Affirmative Reaction

March 17, 2017

View as Single Page
Affirmative Reaction

In a 2015 interview with Playboy’s David Hochman, Vince Vaughn had the scrotal fortitude to go where few in Tinseltown have gone before when asked his thoughts regarding affirmative action:

DH: So you’re not a fan of affirmative action?

VV: I’ll answer that with a question. Do you believe that using race as a factor in evaluating a person is a good way to operate?

DH: The idea is that those who have been at a disadvantage because of race deserve a leg up when it comes to landing opportunities.

VV: But then you’re evaluating someone based on race, which is racism. Rights don’t come to you because you’re a man or a woman or African American or European or Jewish. And I certainly don’t think the federal government should be in the business of deciding things or handing out money based on factors like these.

This atypical truth-telling is what I like to call “Affirmative Reaction.” It occurs when a freethinking individual makes a compelling fact-based argument, in turn triggering leftist subversives by highlighting their innate hypocrisy.

“In the end, everyone inside and outside the border wall, save for the few old PC authoritarians with an agenda, loses.”

Suffice it to say, this level of common sense sent shock waves across Hollywood, a socialist cesspool so out of touch that it thinks Tyler Perry, Twelve Years a Slave, Roots, The Birth of a Nation, and Dear White People are helping to push the culture forward. Vaughn’s mere understanding that the Democrat Media Complex’s obsession with identity politics and radical PC egalitarianism is regressive (after all, wasn’t it Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to live in a merit-based nation where his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”?), not “progressive,” was simply too much to bear for many in La La Land, a philosophy surely only a “rich white man…jerk…doofus” could subscribe to.

There is no irony left, ironically, on the left. For McCarthyites locked into their Scientology-esque prison of belief, a mirrorless house of moose excrement that never shuts up about how those who don’t fall into complete lockstep with their communist groupthink are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” self-awareness and logic are the true enemies. In hyper-postmodern Hollywood, collective cognitive dissonance has become truly endemic to a Marxist culture that celebrates borderline personality disorder.

Consider Hollywood’s endless love affair with “diversity,” a totalitarian catchall that believes only nonheterosexual white males (vocal self-hating white beta males are the only exception) should be granted inclusion:

Diversity is nowadays defined broadly by…underrepresented demographics—chiefly minorities, women and LGBT individuals.

Hollywood liberal globalists have developed their own not-at-all-clever but most definitely divisive method of categorizing these “minorities, women and LGBT individuals” in television writing rooms by referring to them as “diversity hires” (or, as the wolf executives in sheep’s clothing call them behind closed doors, “two-for-ones”):

[A] diversity hire is a minority scribe who occupies a staff-writer position that is fully network-subsidized. Showrunners are thus incentivized to take on an unfamiliar face since his or her salary isn’t coming out of the show’s budget. There’s no limit to the number of times a writer can be the diversity hire, provided he or she is fine with staying at entry-level pay.

Having constructed their very own “Diversity Wall” (like I said, zero irony), Hollywood liberals believe they are killing two birds with one stone. Not only are they able to virtue-signal to their peers by preventing pesky white “hetero” men from crossing the industry border, but they can ensure that their diversity hire pets never step out of line with insane ideas such as advancing beyond “entry-level pay”:

Like college scholarships for minorities, [this wall is] all about removing as many barriers to entry as possible, including financial ones. But with every good intention can come inadvertent side effects, from writers of color who are perceived as less qualified to the subsidization of first-season salaries that can lead to a “freebie” mentality among showrunners toward those scribes.