Man now I can’t watch Seinfeld anymore? Why people got to do this?
Because some people are jerks who don’t want better people to enjoy life. Especially out of touch billionaires like Seinfeld.
Jerry has been a salty prick ever since people figured out the writers did all the heavy lifting on his show.
probably none to happy that him being a fuckin pedophile became widespread news either.
Oh look everyone. It’s the “airline food” guy who peaked in the 90s. He has a political opinion.
Jerry Seinfeld is a pedophile
Jerry Seinfeld is a pedophile
You don’t say.
Is this why he’s trying to distract us from the Epstein files?
“What’s the deaaal with unfunny, stupid comedians?”
Why do they keep trying to fuzz the terminology?
Zionists and Jews are not the same thing. They have very little in common.
Because they’re dishonest; unfortunately, it’s very effective in shutting down public conversations about what’s happening over there.
“Just say you hate Jews. Just tie me up and say Jews should die. Spank me and call me an evil little Jew. You know you want to.”
“Mr Seinfeld, children are starving.”
So. after WW2 Jewish people can obliterate an entire population just because they were attacked. boohoohoo What if the USA did the same thing in Vietnam, Korea, Afganistan, Iraq, etc? How is starving civilians to death is this fucking right Israel? You are making yourselves the new German Party of 1933. Netanyahu is the new Hitler. He ignores the international community, just like Hitler, kills innocents and does not admit it, just like Hitler. He kills starving children ffs. How low do you want to go Israel before you become what you’ve feared for 80 years? It’s an international disgrace. Even trump is telling you to stop now, I mean WTF dudes?
Not really related but I’m having the weirdest time because I got on FB for the first time in a decade, and learned an old friend has transitioned and looks to be much happier now, so I’m excited, but their feed is FULL of zionist propaganda and it appears her entire identity is wrapped up in this now, so accepting her request would be a time bomb. Fuck, why everything gotta be this way now.
So are you transphobe OR antisemitic? Sorry but you have to pick one
Let me make it simple; You genocide, you lose. So cut off communication if you wish, but first attempt to reason
Good thing I don’t take advice from pedos who “date” 17-year-olds when they’re 39 😃
Removed by mod
let’s not pretend you’re not gonna bang a hot young girl
You probably can’t imagine someone that doesn’t have the same desires you have, but I wouldn’t have sex with a 25 year old kid let alone a 17 y.o. one. Both look like kids to me and present no attraction whatsoever.
You wouldn’t have sex with a 25 year old because, you’re an incel or an asexual & the “Both look like kids to me” part of your statement is concerning. BTW, I’m into MILFs
Maybe you’re not old enough to understand, but once you get older, people start to look very young. That’s why some of us think it’s so gross.
Yeah & as long as they’re consenting adults/above age of consent, I have no business calling them pedos. You missed that part, Mr/Ms False-Accuser
deleted by creator
looks like I hit the nail on his character
if thats really what you think this looks like then your discernment is… unreliable
So a non-answer. What a waste of human potential.
Yes, you certainly are.
Projecting are we (along woth another non-answer), unlike you I’m not a cretin that goes around twisting laws. But hey keep projecting, it’s going to be fun when you’re on the recieving end if such corruptive attitude.
I get to sleep soundly knowing that I am morally bankrupt.
“Projecting are we?”
Wow, lots to unpack here.
-
You can argue about definitions all day if you want, at the end of the day, if your daughter somehow “dated” a 39-year-old, I’m hoping you’d want the guy arrested. The vast majority of people would call it pedophilia, and calling it “tasteless” is a hell of an understatement.
-
“let’s not pretend you’re not gonna bang a hot young girl”. Hell no. Speak for yourself mate. I’m 26 and I would NEVER date an 18-year-old, let alone “date” a 17-year-old when I’m 39.
-
“you’re nowhere to be found when the genders are reversed”. Who are you talking to? Whether a man or a woman has sex with a minor, it’s still statutory rape. I know there are some so-called “press outlets” that word things differently when it’s a woman having sex with a minor, where they use terms like “had sex” instead of “raped”. I think it’s appalling. I’m not part of the crowd you think you’re addressing.
-
“It hasn’t been 5 seconds & the guy responded with his butthurt, looks like I hit the nail on his character” Again, who are you talking to? My first comment is the one where I called Seinfeld a pedo, and this is the second one. I posted my initial comment 6 hours ago and came back 6 hours later to see that I had apparently caused a shitstorm.
