What in the actual fuck? I cannot believe that was written in an actual newspaper that uses actual reporters.
Of course, I’m pretty sure the “conventional views” people are going to be freaked out that we let the blacks, Chinese, and even the Irish ride in the same subway cars with the white women.
Opinion columnists aren’t “actual reporters”. Fuck, I thought initially it was in the Moonie Times, but these entrenched scumbags will never get fired in establishment media either.
JFC, the WaPo has no shame.
Maybe it’s just a ham-fisted way of saying that he finds them sexy.
Cohen’s describing the so-called “conventional views” of the GOP’s conservative base. I didn’t necessarily read this as his personal view. But given his odd way of saying things, I can understand how this would be taken that way.
He’s an honest writer, you can say that much for sure…
Further proof that whatever follows the lede “I’m not a racist, but…” will invariably be chock-full of ignorant bullshit.
The author and some of the commenters to this piece need to re-read what Cohen wrote. Take your time and read for comprehension. He was talking about “conventional conservatives.”
I wonder if there is a pill for knee-jerking…
I take the same thing from it, but doesn’t that mean he’s calling the conservative base racist?
For those outraged (as I was): Please go read the entire piece before reacting. That’s not the writer’s view of interracial marriage, he’s describing an ideal expoused by some cultural conservatives. It probably could have been written better.
GET RID OF HIM! We have not time for these racist pricks.
Rupert Murdoch and many other conservatives are in interracial marriages. Who are these people with “conventional” views to whom he refers?
@dsquid @drengy The ‘mistake’ he made was letting his personal bias leak into his assumptions about conservatives. He doesn’t say that it’s the view of someone with a conservative mindset, but that of someone with a ‘conventional’ mindset. Although the wider context is about conservatives.
Maybe using the word ‘conventional’ was a slip of the tongue, but only in the same way as when someone describes a homosexual as abnormal.
The above of course isn’t quite the attention grabbing headline that sparked this thread - but it still sounds pretty iffy.
Well, it’s not like he’s dissing an actual inter-racial marriage. Last time I checked, both De Blasio and his wife were humans.
How can it be inter-racial if it’s the same species: it’s not like we’re talking rishathra here. . .
I’m sorry, but I don’t read it that way. He writes like a slightly less wind-baggy David Brooks, but clearly he’s not saying that racism is OK. He’s kind of making fun of rubes. Rightly so.
(That would be inter-species)
Yeah, I would have to read some of his other columns before casting a judgement on his personal opinions. He may or may not be racist, but I don’t think this was the best example as he was pretty clearly describing the GOP base and doing so in a condescending way.
Yes, it’s fairly clear that this is not Cohen’s view, but rather what Cohen thinks people with “conventional views” think. It does seem more of an indictment, however, about what Cohen thinks the rest of the country’s values are, and how out of touch he may be with prevailing national opinions. (That is, is he suggesting that animus toward intermarriage is mainstream? Maybe in some parts of the country, but I wouldn’t call it “conventional” to be racist anymore.)
And I maintain that it’s not an inter-racial marriage. They are both members of the human race. Now, if you want to consider the social construct of “race” based on some gross physical similarities, but have not as yet reached speciation, that’s an entirely different question. . .
I’m confused. Or maybe you are? Maybe we both are…