By A recent The New York Times opinion video titled “The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?” has drawn attention for its participants’ discussion of theft and rule-breaking as responses to perceived corporate and social inequities.
In a way, it completely sums up the new Democratic Party: Rich people blaming “the system” for not being richer and justifying violence and theft as a way to “protest.”
In the segment, Jia Tolentino, a staff writer for The New Yorker, described taking lemons from Whole Foods Market while assisting an elderly neighbor. She framed the act as morally insignificant when directed at a large corporation, arguing that such behavior carries little ethical weight. Addressing concerns that widespread theft could drive up prices, she suggested a willingness to accept resulting “chaos.”
Also participating was Hasan Piker, a political commentator who once said America deserved 9-11 and called for the assassination of Republican senators, who said he is “pro-piracy all the way” and voiced approval for what he described as “cool crimes,” including bank robberies and the theft of artifacts from institutions such as the Louvre Museum. The discussion, hosted by Times opinion culture editor Nadja Spiegelman, introduced the term “microlooting” to describe small-scale theft framed as resistance to large corporations.
The New York Times platformed Hasan Piker on their "The Opinions" podcast to promote theft as a form of protest. The Mao fan said, "Yeah, I’m pro-piracy all the way, like, across the board. Would you pirate a car? Yes. You know, if you could."
He also says he would steal from… pic.twitter.com/D05oo7WEwk
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 22, 2026
Participants argued that companies already account for losses from theft in their financial planning and cited broader economic grievances as justification, noted The Atlantic. Tolentino, who lives in a $2.2 million home, also encouraged readers to bypass paywalls for her own work using online archiving tools. While the tone of the discussion remained informal, it extended into more serious territory, including references to sabotage and public reactions to the 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Piker described the health insurance industry as enabling “social murder,” while the group discussed the incident with detachment even as they formally rejected political violence.
Democrats have welcomed this insanity with open arms. Piker has been a hot commodity on the campaign trail for senate candidates.
Recent legal decisions have added to that concern. In Hennepin County, County Attorney Mary Moriarty approved a diversion program for a state employee accused of vandalizing multiple Tesla vehicles during protests targeting Elon Musk’s company, resulting in more than $20,000 in damage. In Manhattan, the office of District Attorney Alvin Bragg dropped assault charges against a woman who struck a pro-life journalist on camera, despite video evidence of the incident.
Surveys and recent incidents have also pointed to rising tolerance for political violence among some segments of the public. A 2025 study cited growing acceptance in certain online spaces for harm directed at figures such as Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Other high-profile cases—including academic commentary debating “when we must kill them” and an attempted assassination of a Democratic governor by a pro-Palestine activist—have intensified scrutiny of political rhetoric.
In effect, these are rich people pushing ideas that will make our lives worse, but will completely leave them unaffected. There’s a reason why every Democratic-run city has seen stores like CVS and Walgreens lock up almost all of their items.
🚨 A CVS Health store in Washington, D.C. has locked basic household items behind glass.
🇺🇸 Customers now need staff assistance to access products like paper towels and cleaning supplies.
🛒 The footage was recorded by Chaya Raichik and circulated widely online.
⚠️ Retailers… pic.twitter.com/MbCSHggfZw
— THE INFORMANT (@TheInformantUSA) April 23, 2026
The New York Times panel just serves as a great reminder that Democrats hold as an article of faith that there are two sets of rules: one for liberals and one for everyone else, and anyone who isn’t a radical falls under “everyone else.”