I sure wasn’t expecting to see a brigade of strange individuals arguing about the definition of pedophilia. Are you usually this enthusiastic about semantics?
Yes when it comes to laws & due-process. Will you be this enthusiastic when you get a taste of your own amoral-medicine ??
BTW, people are considering calling old men who date 25 y/o women as pedos. So good luck when the goal shifts again. Looks like your “unpacking” skills needs work
First you talk about laws and due process, then you talk about morals. Which is it? I’m not sure which part of what I’ve said is either illegal or immoral/amoral.
Dating a minor is bad, whether legally or morally. Some countries enforce this with no exceptions, while some allow exceptions for people who are close to the same age, like a 17yo dating a 19yo. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I don’t think there are any countries in the West where an actual fully-grown adult is allowed to “date” a minor.
On an individual level, morals are technically malleable and arbitrary, but the law doesn’t (and shouldn’t) give two shits about that. If you think dating minors is perfectly fine, explain that to the judge.
And if you still want to argue about semantics, then sure, maybe in some countries, there’s an age-based difference in legal terminology between “an illegal relationship with a minor” and “pedophilia”, but outside of the legal realm, they’re one and the same. I have no respect for pedos (crazy, right?) and certainly won’t defend them, whether they diddle 9, 12 or 17yo kids.
“people are considering calling old men who date 25 y/o women as pedos” Yeah, and “people” are saying Hillary Clinton is a lizard. “People” say Paul McCartney was replaced by a clone. “People” say all kinds of shit. “People” is no one and everyone at the same time. You can make “people” say anything.
At the end of the day, a 25-year-old is an adult, and therefore cannot be a victim of pedophilia. Therefore, old men who date 25-year-olds are supercreeps, but not pedos. I’m not defending them, I’m only saying that you can’t put an old guy in jail for dating a 25-year-old, simply because no matter how reprehensible you think their relationship is, they’re both adults in the eyes of the law. The guy is still a creep though.
What is there to argue about? Who are you defending exactly? And what makes my reasoning so “amoral”?
“when you get a taste of your own amoral-medicine” “when the goal shifts again” I’m pretty sure my aversion to dating immorally young people will protect me from any slippery slopes and moving goalposts in the future.
-
17 is old enough to decide you want to fuck somebody, for sure. hell, the age of consent across most of europe is 16 iirc…
there’s a world of difference between drugging a/o raping woman/children, eastein and our pedo in chief, and choosing to fuck some guy for his $
(jerry still a piece of self-centered, self-serving piece of shit to be clear…i’m just still in the camp that words have meaning)
Would you look at that, the mods deleted my comments, because they had no way of countering logic.
Inciting dangerous acts of false allegations & calling it moral is not a can of worms you lot wanna open.
pedos who “date” 17-year-olds
Stop watering down the term. Yucky? Sure. Pedophile? No.
Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.
Emphasis mine. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia.
He’s a type A fucking creep and a pederast if you want to get technical about it.
A little further down:
In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, including any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent or age of adulthood, regardless of their level of physical or mental development.
I quoted the psychiatric definition on purpose.
The general population has a tendency of diluting medical, mostly psychiatric, terms, either rendering them meaningless (see people describing themselves as having OCD because they are quirky) or even turning them into slurs (see various names for intellectual disabilities, like “imbecile”, “idiot” and so on).
I have an issue with that specifically. I replied to someone else why stretching the age from “prepubescent” to “below the legal age of consent” (hell, some poster even suggested “below the legal age of majority even if the legal age of consent is lower”) bugs me.
So basically below 16
Yes, and due to usage, “literally” now means “figuratively”, effectively diluting the word and making it useless. Plenty of us aren’t pedophiles but rather pedants and autists who just want to see things be said correctly and clearly. By the new definition, an 18yo having sex with a 17yo would be a pedophile too, but does that really seem accurate?
If we start exaggerating everything then soon we will be as bad as the other side that does it for literally everything as well(am I being serious or hyperbolic with my use of “literally” here? See how it’s unclear?)
Again, tiring to have to say this, but I don’t support pedophiles. I just support clear, accurate language. Call it the horrible thing it is, but call it the right thing. Be accurate in your insults lest you just become “the boy who cried wolf”. Use the word too carelessly and it loses its deservedly negative meaning.
