"There is a crisis of honesty - and we're seeing the consequences in every sphere of life." In this episode of Free to Speak, host Dane Giroud sits down with American philosopher Peter Boghossian - author of How to Have Impossible Conversations and founder of the Spectrum Street Epistemology project - for a wide-ranging conversation on free speech, polarisation, religion, antisemitism, the trans medicalisation scandal, the breakdown of moral consensus, and why honest disagreement has become so rare. 🎟️ SEE PETER LIVE IN AUCKLAND - FRIDAY 16 MAY Peter's final New Zealand appearance is this Saturday at the Ellen Melville Centre, Auckland CBD. 📅 Friday 16 May | Doors 4:45pm | Starts 5:30pm 🎟️ Tickets $10 👉 https://www.fsu.nz/events/free-speech-union-peter-boghossian-free-speech-hard-conversations-and-whats-at-risk ABOUT THIS EPISODE Peter has spent the past several weeks across New Zealand - running Spectrum Street Epistemology sessions in schools, demonstrating live dialogue on Cuba Street and at Britomart, and meeting with educators, journalists and political figures. In this conversation, he and Dane go deep on: — What Spectrum Street Epistemology actually is, and why he uses it with school students — Why "online is a cesspool" and what in-person disagreement teaches that comments never will — The atheists who are more religious than the religious — The breakdown of the dominant moral order and the necessary backlash that follows — Sacred cows: the topics institutions still refuse to discuss honestly — The trans medicalisation scandal and the cost of suppressing dissent — Rising antisemitism in the UK and the institutional unwillingness to name what's happening — Dane's own recent experience of an antisemitic smear — and how to respond — Why the Israel–Palestine conversation collapses, even between people willing to talk — Reading scripture as literature and the value of radical self-knowledge — Why fighting, jiu-jitsu and stand-up comedy share something the cognitive world has lost: a corrective mechanism — The crisis of honesty — and why everything downstream of it is breaking CHAPTERS 00:00 Welcome & guest introduction 01:55 Why Peter keeps coming back to New Zealand 03:48 How Spectrum Street Epistemology works 05:48 Why online conversation turns toxic 08:16 Making evidence and doubt fun 10:02 Religion, identity, and moral certainty 16:18 When moral orders break down 22:34 Echo chambers and institutional capture 27:04 Sacred cows and policy taboo topics 42:46 A personal smear story unpacked 46:02 Why some conflicts resist dialogue 51:42 Reading scripture as self-knowledge 56:52 Fighting, reality checks, and integrity 1:00:02 The crisis of honesty 1:09:12 Final thanks & where to connect ABOUT PETER BOGHOSSIAN Peter Boghossian is an American philosopher, founder of the National Progress Alliance, and author of How to Have Impossible Conversations. He was previously a faculty member at Portland State University and is best known for his work on belief revision, civil discourse, and Street Epistemology. ABOUT THE FREE SPEECH UNION The Free Speech Union is a registered union of New Zealanders who believe free speech is foundational to a healthy society. We defend the rights of New Zealanders to speak, write, publish and protest — whatever their views. FOLLOW THE FREE SPEECH UNION NZ 🌐 Website: https://www.fsu.nz 📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/freespeechunion 🐦 X / Twitter: https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech ▶️ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechunionnewzealand926 🎵 TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz 📸 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechunionnz 🔗 Campaigns & all socials: https://t.mtrbio.com/FreeSpeechUnion SUBSCRIBE for more Free to Speak episodes — uncensored conversations on free speech, civil liberties, and the people defending them. 📧 [email protected] #PeterBoghossian #FreeSpeech #FreeSpeechUnion #FreeToSpeak #StreetEpistemology #NewZealand
![DADA WA KAZI Full Episode [ 7 ]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q7RrucYbiqE/maxresdefault.jpg)
Comments 7
Sign in to join the conversation
Sign in
BILL OF RIGHTS, 1993,THOSE WHO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH AND OPINIONS MUST BE REPORTED TO THE POLICE. STUDENTS, SUE THE UNIVERSITY, YOU ARE PAYING FOR A SERVICE AND NOT GETTING IT WHEN REMOVED OR SILENCED.
I’ve watched a lot of Boghossian’s recent work, and this interview is a useful specimen because he’s relaxed in front of a friendly host and the routine is visible. Four moves, one sitting: 1. He laundered Alex Jones. He took the real SPLC informant scandal — that SPLC paid informants who participated in hate crimes, which is a documented problem worth discussing — and inflated it into “SPLC is the primary funder of the KKK and neo-Nazis, manufacturing racism where it doesn’t exist.” Then he explicitly credited Alex Jones 2021 as having said this first. That’s not analysis. That’s using a real story to retroactively validate a conspiracy theorist. And then he added the Douglas Murray line — “there aren’t enough Nazis, so you have to invent them” — which is a claim that organized racism in America is essentially fabricated by anti-racist orgs. The scandal doesn’t support that. It supports “the informant program had serious problems.” 2. The disclaimer-then-monologue. He said, verbatim: “I actually never talk about the Israeli Palestinian question because I know nothing.” Then spent the next twenty minutes on it — Mamdani’s wife, settler-colonial framing, the reconquista comparison, who’s killing Jews, what Marxists believe about Zionism, the Uyghurs as gotcha. The “I know nothing” line isn’t humility. It’s pre-emptive cover so he can say whatever he wants and retreat to “I told you I’m not an expert” if challenged. 3. The “they get what they deserve” exchange. Talking to a Jewish host about UK Jews being stabbed, ambulances being firebombed, Jews being assaulted — when the host says it’s depressing, Boghossian says: “Don’t be depressed at all. They get what they deserve.” Then the host asks about the Jewish community having to leave the UK and invokes Kristallnacht directly — “you mean they have to leave like Kristallnacht?” — and Boghossian answers “Yeah. Well, of course they have to leave.” He had every opportunity in that exchange to separate the Jews being attacked from the political class he was condemning. He didn’t. The fatalism is the judgment. 4. The “I’m just describing” shield. He uses some version of this four or five times — race and IQ, the street harasser livestreaming the n-word, immigration from “high inbreeding” countries. Every time the content is loaded, he attaches “I’m not making any evaluative judgments, I’m just describing the phenomenon.” That’s not analysis either. That’s a verbal tic that lets him voice content while denying authorship. The man brands himself as the careful-inquiry guy, the calibrated-questions guy, the Street Epistemology guy. What he actually does on his own podcast and on tour is launder conspiracy theorists, inflate narrow stories into civilizational claims, and tell Jewish hosts their cousins deserve what’s happening to them in Europe. The free-speech framing is the permission structure. The bigotry is what it’s permission for. He used to be obnoxious but not politically dangerous. The temperament was always there — the contrarianism, the need to provoke, the certainty. What’s different now is what it’s hitched to.
Is this on spotify??
There's nothing more mind-deadening than hearing someone talk about "God" when they have no idea what they mean by "God".
Peter is great, very honest and courageous.
Georgina Beyer was ahead of her time. Normally I don't refer to a trans woman as "her", but i respect Georgina because for her achievements, merit, and her identity was "Georgina Beyer", and not "Georgina Beyer The Trans-Woman"
“When you have environments that do not allow people to have honest conversations about something, not only do you have a problem with not having a moral infrastructure to wrestle with and figure out what your public policy should be, but by necessity that breeds forms of extremism.”-(21:55) Peter, I hope you always know that your tireless dedication to restore the “moral architecture” that is necessary for a functioning democracy & the survival of western liberal values is deeply appreciated by many and personally, gives me great hope for the future of our children and grandchildren.