700
Jerry Seinfeld says people who say 'Free Palestine' are worse than the Ku Klux Klan
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
700 points (95.6% liked)
politics
25611 readers
3480 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this the same pedo Jerry Seinfeld who was dating a 17 year old?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seinfeld-lonstein-photo/
While Jerry's statement "'Free Palestine' are worse than the Ku Klux Klan" is absolutely moronic, he is not attracted to prepubescent children:
You know who likes to split hairs between liking children, prepubescent teens, and teenagers?
Classic Soresi bit: https://youtu.be/nu6C2KL_S9o
Classic comedy, great bit. But he's not a doctor, not a lawyer, not a judge. Whoever thinks that conflating terms will help stop actual paedophilia is kidding themselves.
Doctors, lawyers, judges.
It's still quite predatory behavior, though.
What behaviour exactly? I'm pointing this out because misuse of words can have dire consequences. In the same vain, just because the UK government practically labels people who utter "Free Palestine" as terrorists, it doesn't make them so.
The behavior of a man in his late 30s pursuing a teenager. WTF else could they possibly mean with that comment. You're going really far out if your way to miss the point being talked about here.
They dated for four years, therefore I assume there was consent. I don't think the word predatory applies in such cases.
Conversely, we had a comedian in my country who relentlessly messaged women he worked with to the point of once going to their home and knocking on her door begging she opened. That's predatory.
Yes because we all know every relationship is consensual. Especially when it's between a man in his late 30s who took an interest in a 17 year old girl. Why would the word "grooming" ever be a thought on anyone's mind in such a scenario.
Were you cognitively not capable at seventeen to detect grooming? And I'm not saying this acerbically. People who argue your point seem to talk as if at seventeen they still thought as 12-year-olds. If that's the case, then yes I agree. But in my late adolescence I was definitely capable of discerning vice from virtue.
Anyway, here we go with definitions again:
While the corporate elites don't really have a great track-record, especially considering "where are the Epstein files?", I don't think it applies in Seinfeld's case, even though he strikes me as a douchebag. But I might be wrong, have been before.
Believe it or not, your level of maturity at 17 years old does not represent the majority of 17 year olds. Nor does mine and I considered myself to be reasonably mature at that age, as it seems you believe yourself to have been. What makes grooming so effective is that the targets of grooming don't realize when it is happening. You may be right about the definition, but the way you are going about trying to correct people is insensitive to the topic at hand. Especially when it is so obvious that said point has gone straight over your head. You are completely off topic with the definitions argument.
Wait, the topic at hand is "Jerry Seinfeld says people who say 'Free Palestine' are worse than the Ku Klux Klan", right? The whole reason I brought this up was because unjustly calling him a paedophile does discussing this topic a disservice because any further arguments won't be taken as seriously. Sprinkling valid criticism with lies doesn't strengthen an argument.
Yes because we all know every relationship is consensual. Especially when it's between a man in his late 30s who took an interest in a 17 year old girl. Why would the word "grooming" ever be a thought on anyone's mind in such a scenario.
Dating a much younger person.
So, a large age gap is automatically predatory? When I was in my early twenties I had something with someone 30 years older. Was she predatory even though there was consent?
Don't be obtuse. They're talking about a teenager.
Trying to get to someone's definition before arguing is the opposite of obtuse. Although that does make it sound like Jordan Peterson, yikes.
This whole discussion is centred on Seinfeld dating a 17 year old. It isn't some abstract academic debate.
Why can't it be? What's the point otherwise. My objective is mutual understanding, learning something new, and reaching an agreement or compromise. I know that might still be a pipe-dream online, but yeah, I try.
😄; well, sir, at least you made me laugh out loud.
I think you have a rather unfortunate bias here. You're not going to win anyone over to the argument that"almost a paedophile is fine" concept. The vast majority are going to find it morally reprehensible. They're going to say barely legal is not morally nominal.
You have an opinion, it's yours. It's not an opinion that you're going to defend and change people's minds on, though. They're going to see you as a paedophile supporter, whether you consider that to be your situation or not.
“that "almost a paedophile is fine" concept”
That's not fine, and a loaded argument.
At what point would it be morally nominal? Should there be a different cutoff age? Should there be a maximum age disparity? How do we even decide on this stuff objectively? And I'm not asking this rhetorically. As far as I know most things human are normally distributed and such ages were decided by looking at what age the majority of people are cognitively mature enough to make their own decisions without being easily manipulated. If, supposedly, most people think Seinfeld was morally reprehensible, then perhaps we should decide upon an age where it wouldn't have been? Or use different metrics altogether perhaps. I don't know.
ohh, i'm not here to argue with you, and you're not about to change my mind.
I'm just pointing out that no matter how much you write, you're not winning anything in the court of public opinion here.
Well in that case, no matter what the popular opinion on anything is, it in itself remains an argumentum ad populum fallacy:
“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that asserts a claim is true, or good or correct because many people think so.”