bend to the cries of manufactured outrage, you run the risk of being labeled a bully. It’s the ultimate trump card. Kevin: It's like the adult version of 'I'm telling the teacher on you!' It completely shuts down the conversation. It makes you wonder, when you see a celebrity making an anti-bullying PSA, are they doing it out of genuine concern, or is it, as Gutfeld would probably say, a way to enhance their own image as a virtuous victim? Michael: He argues it's almost always the latter. It's a performance of virtue. And that's the thread that connects everything in the book: the idea that so much of our public moralizing isn't about making the world a better place, but about making ourselves look good in the process.

Kevin: So, after all this, what's the big takeaway? Is Gutfeld just saying we should all be meaner to each other? The title is The Joy of Hate, after all. Michael: It's funny, despite the title, his conclusion is surprisingly… constructive. He's not advocating for actual hate. He's advocating for what he calls 'smart intolerance.' He’s arguing that we need to reclaim our ability to judge ideas, to call out nonsense, and to stop being so emotionally manipulated by outrage, especially when it's manufactured. Kevin: So it's less about enjoying hate and more about finding joy in… intellectual freedom? The freedom to not care about every little thing that someone, somewhere, has decided is offensive today. Michael: Exactly. He says the first step is to discern between real injustice and, as he calls it, 'trumped-up baloney.' Don't waste your energy on the baloney. He has this great mental exercise he calls the 'Mirror Jerk Effect.' If you're a conservative and you're furious about something a liberal commentator said about your favorite politician, ask yourself: would you be just as mad if a conservative commentator said the same thing about a liberal politician you dislike? Kevin: And the answer is almost always no. You'd probably cheer. Wow. That’s a simple but powerful reality check. It forces you to admit your outrage is probably rooted in your own political bias, not some objective moral standard. Michael: It's a tool for conserving your emotional energy for things that actually matter. He argues that this constant state of outrage is exhausting and, ultimately, joyless. He says, "There is no joy in hate. It’s not worth it. Get out of the outrage pool, and into the party." Kevin: That's a great line. It makes you question your own reactions. When I get angry about something I see online, is it a real injustice? Or is it, as Gutfeld would say, just 'phony outrage' because it's aimed at someone or something I already dislike? Michael: That's the question he leaves us with. And it’s a good one for all of us to think about, regardless of our politics. It’s a call to be more thoughtful about what we give our attention and our anger to. Kevin: And maybe to develop a slightly thicker skin. It seems like we could all use a little less outrage and a little more… well, joy. Michael: I think that’s a perfect way to put it. This has been a fascinating, if not uncomfortable, dive into the mechanics of modern offense. Kevin: Definitely. We'd love to hear what our listeners think. Do you see this 'manufactured outrage' in your own life? Let us know. Michael: This is Aibrary, signing off.