Why are most of the artists in the USA democrats?

[fash]

Some ableist slurs being thrown around here. Check your neurotypical privilege.

[Telin]

This thread went off the rails. The are surely many reasons for this, but the simplest I can think of is...

A liberal, for better or worse, is more sensitive to their emotions. Successful artists can use these lingering feelings and express them in creative ways. Liberals are also more likely to push social boundaries in order to stand out from their competition. Thus the most successful artists tend to be liberal.

[Rader]

Originally Posted by Telin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This thread went off the rails. The are surely many reasons for this, but the simplest I can think of is...

A liberal, for better or worse, is more sensitive to their emotions. Successful artists can use these lingering feelings and express them in creative ways. Liberals are also more likely to push social boundaries in order to stand out from their competition. Thus the most successful artists tend to be liberal.

Nah, a more accurate assessment is, libturds can't compete in a capitalist society and need to search for some oddball way of working around that, so they become actors or journalists or professors of gender studies or a community organizer or some other useless endeavor.

[hyejin]

Originally Posted by Telin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A liberal, for better or worse, is more sensitive to their emotions.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[mickmoranis]

welcome back lor the threads were getting boring yesterday w/o u

[loramin]

So there's two possibilities here. Honestly I think there's a little truth to both of them, but I think you're only even thinking about one.

Possibility #1: As social groups grow, they lose control of their original goals

Possibility #2: As people in society without power fight to gain equality (ie. more power), the people with the power feel threatened, and do everything they can to discredit, disparage, demean, and flat out lie about the people trying to take their power from them. This includes the white/straight/protestant/older/male Fox News crowd discrediting any social movement of people not like them (eg. BLM).

[mickmoranis]

number 1 is true, number 2 is the fallacy that people that dont want number 1 to be true tell themselves to rationalize being a libtard. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[loramin]

So you're saying historically right-wing groups and media didn't attack and discredit the gay rights movement, Rodney King, women wanting the right to vote, African-Americans not having to take literacy tests, etc.?

There's FUD about African-Americans being sub-human going back to before America was even discovered. None of this is new.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you're saying historically right-wing groups and media didn't attack and discredit the gay rights movement, Rodney King, women wanting the right to vote, African-Americans not having to take literacy tests, etc.?

There's FUD about African-Americans being sub-human going back to before America was even discovered. None of this is new.

quick reply on the go...

Whatever you;'re talking about here isnt a part of regular society but small pockets of people who you chose t listen to.

They also failed at protecting their precious beliefs that you think are so harmful, because we've managed to make both women and minorities equal in modern society.

Most of the things you think are racist are the result of other factors, you just choose to look at the surface of the problems, meaning skin color and then assuming that is the culprit.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you just choose to look at the surface of the problems, meaning skin color and then assuming that is the culprit.

Nope, quite to the contrary I agree that a lot of the problems some minorities face are a direct result of their social class, not their skin color (although of course how people react to that skin color and how that minority came to be poor are both related to their historical disadvantage ...).

In fact, you may have noticed that in my "treatise" on how we solve race problems one of my central points was that we should target lower social classes for help, with the assumption being that since minorities are disproportionately poor, if you help the poor you wind up helping more minorities than white people. Forget about (for instance) affirmative action based on race: if you give poor kids in general an advantage over rich kids, you effectively give an advantage to minorities (or at least the poorer ones that really need it).

But at the same time, there are some legitimate color issues. Cops don't just pull over, frame, beat, etc. poor people, they target blacks and Latinos (and this has been proven empirically: eg. Boston police target blacks disproportionately) . No matter how rich you are (and there have been examples of black senators, businessmen, etc. facing this) cops treat you different based on the color of your skin. This is the sort of thing we can only combat by using one of the other key points in my treatise, the one about changing how African-Americans are represented in TV and other pop culture so that cops (who are only human and watch the same TV as the rest of us) won't see/treat minorities differently.