Hasan Piker, an influential streamer and political commentator, has recently criticized Cornell University for allegedly punishing Palestinian student activists more severely than students accused of committing sexual assault. Piker’s claims have added to public outrage over the Ivy League school following the lawsuit filed against it over the alleged 2024 gang rape in a campus fraternity house.
During his visit to Cornell University on Thursday, when he addressed an audience of around 450 people at Sage Chapel, Piker commented that students participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been given more severe punishments than students found guilty of committing sexual crimes. In particular, the controversial statements he made during his visit have spread rapidly online.
“You got more of a penalty at Cornell University if you participated in a pro-Palestine student encampment,” Piker has claimed. “I was talking to some of the leaders of the pro-Palestine encampments. One of them got expelled for a year. They got suspended for a year.”
“They got literally worse penalties in Cornell University than half of the rapists did, or than most of the rapists did,” Piker said. “It’s (expletive) nuts.”
No, you have not.
I’ve been trying to gently correct you back into a grounded criticism, like that he waters down his message to attract a larger audience. If you want to keep doubling down and insisting on this nonsense, then you’re just a conspiracy theorist. Regardless, it’s better that I call you out on it now than for you to make a fool of yourself in front of people who aren’t already leftists.
i already know i’m a fool, so you’re too late. lol
besides, piecemeal criticisms of piker’s actions are just slow walking to the final conclusion that history already says will happen and i have no interest in proselytizing my beliefs to anyone – making any conspiracy theorist accusation silly.
Did you know that Hasan makes everyone in his audience get the same haircut?
Sure, I just made that up, sure, it’s incredibly easy to prove it wrong, but hey, as long as it’s shitting on the right person, who gives a shit? If you don’t accept it then you’re just doing piecemeal criticisms and slow walking to the final conclusion.
Oh, wait. It’s me. I give a shit. Literally why my account is Phoenix Wright themed, because I fucking hate it when people talk shit and lob accusations that they can’t back up with evidence.
If only making accusations you can actually back up is “piecemeal criticism” then you can call me a “piecemeal critic.”
i shared the name of a well respected figure whose body of work supports my assertion and hasn’t been debunked by history. where’s yours?
No it doesn’t.
Please cite the place where Chomsky claims that everyone who punches left is “artificially supported,” and not just some.
Chomsky only described a general trend and not a universal rule. Accusing someone based on nothing but a general trend is bullshit.
history proves that people punching left are compatible leftists at best – not chomsky.
this is a straw man. not even chomsky claims it’s a universal rule – it’s a structural model explaining dominant patterns.
even if piker was an exception, exceptions don’t refute trends; they confirm the system that punishes deviation.
i brought evidence that the pattern exists – as you insisted – now you bring evidence the pattern doesn’t exist, or you’ve said nothing.
I never claimed the pattern does not exist. I never claimed that it was impossible for Hasan to be a part of that pattern. What I said is that you can’t just assume that every individual is following that general trend. That’s what it means to be a “general trend,” that there are exceptions to it. The only way you can conclude that Hasan is “artificially promoted” without a shred of evidence about him specifically would be if it were a universal rule, which, as you just agreed, is not something Chomsky ever said.
You’re retreating back into talking about general trends. That’s not something I ever disagreed with, and is not what the conversation is about.
A general trend is not enough to accuse people of things on an individual level. You either need it to be a universal rule, or you need specific evidence, or you need to drop the accusation and stick to so-called “piecemeal” criticisms, as in, ones that you can actually back up. Which is what you should have done from the first reply, instead of doubling down on this line.
you keep demanding specific evidence but the concrete stuff we actually have – piker himself admitting he dialed down his rhetoric to function as a democratic surrogate; promoting other fake leftists like platner; punching left like every other compatible leftist has done – gets waved away with “that doesn’t prove anything”.
so what would? a signed memo saying “we promoted this guy”? the epstein class doesn’t write those. if the only evidence that counts is evidence that can never exist, then “show me evidence” was never a real ask, it’s just a way to shut the conversation down while looking reasonable.
then we’re talking past each other because that’s the only thing i’m talking about.
If you’re dismissing Piker because he dials back his rhetoric to connect with an American populace that is primed and conditioned to reject communism, then you are who Lenin was addressing in Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder. I suggest (re)reading that text, comrade.
The fuck are you talking about? I asked you for specific evidence, and you gave me none of that. I never said, “That doesn’t prove anything” or handwaved any evidence because you refused to present it. Why? Why are you presenting it now? Do I have to fucking twist your arm to get you to defend your own position? This entire line of conversation could have been avoided if you had simply answered my request for evidence with evidence, instead of evading the request with fucking bullshit.
You assumed I would reject any evidence you showed me. Based on absolutely nothing. That’s such fucking bullshit.
At this point? Maybe I’ll come back and look at it later, now that you FINALLY FUCKING GAVE IT TO ME, but the fact that I had to go through this whole rigamole to get you to do it, instead of just fucking presenting it, has me too pissed off to do so with a clear head at the moment.
Let me guess. You assumed that I would automatically reject the evidence, that I must be engaging in bad faith, based on a “general trend” of how people you encounter behave. Fucking bullshit.
No it absolutely is not. You are not merely talking about general trends, you are talking about Hasan specifically.
Could have fooled us.
not very difficult to do, but fortunately – for the both of us – i have no interest in doing it.