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.”
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.