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:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Jerry Seinfeld likened the Free Palestine movement to the Ku Klux Klan — even saying those who use the phrase "Free Palestine" are worse than the white supremacist group — at a student event at Duke University meant to honor hostages who are being held in Gaza.

Seinfeld spoke at the school in Durham, North Carolina, to introduce a former Israeli hostage, Omer Shem Tov, when he made the remarks, according to the university's student newspaper, The Duke Chronicle. He reportedly started by saying, in reference to the Free Palestine activist movement, "Just say you don’t like Jews."

“By saying 'Free Palestine,' you’re not admitting what you really think. So it’s actually — compared to the Ku Klux Klan, I’m actually thinking the Klan is actually a little better here, because they can come right out and say, ‘We don’t like Blacks, we don’t like Jews.’ Okay, that’s honest,'" the Chronicle reported Seinfeld said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] arsCynic@lemmy.ml 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Ok, so the guy goes for as young as he possibly can and we’re going to assume that that confirms that he wouldn’t going any younger if he could? That’s the thin ice I’m talking about.

Oh it wouldn't surprise me if many would go lower if the opportunity presented itself. Some of them, a small minority, will be paedophiles, and would go as low as they could. However, biologically the majority are simply attracted to fertility, attractiveness, i.e., young women, not girls. That's exactly why there's a need for an age or metric where ambiguity regarding potential harm/manipulation is decreased to a minimum, because obviously any kind of harm toward living beings is unethical; spare self-defence, but that's neither here nor there.

I agree that we cannot call him a pedophile because there is no direct evidence of it, I’m on board with that, but his actions are not doing a lot for him. If he said “oh yea I like 24 year olds and older” that’s still weird for his age but it shows that his limit is a personal one and not a legal one.

Only aiming for as young as legally possible would be suspicious, but as far as I'm reading he's still together with his wife Jessica Seinfeld who he met when she was 26, so I'm not yet sure what you mean by "his actions". Anyway, what about what the women think in these situations? Shoshanna was on board for four years, and so were her parents. There's no indication Seinfeld was inappropriate.

“Not Lonstein, though. What distance there is between them on life’s time line, it seems, they more than make up for with a similar temperament. “I am not an idiot,” says the comic. “Shoshanna is a person, not an age. She is extremely bright. She’s funny, sharp, very alert. We just get along. You can hear the click.” Within weeks after their first date, friends and neighbors grew accustomed to the sight of the Seinfeld limousine idling outside the Upper East Side luxury apartment building where Lonstein lives with her 15-year-old brother, David, and her parents, Zachary, a wealthy computer-store owner, and Betty, a home-maker. The Lonsteins have always approved of the romance. “Shoshanna is very mature,” says a source close to the family. “Jerry is thoughtful, a good person. The family have nothing but positive feelings about the both of them. Everyone respects their relationship.” ―The Game of Love

Women are as biologically wired as men are, and equally flawed—just look at how Justin Bieber was publicly salivated over at a similar young age, that's clearly not okay. Meanwhile all of these discussions oftentimes sound as if women are always at the mercy of men. They aren't.

It’s also weird that he says he could love someone whole-heartedly but also couldn’t properly communicate with her on more nuanced topics. Like, what made this minor so great and why could he not find that in anyone between 30-45y/o?

If you were referring to "I can’t philosophize with her", that's a quote from a wholly different book about two siblings part of the youth resistance in Nazi Germany. I just found that sentence particularly apt to decide whether a relationship is right or not.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Oh god are you really bringing up a “women do it to” point completely unprompted?

As for the other quote, yes I clearly missed that. Still, I’m not sure what it has to do with the Seinfeld thing even though it is tangentially related.

As for “being attracted to fertility” and whatever…yea that’s not it, chief. Maybe I’m of the group that doesn’t see it that way but I’m 30 and I see someone ~25 and under and I see a child, not someone I should be sexually attracted to. Certainly not someone who I’d actually give that kind of attention to. I’m more than monkey brain, and maybe most people aren’t but we trust them to have jobs and shit so they should be able to handle this, too.

[–] arsCynic@lemmy.ml 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Oh god are you really bringing up a “women do it to” point completely unprompted?

No. Merely stating that women aren't as fragile with a need to be protected as discussion like these often make them seem, e.g., "advancing on her was grooming by default because all people of that age are vulnerable". Seinfeld advanced, Shoshanna consented, and so did the parents. There was no vulnerability being exploited here. If it sounded like whataboutism then I should have phrased it better.

As for “being attracted to fertility” and whatever…yea that’s not it, chief. Maybe I’m of the group that doesn’t see it that way but I’m 30 and I see someone ~25 and under and I see a child, not someone I should be sexually attracted to. Certainly not someone who I’d actually give that kind of attention to. I’m more than monkey brain, and maybe most people aren’t but we trust them to have jobs and shit so they should be able to handle this, too.

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, more people than you'd like have monkey brains. Have you looked at human behaviour in general? In comparison Jerry and Shoshanna having been a thing at their ages is a triviality compared to the actually unethical harmful things we do as a society. And just to be sure, this isn't a whataboutism again, because considering the quote mentioning her parents, there was no harm done.

Anyway, to bring it all back to my main point, it not being unethical doesn't mean everyone should intentionally start dating younger people, but merely that calling Seinfeld a paedophile is an irresponsible and ironically childish unconstructive thing to do. Just like him saying “'Free Palestine' are worse than the Ku Klux Klan”.

[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Think about the number of words you have written on this particular subject. I'm not saying it automatically makes you a weirdo to think so long and hard about this but... I wouldn't want to hang out with you.

[–] arsCynic@lemmy.ml 0 points 14 hours ago

Think about the number of words you have written on this particular subject. I’m not saying it automatically makes you a weirdo to think so long and hard about this but… I wouldn’t want to hang out with you.

If you were falsely accused of rape or murder, would you want a lawyer that analyzes your case long and meticulously or a zero-attention-span illiterate straight from Idiocracy that sifts TikTok's "Ow-My-Ballz" videos all day?

Thinking long and deeply about oftentimes uncomfortable subjects or ethical dilemmas is why becoming a lawyer, doctor, judge, et cetera, is difficult, and accusing a person over the Internet is not. The latter unfortunately requires Brandolini's law to refute: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”