Edit: For example, it would be better to call Jerry a “gross, sleazy pervert who preys on emotionally immature/vulnerable girls to take advantage of them”. You can be plenty insulting, descriptive, AND accurate. “Pervert” was already right there and definitely doesn’t have a positive meaning.
Second Edit: also, “local age of consent” means that in some places where the age is lower, say 13/14, it’s NOT pedophilia by the new definition even if the person had delayed puberty. So some actual pedophilia wouldn’t even be pedophilia with the new definition. It’s an appeal to authority rather than science.
The nature of language is to change over time. Help yourself to internalize that and a lot of these things may become less stressful.
Your attempt to use a non-inflammatory example doesn’t really work: “literally” has meant “exaggeratedly” for at least the past 200 years (likely more, it’s just been used extensively with that meaning for 200y).
If you try to demand that language have strict meaning, it’s just not going to work. Watch:
girls
What’s the definition of “girl”? Do they need to be prepubescent? Pre-postpubescent? Or are you using it in the (gasp, shock) sloppy sense of “a girl or a woman”? You’ve fallen into the exact same pitfall that you were complaining about.
The resolution isn’t to claim that all words have an absolute meaning, but to understand that human language is fluid and extraordinarily context-sensitive.
Cool so if anything can mean whatever we want then you’re a cantaloupe. I just redefined the word to mean people like you. I’m not wrong, language evolves!
Yeah, we can play these stupid games, but we just become dumber in the process.
Creep, pervert, degenerate, abuser… The words are there. We don’t need to co-opt another. All you’ll do is speed up the euphemism treadmill. Once pedophile is meaningless, you’ll have to come up with a whole new word to describe it and just start the process over again. But sure, have fun reinventing words that already exist because your vocabulary is so diminutive that you lack other coherent verbiage to describe how you feel.
Also, don’t we deride the other side for spouting rhetoric to twist things to meet the definitions they want? So why is it ok for us to do the same? This is just the clown meme. You’re following their exact playbook while wearing a red nose and poofy hair and claiming you’re somehow different and superior.
Nah, you’re just a bunch of gaggling morons too. Imbeciles. Mouth breathers. Mentally deficient. See how language can be fun? Look at all these insults I have available to me and not once did I resort to calling you something like a “dragon fucker” just to sound outlandish. I used accurate descriptions of your lack of mental ability and reasoning skills.
Maybe try that?
We are dealing with morally & ethically bankrupt people who want to throw away the rule of law. What do you expect from these cretins ?
I guess we’ll have to wait until someone pedo-smears them. Which is disgusting. But you try explaining that to these non-humans.
Pot of crabs… were just a giant pot of crabs pulling each other back in.
deleted by creator
Man didnt read the entire wikipedia or conveniently forgot that 17 is still considered a child in the US
Man “conveniently” referred to the psychiatric definition. Because the “sexual attraction to a person below the legal age of consent” definition is
a) harmful to victims of actual child sexual abuse (in my opinion);
b) geographically-dependent. In Europe the age of consent is 16, for example. According to the other posters, there are states in the US where it is lower than 18.Depends on the state. 18 is age of consent in California, most movies and TV come from California, so 18 is the age everyone thinks of. So a guy can be a pedophile for wanting to have sex with 16 year olds in one state, cross state lines, and suddenly be perfectly legal.
It is federal law that you are a minor until you hit 18 The age of consent in each state has absolutely no bearing on if you are a minor or not.
True. So he’d be Schrodinger’s pedo depending on whether it’s federal or state law.
30 states have an unrestricted age of consent at 16. Only 7 have it at 17 and 13 have it at 18.
Maybe educate yourself before calling someone out with something blatantly proven wrong.
And in the united states by federal law a minor is anyone under the age of 18.
The fact youre really arguing about age of consent being relevant here is super creepy.
You sure youre not diddling a child?
I literally read the Wikipedia article you chastised the other person for not reading. I’m sorry if facts offend you.
Eat shit troll. When the right does this it’s “propaganda and reprehensible” but when you do it it’s “justified by the ends”. You’re no better than them spouting bullshit to fit your narrative regardless of facts.
