698
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
698 points (95.7% liked)
politics
25612 readers
3475 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
Jerry Seinfeld is also a pedophile: https://www.thedailybeast.com/jerry-seinfelds-17-year-old-girlfriend-saga-resurfaces-after-duke-walkout/
While Jerry's statement "'Free Palestine' are worse than the Ku Klux Klan" is absolutely moronic, he is not attracted to prepubescent children:
There's actually a separate word for people who prey on teenagers, if you want to be precise. I don't remember what it is. I'm not up to date on my varieties of sex offender and I don't want to put that in my search history.
still illegal
Unfortunately a majority(? cba counting) of states have age of consent below 18, New York, where this happened based on the snopes article someone else linked, is 17. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_the_United_States
Apparently it wasn't:
I don't understand why people feel the need to call others things they're not and simultaneously want to be taken seriously in a debate. If words have no meaning then what's the point? Jerry Seinfeld strikes me as a pretentious greedy immoral douchebag and his comparison with the KKK can stand on its own as a proper reason for ridicule.
While agree that words should have meanings, he definitely still was nearly 40 and apparently preferring the company of a 17 year old. Not a pedo by the evidence presented, ok, but that ice is thin.
The term is "sleazebag" or "pederast" if you want to get technical
That's not thin ice. Paedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children, i.e., below the age of 13. Here's where the ice is at its thinnest to diagnose someone as a paedophile, while ethically one is already submerged of course, when acted upon. It's obviously not to be taken lightly with traumatic life-changing consequences when indulged. This is why it's important to not throw terms around ignoring their meaning. People who actually are born with this condition should find ways to get psychological help to prevent it manifesting into reality. Irresponsibly throwing reputation destroying terms around causes people not to communicate, to suppress, and in the worst cases to satisfy their urges in secret which in turn increases the most wicked forms of suffering.
The aforementioned conditions are not at all present in Seinfeld-Lonstein's case, where context matters. Here's a quote from a book I'm reading which is an apt litmus test to decide if any relationship is weird or not.
Judging from the sources I've read Shoshanna and Jerry were able to talk to each other without one manipulating the other. While it's statistically more unlikely considering their indeed unusual age gap, it does happen. They had a relationship for four years, so clearly it seems she was fine with it. Conversely, I've seen people in their thirties talk to each other where one was clearly dumbing themself down when talking to their significant other, which seemed quite weird.
TL;DR: there's a night and day difference between actual indulging paedophiles who cause human trafficking and unimaginable suffering/death, and haphazardly being attracted to someone in their late adolescence. Conflating the two does the victims and the justice system a disservice. The former belongs to the most horrible forms of human depravity, while the latter, well, doesn't. If one needs to manipulate another to form a connection, then it is ethically wrong regardless of age.
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. 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.”