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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.”