Maybe reread my comments - I can Jerry Seinfeld a disgusting pervert who takes advantage of emotionally immature and vulnerable girls. Notice how I call him out for being a piece of shit and don’t lie at the same time? It’s possible.
Learn more words you retard. Don’t be mad at others because their vocabulary is better than yours and they can express themselves more eloquently than your backwards ass.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minor
You seem angry and like you cant read
Whats the deal with girlfriends? You pick them up from school, and all they talk about is homework, and who’s going to the school dance! Don’t girlfriends know people who oppose genocide are worse then the KKK?
actually if its not from the pedophile region, otherwise it’s just sparkling child abuse
you and that other weirdo in this thread really need to check yourselves
you and that other weirdo
Ad hominem. How refreshing. Yawns. You’ll get right along with that
.blahaj.zoneguy/gal/NB-person in the replies.actually if its not from the pedophile region, otherwise it’s just sparkling child abuse
What is a “pedophile region”, anyway? Epstein’s Island? And what’s with that “otherwise”? Are you saying that pedophilia in “pedophile regions” is NOT child abuse? You should work on articulating your thoughts better, it’s challenging to understand what you’re trying to say.
deleted by creator
Wow a morally & ethically-sound person on lemmy that respects the rule of law.
You are a rarity, sir/madam
This guy needs rotten tomatoes thrown at him everywhere
If anything good has come of this Israel-Palestine conflict thing, it has been exposing idiots.
But the infestation is bad, so widespread. It’s like moving your fridge and there are thousands of roaches under it.
Specifically pretend-progressive idiots, for whom progess is great when it’s for their approved groups.
Idk, I never would have learned about all the “nuances” within the far right about this issue if not for what happened to Charlie Kirk. It’s not just a pretend-progressive idiot thing. Idiots across the political spectrum have done some very interesting mental gymnastics over this conflict.
Charlie Kirk made some clearly antisemitic statements during his career, but he also fully supported Israel in this conflict. That is fucking dumb, but also sounds pretty on point considering Trump supports Israel in this conflict, yet refused to admonish his neo nazi supporters who were caught on camera during rallies doing sieg heils before his first term. Or his supports that marched with torches chanting “Jews will not replace us.” Not to mention some dude on Ketamine who hopped on stage during his second inauguration to do a few more sieg heils just to really rub it in.
Apparently the shooter was a fan of Nick Fuentes. Fuentes hated Charlie Kirk bc he believed he was “too moderate” in his far right views. Ok…
Nick Fuentes is apparently a Holocaust denier and has called for the death of jews in a holy war. He is very upfront and honest about his antisemitism. I guess this makes Fuentes the kind of guy Jerry Seinfeld apparently prefers as opposed to anyone who might otherwise just simply disagree with him about Palestine.
Nick Fuentes also called Charlie Kirk a hypocrite for claiming to be a Christian while supporting genocide and murder of hundreds of people on a daily basis.
I can’t argue with him on that particular statement. However, it also seems just a bit hypocritical to be an antisemite calling for the death of jews, while claiming to worship a jew who sacrificed himself for the sins of the world, and only asked in return that you love your God as the creator of all things and love your neighbor as yourself.
I always found weird the position some far right people take that
- The Nazis didn’t genocide the Jews
- The Jews should be genocided
Why bother defending 1 if you believe 2?
Probably bc if you claim 1 didn’t really happen, it makes it a lot easier to downplay all the steps that had to happen to reach 2. That way when somebody calls you out for starting down that same road again, you can claim they’re trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Once it’s just normal for one group to be treated as if they’re deserving of less than any other human, nothing is really a big deal.
It’s not like one day there was no genocide, everything was peachy, then suddenly 6 million people were gone. It was a long road that began with normalizing attitudes, then legalizing discrimination, and eventually stripping away an entire group’s perceived humanity along with their rights.
I know some people claim they believe empathy is a made up new age concept, but it’s actually a tool humans have relied on for millions of years, even before they had a name for it. It’s that part of you that says this feels wrong. That feeling should drive you to act, or at least say something because you can recognize how it would feel if it was happening to me instead of them.
It’s can be ignored, but it’s what’s supposed to keep this from happening over and over again, unless individuals within a broader dominant group are allowed to normalize the idea that we’re us and that other group is them, so just ignore that feeling. Eventually this normalizes the narrative they are a danger to us. Inevitably it becomes anyone who doesn’t see that we had no other choice but to do what we did, just doesn’t understand or is refusing to acknowledge what they are really like. They’re not like us. Except in all the ways that they are.
