Rät - Penelope Scott

[Verse 1]
I come from scientists and atheists and white men who kill God
They make technology high quality, complex, physiological
Experiments and sacrilege in the name of public good
They taught me everything, just like a daddy should

[Verse 2]
And you were beautiful and vulnerable and power and success
God damn, I fell for you, your flamethrowers, your tunnels, and your tech
I studied code because I wanted to do something great like you
And the real tragedy is half of it was true

[Bridge 1]
But we’ve been fuckin’ mean, we’re elitist, we’re as flawed as any church
And this faux-rad West coast dogma has a higher fuckin’ net worth
I bit the apple ’cause I trusted you
It tastes like Thomas Malthus
Your proposal is immodest and insane
And I hope someday Selmers rides her fuckin’ train

[Chorus]
I loved you, I loved you, I loved you, it’s true
I wanted to be you and do what you do
I lived here, I loved here, I thought it was true
I feel so stupid, and so used
I feel so used

[Verse 3]
I was your baby, your firstborn, the hot girl in your comp-sci class
And I was Darwin’s prep school dream bred born and raised to kick your ass
I fell for circuit boards, rocket ships, pictures of the stars
If you could only be what you pretend you are

[Verse 4]
When I said take me to the moon I never meant take me alone
I thought if mankind toured the sky it meant that all of us could go
But I don’t want to see the stars if they’re just one more piece of land
For us to colonize, for us to turn to sand

[Bridge 2]
‘Cause we’re so fuckin’ mean, we’re so elitist, we’re as fucked as any church
And this bullshit West coast dogma has a higher fuckin’ net worth
I bit the apple ’cause I loved you, and why would you lie?
And then I realized that you’re just as naïve as I am
Oh, you’re so traumatized it makes me want to cry

[Chorus]
You dumb *removed*
I loved you, I loved you, I loved you, it’s true
I wanted to be you and do what you do
I lived here, I loved here, I bought it, it’s true
I’m so embarrassed, I feel abused

[Verse 5]
Well I don’t want to eat the rich, I’d have to eat my heroes first
And my tuition’s paid by blood, I might deserve your fate or worse
But I don’t need your god damn money, I don’t need jack shit from you
So when I speak, you bet your life my words are true

[Verse 6]
Let me level with you man, as someone guilty of the game
I took the help, I took the cash, I would’ve taken your last name
So if any girl on Earth should get to make a call about this, it should be me
And as I see it, you’re a dick

[Bridge 3]
So fuck your tunnels, fuck your cars, fuck your rockets, fuck your cars again
You promised you’d be Tesla, but you’re just another Edison
‘Cause Tesla broke a patent, all you ever broke were hearts
I can’t believe you tore humanity apart
With the very same machines that could have been our brand new start

[Chorus]
And the worst part is
I loved you, I loved you, I loved you, it’s true
And sometimes I feel like I still fuckin’ do
I lived here, I loved here, I bought it, it’s true
I’m so embarrassed, I feel abused
I feel so used
I feel so used
Take me to the moon
‘Cause I feel so used

Lyrics: https://lyricsvin.com/rat-lyrics-penelope-scott/

If only The Big Short ended like this as well. Well done Brazil!

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

“They’re going to say barely legal is not morally nominal.”

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.

😄; well, sir, at least you made me laugh out loud.

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.

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.

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:

“Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a vulnerable person – generally a minor under the age of consent[1][2] – and sometimes the victim’s family,[3] to lower their inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse.” ―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming

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.

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.

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.

Trying to get to someone’s definition before arguing is the opposite of obtuse. Although that does make it sound like Jordan Peterson, yikes.

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.

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. It’s obviously not to be taken lightly with traumatic life-changing consequences when indulged.

In Seinfeld-Lonstein’s case, however, 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.

“I spent Saturday evening at Leonberg. In Lisa [Remppis] I’ve found a person I can love wholeheartedly. Don’t misunderstand me, though. I realize Lisa’s half a child still, and I’m not depriving her of her childishness. I can’t philosophize with her.” ―Hans Scholl, At the Heart of the White Rose: Letters and Diaries of Hans and Sophie Scholl

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. 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. The former belong 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.

still illegal

Apparently it wasn’t:

“The minimum legal age of consent to sex in New York is now and was then 17. They dated for approximately four years, from 1993 to 1997. During the relationship, she transferred from George Washington University to UCLA, in part to be with Seinfeld; she cited constant press coverage and missing New York City as reasons for the relationship ending.” ―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshanna_Lonstein_Gruss

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.

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?

You know who likes to split hairs between liking children, prepubescent teens, and teenagers?

Doctors.

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.

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:

“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.” ―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

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:

“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.” ―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia