Peter Boghossian Profile picture
Sep 19 5 tweets 2 min read Read on X
After Charlie Kirk’s murder, many were shocked to see people celebrate killing someone for mainstream conservative views. I’m not. As a professor, I saw the ideology that taught “disagreement = harm” take over higher ed. This is the endgame of that lesson. 🧵
In this campus culture, to even question the ideology is to cause harm. That belief fueled extreme reactions to speech. Administration and students relentlessly harassed me for holding mainstream liberal positions until I resigned. 2

A society that equates argument with injury will normalize violence toward opinion. What's worse, the ideology that seeded this holds radical views far outside the values of middle America. 3 Image
What results is ordinary political discourse, like Charlie’s, on family, immigration, gender, or abortion, is recast as a violent violation. For decades, universities wove this ethos into American life. That’s why we’re here. And yes, the left started it. 4
If you want receipts, seek out the work of my friend @mikenayna, especially his film The Reformers. It documents this problem better than anything else I’ve seen. 5 Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Peter Boghossian

Peter Boghossian Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @peterboghossian

Jul 31
The Illusion of Explanatory Depth:

We think we understand something until we’re asked to explain it. Often, we’re clueless. Breakdown, consequence, fix. 1/5 Image
Example: A toilet. Most would claim knowledge, but describing its mechanics exposes one’s ignorance. We overestimate our grasp of policies, tech, even zippers. 2/5.
This breeds arrogance, pettiness, and shallowness. Conversations falter: Weak arguments, dogmatism, uninformed opinions. People think we’re dicks. It’s not stupidity, it’s cognitive default. Recognition sharpens our thinking. 3/5
Read 5 tweets
May 25
Here’s my take on the “Triggernometry Meets Guilty Feminist” discussion: It’s a tragic example of how to NOT have a discussion. In this thread, I’ll cover mistakes in conversation and reasoning while offering basic suggestions for improvement. 1
@triggerpod
Here’s a link to their podcast:

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tri…

YouTube:

youtu.be/bgO2G4_F4EQ?si…
While this conversation is funny and engaging, it is also tragic. The guest is hopelessly trapped in a moral and epistemic cage of her own making. Her unwarranted conviction makes her situation not only tragic but also pitiable. 2
Read 12 tweets
Mar 17
From my conversations with the sharpest people in the English-speaking world, here are 10 things I’ve learned:

1. They’re not afraid to say, “I don’t understand” and “I don’t know”.
2. They’re very well read *outside* of their discipline.

3. They’re curious.

4. They listen carefully and ask followup questions.
5. They go by their first name. No “Doctor,” just their first name.

6. They call bullshit on bad ideas.

7. They are exceptionally good at entertaining and engaging hypotheticals.
Read 4 tweets
Oct 19, 2024
Harris, @tegmark and others are incorrect in their assumptions about math. Here’s my heretical take: Math, at its core, is empirical. All numbers derive from counting. It’s observable. 🧵
Consider these two propositions which I’ll reference below:

Math starts with numbers.

Counting is a form of measuring.

We define a measurement, like an inch, and count. 1, 2, 3, etc.
Take the coaster on my table. We agree to call a thing on my table a coaster. There are one and one and one coasters; there are three coasters on the table.
Read 10 tweets
Oct 13, 2024
Here’s a quick tip for helping you think through an issue in six easy steps. A thread:

1. State your belief in a single sentence.

2. In a single sentence, state at least one position opposed to your belief.
3. Ask yourself what you would need to know—definitively—for the belief that opposes yours to be true.

4.Ask yourself if every reasonable person would agree to what you stated in #3.

5. Ask yourself how you could go about figuring out #3.
6. If there’s no way for you to figure out #3, perhaps you’re not being reasonable or you may need more information or you may want to reconsider your response. (It could also be that the opposing believe is just patently false or silly.)
Read 5 tweets
Oct 1, 2024
Here’s a breakdown of:

“Not all cultures are as valid as each other”.

This thread will explain, in plain language, what disbelieving “not all cultures are equally valid” entails. Image
If you disbelieve the claim that “all cultures are as valid as each other,” then you believe, “All cultures are as valid as each other”. If you believe all cultures are as valid as each other, then you must believe…
…that there is no objective, independent, non-perspectival way to make a judgment about a culture or cultural practice. If you believe this—and you must believe it if you disbelieve that all cultures are as valid as each other—then…
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(