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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago (34 children)

chomsky described went on and on for decades about how media personalities that benefit the united states are artificially elevated and piker seems to be the next one in line like charlie kirk once was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You think Piker's messaging benefits the United States?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    it doesn't matter what i think -- history has plenty of examples of compatible leftists like piker and they all lead to the same results: nowhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You compared him to Charlie Kirk - decidedly not a "compatible leftist".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Kirk is an example of an artificially elevated voice not a compatible leftist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago

    He's not a media personality that is being artificially elevated to benefit the United States though. Both the Republicans and the establishment Dems are fighting tooth and nail for people to stop listening to him. He's prevailing because he's not being artificially elevated - he's being elevated by those that agree with his points against the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (17 children)

    Do you have any evidence that Hasan is being artificially elevated? Financial ties with billionaires, anything like that (which we absolutely had with Kirk)?

    It seems to me like Hasan's audience is organic. Now, you could certainly argue that certain points get watered down, that he has an incentive to tell people what they want to hear in order to grow his audience. But if you're claiming that he's being propped up by George Soros or somebody, that probably calls for something more substantial than speculation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (16 children)

    history has proven that anyone who punches left -- as piker does -- is a compatible leftist at best and only a fool would presume that history won't repeat because he's your guy.

    besides, chomsky's work speaks for itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (15 children)
    1. He's not my guy.

    2. Accusations should be backed by evidence, or they're meaningless.

    3. History has not proven that anyone who punches left is artificially promoted. Some people who punch left are, not all.

    This is no different then all the libs who claim that we're being paid off or promoted by foreign powers. I'm sure you could find examples of that sort of thing in history. Are those examples enough to extrapolate from, even if there's no actual evidence beyond that?

    Not everyone who disagrees with you is a plant. Don't overplay your hand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    compatible leftists aren't plants and the difference between me and the libs is that shoulders of the giants i stand on have been proven right by history -- repeatedly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago* (12 children)

    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 -- as well people smarter than you and i -- already says will happen.

    also: i have no interest in proselytizing my beliefs to anyone -- making any conspiracy theorist accusation silly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    whose body of work supports my assertion

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    history proves that people punching left are compatible leftists at best -- not chomsky.

    Chomsky only described a general trend and not a universal rule. Accusing someone based on nothing but a general trend is bullshit.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    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.

    That’s not something I never disagreed with, and is not what the conversation is about.

    then we're talking past each other because that's the only thing i'm talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    [Original comment deleted, because I realized this is all that's necessary to say]

    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”.

    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.

    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

    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.

    then we’re talking past each other because that’s the only thing i’m talking about.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    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.

    And we both know that that's complete and total bullshit, because it 100% existed with Charlie Kirk, a point you've repeatedly ignored.

    i’m glad you’re atleast able to admit that he’s a compatible leftist.

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Chomsky was describing normal media outlets who editorialised personalities to elevate.

    This does not apply here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Social media has supplanted legacy media -- it applies

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    Twitch isn't social media. Nor do they have editorial control.

    Which was the point. So once again. It does not apply

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    if you think Bezos doesn't have full control of what is put on their platform, you're delusional.

    If he was really a threat, they'd make up some bullshit and ban him. They do it all the time to smaller streamers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    lol you think Bezos cares or even knows what the top streamers are saying. He doesn’t. I bet he barely understands what twitch is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    dangerously naive to assume the enemy is a fool, especially when there's been no indication as such. I'm sure he understands what Twitch is and how it slots into the Amazon media empire.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    Well yeah but that doesn’t mean he personally has full control, Twitch has its own CEO and everything. I’m not saying this makes it immune to astroturfing and things like that.

    Companies like twitch, google (YouTube), Sony music and Warner bros operate on a profit basis. What makes money = what’s popular. If communist podcasts/twitch streamers/tv personalities were actually a threat, they’d try to silence them. I’d argue the Trump admin is, though amazon makes money from him and have a reason not to care about the message like Trump’s cabinet seems to. They’re giving him (Hasan) HUGE airtime on Fox News pretty much nightly now. Reaching millions of people he hadn’t before, your parents possibly, etc. Calling him an Anti-American terrorist.

    After all, Hasan, deprogram, or any semi lefty content people aren’t gonna single handedly start the revolution tomorrow. These types of people (Hasan) aren’t really a threat to capitalism at the end of the day. It’s a process n all that. Capitalists do know this. Rage against the Machine made Sony millions off of anti-imperialist content.

    Jeff himself and other billionaires are having the time of their lives up there not giving a fuck about shit. They got hundreds, if not thousands of people dedicated directly making line go up. Hasan makes money and is a tiny part of that, so in their minds who gives a fuck if he’s all libbed up or whatever. It makes money. Ban him every now & then for saying 9/11 and cracker or whatever, generate a buzz, let him back on, make more money, on and on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Full control? No, not really. Streamers and the platforms are well aware of the contentious nature of their relationship.

    Could Bezos just ban Piker. Yeah I've no illusions he could.

    But would he? Nah I don't think so.

    But we were talking about the artificial elevation of certain voices. If they were able to do so, we would not be having this discussion, like wouldn't be here.

  • source
  • parent