MY VITRIOLIC DISCOURSE.

Aside from proving that the left’s Race-Card Legionnaires were in fact a very real political force, the 2012 election also exemplified how some of the nation’s biggest race-baiters and apologists enjoy learning new words.  When race gets brought up on the more popular news outlets (which is just once in awhile for most of the channels really, and every five seconds on MSNBC), you can barely blink without hearing some idiot talk about “discourse” and how we need to have more of it with regard to race.  Usually it goes something like “with all of this vitriol from the Tea Party, we are seeing why we need to cultivate national-level discourse on race in America”.

“Vitriol”– that’s another one.  I called someone out on Facebook once about her use of the word “vitriol” and she claimed she was well aware of the word and knew of it/used it long before the rise and triumph of President Obama (If I recall, she used the word after one of the Obama-Romney debates…whatev, doesn’t matter).  The point is that she was completely bullshitting.  No one uses the word “vitriol” regularly.  Why?  Because the word is for assholes.  That’s why.  It doesn’t take a genius to learn and use words that fall outside of our more colloquial, traditional lexicon but come on now…who are you trying to impress?  You can be intelligent without trying even harder to sound intelligent.

But let’s get back on discourse here.

My question is, naturally, when the HELL has “discourse” ever been a welcome addition to the topic of race in America?  If you fall on the side of the argument where race-carders often lie– big government rocks, Obama is the greatest, white privilege is the root of every problem ever experienced by minorities, “opportunity” is quantifiable and thus affirmative action is just dandy, cops are racist, their dogs are racist, minimum wage is racist, the fact that your wallpaper is white is racist– you are typically one in a group of people that so often call for “discourse”.  However you’re never very interested in what someone has to say if any of those words refute you.  Funny.

I looked up “discourse” today, and it basically sums it up as an interchange of ideas in a rational way.  I’ll ignore the “rational” part in my own words here even though I consider much of today’s talk about racism entirely irrational.

It fails to be “discourse” when a bunch of people who all agree with each other anyway sit around agreeing with each other even more.  If discourse was the goal, a man like Dr. Ben Carson wouldn’t be vilified so harshly by people who disagree with him.  He wouldn’t be called an Uncle Tom any time a speech or interview of his makes national news.  When Stacey Dash endorsed Mitt Romney, she wouldn’t have been verbally attacked on Twitter like she was.  The desire is not for national-level discourse on race, rather, it’s for people to continue perpetuating the many ways in which we morph what is in essence mythology into “race problems”; veiled excuses for issues with completely different causes.  That is not me stating that racism is a myth, rather, the ways in which we frame racism and debate its influence is incredibly inaccurate, if not infantile.  What good is discourse on race (and racism) when the average American’s definition of racism is so petty and minute?

Further, what good is discourse when those calling for it truly do not give two damns about what your opinion is?  You consider welfare a program that targets Americans based on race (and their income), an overall detriment to the lower class’ desire to move up on the social ladder and improve their lives?  That’s racist, shut up.  You think that Trayvon Martin could have possibly been an aggressor after being confronted by George Zimmerman, even though he was just a young black boy that wanted Skittles?!  That’s racist, shut up.  You think that Americans– get this– should produce some kind of identification when voting for elected officials!?  Racist, shut up.

Last week when Alan Grayson of Florida sent out an e-mail likening the Tea Party to the KKK, I just happened to be skimming through some channels on TV (still haven’t learned what’s what after 3+ months of having Fios, by the way).  I flipped to MSNBC and though I didn’t catch the beginning of the segment, just about everyone that spoke about this BS– from a sitting Congressman no less– explained that despite it being in poor taste it served the purpose to…ready yourself for it… cultivate discourse on race.  Jesus Christ, it never ends.

Note that I tried to find this particular segment via YouTube, but had no luck– apparently even the trolls that scan media all day long finding clips to cause a stir considered this conversation irrelevant.

The Grayson example is akin to the rape hoaxes we hear about coming out of our colleges every couple of months.  The “victims” all eventually either come clean, or get outed as completely fabricating their stories and what do the school administrations do?  They shut down classes for a day’s long vigil to foster an environment conducive to peace, understanding, and cultivate discourse about rape, abuse, and sexual assault.  Though punishment does get handed out to the perpetrators of such hoaxes once in awhile, quite often they become mini campus-celebrities– seen as leading the charge to raising awareness and bringing about change.  Great job.  Because what we really need is for people who might have actually been raped is the need to consider their credibility before we provide them with help.

So really in essence this is what we see when people claim that something like the Tea Party is racist– evidence, facts…none of that shit matters.  Who cares about truth so long as it brings about discussion about race?  Oh, but by discussion, what’s really meant is “we talk, and you just agree or shut up”.  Those are your options in THE discourse on race.  And then after the discourse is complete, we’re going up through the quad…and to the gymnasium…for a candle light vigil.  Everybody’s doing it!

Stop saying you want “discourse”.  You stopped wanted discourse a long time ago.  MLK called for discourse–what you want is Al Sharpton discourse, which isn’t “discourse” at all and it never has been.

Stop saying “vitriol”.  Congrats, you also learned how to make it an adjective by claiming things are “vitriolic”.

You’re still a prick.