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 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.
[Original comment deleted, because I realized this is all that’s necessary to say]
Because that’s not evidence of him being artificially promoted, it’s only evidence of him being a “compatible leftist.” As established, “compatible leftists” being “artificially promoted” is only a general trend, not a universal rule, which means that it cannot be applied on an individual level without specific evidence.
We can look at Charlie Kirk, the person YOU brought up as a comparison, and see clear financial ties to billionaires, which I already told you in my first comment. So this point is complete, 100% bullshit, and you’re already aware that it is.
That is an outright lie. You are not just talking about there being a general trend, you are applying it to a specific person, without evidence.
So, you are completely full of shit.
i’m glad you’re atleast able to admit that he’s a compatible leftist.
as i already said: the proof you’re looking for is not going to exist unless it ends up in the freedom of information act 40 years from now.
you’re caring way too much about this – go touch grass.
And we both know that that’s complete and total bullshit, because it 100% existed with Charlie Kirk, a point you’ve repeatedly ignored.
Truthfully I don’t give much of a shit about Hasan one way or another. I find it hard to understand why anyone would expect a streamer to lead a revolution in the first place. What I care about is throwing around unsubstantiated accusations and conspiracy theories.
I’m neurodivergent. When there’s a group or movement where talking shit and spreading rumors is accepted, I generally expect to wind up being in the crosshairs of them. It’s just the way I am.
That tendency to demand accusations be grounded in actual evidence is part of why I’m a leftist. It’s why I questioned bullshit stories about, for example, the DPRK or China. Because I hate it when people talk shit and spread rumors based on nothing but their own personal dislike.
I will fight the normalization of this kind of bullshit shit slinging, including when it’s coming from my own side, regardless of my own criticisms of the person in question.
I believe I’ve made my point and called you out sufficiently for that, so I’m fine to leave it at that and “touch grass.”