I could understand if 1 was the public position while 2 was the one you speak only among like-minded folk. Then 1 serves as something that makes nazism and other far right ideologies more palatable. Is it the case for Nick Fuentes? I don’t know enough about him.
I don’t know much about Nick Fuentes either, other than what I already said (and that thing with that lady knocking on his door and him tazing her), but I don’t think 2 has to be the ultimate goal to believe one. That’s just where stripping away humanity (regardless of original intention) can always lead.
Like individuals have their own experiences and biases that lead them to beliefs, but when the bias of individuals starts being turned into policy and law, it means that a larger group is now helping to carry out those actions against others.
Think about it like joining the army and being sent to a war even if you don’t agree with your reasons for being there. There are some people that join the army bc they want to fight and kill, but I’ve known a lot of genuinely good people that joined the army at 18 bc they felt like that was their only option at the time, or bc they really thought they could help people by joining.
Not everyone that joins even sees combat, but some people are haunted by the things they end up having to do to complete the orders they’re given during combat. Even if its justified or they believe it was necessary to protect themselves.
Once you have a policy or command in place, you’ve gone from whatever the beliefs of a few people might have been, based on their own interactions and experiences, passed on to people below them in the chain of command being given as orders and carried out.
That’s usually how genocide works. The individuals creating the policy, giving the orders, or spreading propaganda aren’t usually the ones getting their own hands dirty by killing large numbers of people. That disconnect is usually what allows personal beliefs to turn into atrocities.
Ex: Stephen Miller is obviously a complete piece of shit. He can get on TV and spout a bunch of hateful propaganda, but would his lame ass ever be out physically detaining people? Hell no.
Yet he feels comfortable being the one to dramatically scream about needing higher quotas and threaten anyone that questions his policies (and even in his case, I suspect his biggest motivation is the money to be made off of this operation moreso than any actual strong ideology).
That’s a nice summary of some of the mental gymnastics going on!
Seinfeld is a known conservative. Has never been known as a progressive.
Also “dated” a 17 year old.
“By saying ‘Free Palestine,’ you’re not admitting what you really think,” said Seinfeld, who publicly embraces his Jewish heritage and has pushed back against critics of Israel.
“Just say you don’t like Jews,” he said in reference to the movement, before comparing its supporters to members of the KKK.
In that spirit, Jerry, maybe you should say what YOU really think. You’re a genocide apologist. Embrace it, instead of putting words in other peoples mouths.
Probably he also doesn’t like black people.
If true, that would be grotesquely funny
Nah, just have him say what he thinks about Palestinians and muslims. The rest follows.
Says guy who never had to deal with the KKK.
This really calls attention to his overdeveloped sense of victimhood.
He needs another reason to whinge about being canceled.
Well, the KKK has never burned a cross on his lawn but the Free Palestine movement made him feel bad.
Weirdly, it is actually true that both the KKK and Hamas have bought support in their communities by doing good public works for people. It’s not what they are best known for, but I don’t think shadow organizations survive for long without building some support somehow.
Not really that weird? Basically every organization does this or is immediately unsuccessful. The only exception is companies under a government that’s stable enough to carry water for them.
This doesn’t mean that the organizations are a net benefit.
their “shadow support” that you can’t figure out is hate. Usually hate from religion. KKK are ALL christians, and use their religion to justify their hate. Hamas are ALL muslims, and use their religion to justify their hate. Israelis are ALL jews, and use their religion to justify their hate.
Religions openly hate each other. They all have lived under the motto: There can only be one god(s), only one of us can be right. (even though some lie about that, too). They fight religious wars that last for thousands of years, and that’s how they look at you. A pawn so small that you can’t ever fit into a 1/10th of their next thousand year plan.
That damn people’s front of Judea! Bunch of mindless zealots. Not like us in the Judea’s Peoples front!
We didn’t need two paragraphs to tell us religion has been divisive throughout history. However let’s not oversimplify. The black people terrorized by the KKK were also Christians. Fateh were also Muslims so Hamas didn’t steal their popular support just by being the right religion. Religion is a thing. Not the one and only thing going on.
He’s always come off as a smug arrogant douche and he doesn’t change this first impression the more he opens his mouth,
