Why are artists more liberal? Is it because we tend to be more open minded?

no, it's because the funding for your little make believe games that you call a product come from liberals

conservatives prefer tangible goods for their money

You'd make a good point if video games could ever be considered "art".

Yes why is it that the artists that liberal academics canonize tend to be more liberal?

>Conservatives only like the art they can immediately understand.

But what if i do take the time to understand, as i have done on many occasions and come to the conclusion its inferior to older works of art/ its just plain shit and decadent?

am i just uncultured and close-minded then? am i only ope-mindeed when i accept something and think and tell everyone its the best thing since sliced bread?

Eric Rohmer, John Ford, Howard Hawks, and Alfred Hitchcock were all very conservative and were still appreciated by their liberal contemporaries. The French New Wave, made up of some of the most liberal and immoral people who ever lived (save Rohmer) adored the aforementioned directors and championed their work.

The "artists and academics being liberals meme" pretty much is a meme. There's much more intellectual diversity and tolerance than most people generally perceive there to be.

They're idealists not realists a lot of the time

conservatives are boring thats why

Because edgy shit sells and plebs have the time to spend money.

>come to the conclusion its inferior to older works of art/ its just plain shit and decadent?
So you have an opinion? Aren't you special.

>conservative
They were less conservative than modern conservatives. At least in their films.

>John Ford
Yeah, remember Stagecoach? When the worst guy is an evil banker and the good guys are a whore and an outlaw?

>le "vidya"
>art

good one

>Alfred Hitchcock
He loved some gay subtext.

because only the very best make anything of value so the rest are bums or work at starbucks

Art isn't substantial and is purely optional. Society needs crops for food. Society needs doctors for medicine. Society needs Engineers to build better shit to sustain society.

But society doesn't need an artist. If push comes to shove, we'll just be depressed and not entertained, but we'll survive.

Remember Schindler's List? That guy who played the violin for a living and that other guy told him to say he was a factory worker? There's a reason for that.

Because artists are a luxury.

It's only natural. Even Griffith made Broken Blossoms.

I was wondering the same thing

But the thing is conservatives don't really want change, films are more interesting when they explore issues out of the general collectives experiences, which is mostly what conservatives are. There are many films that contain conservative values if not indirectly, armond white is a great read if you want to understand films from that perspective.

Just because the directors or actors are liberal doesn't mean the film mostly gives liberal values.

Outsiders are more interesting to watch, and are intrinsically different than the majority. A bigger deal to watch one man face against the values and judgment of a whole society than to watch a group treat the few like scum

yeah its my opinion but how does it make your point any less of an opinion?

as this user pointed out, many conservative thinkers have existed and continue to exist, in the arts and being creative souls.

I myself like to draw and write short stories yet id probably be considerd a facicst with some of my thinking.

Also if anyone whole heartedly belives such nonsense that conservatives cannot be creative/humourous/cultural then your an elitest and uneducated on the matter.

Anyone with half a brain knows that most very established artistic communities deliberatlly push this narrative by letting left-minded people thrive in there work and activly quell any (known) right-minded person to obsurity.

this

>as this user
And this user is mostly wrong.

conservatives are stupid and lack any creativity
have you ever been to /pol?

>yet id probably be considerd a facicst with some of my thinking.
You obviously care a lot about your image if you can't risk even looking like a fascist. Whatever point you're making is bullshit.

>because only the very best make anything of value so the rest are bums or work at starbucks

This.

Because 99.9% of you artist fags are poor as shit and need yo gubment cheeze.

>we
Stop it, user

Before it's all mashed into a soulless child's toy for delusional man babies; the concept drawings, musical scores, vocal performances, and character designs could be considered art.

/thread

> be "artist"
> can't get real job
> play tourist spots for "donations"

I wonder why artists love the welfare party?

This is accurate. And generally speaking, the less progressive-minded the artist, the more insipid and contrived their work tends to be.

You cant even fucking read

>Because 99.9% of you artist fags are poor as shit and need yo gubment cheeze.

Being an artist is like trying to be a pro athlete.

Very few make it.

Most of them just end up as washed up junkies watching life pass them by.

post your art and I'll pretend it improved my quality of life

Why are more conservatives wealthy business owners? Is it because they're harder workers?

This. Musicians & artists probably have the highest failure rates of any industry.

probably suicide rates also...

Easy. Do you know any artists? Or aspiring artists?

They are broke as shit & depend on hand outs. Of course they're democrats.

And higher usage of drugs

I also have no evidence of this but it's probably safe to say liberals have a higher rate of contracting sexual transmitted diseases like AIDS and herpes

Your not particularly giving any reasoning to your logic, nor addressed my gripe.

whilst this may be true in some regard alot of great minds congregate there. surely, there creative, yet pessimistic views of the world/future are a testiment to that?

I do care because certain politics comes into play with my work/ social life and i fear people wont tolerate my ideas and id be orstracised however in the long run and if pressed i am honest on my opinions. I can understand if you cant see my viewpoint but thats your ignorance im afraid and not that my point doesnt offer a valid point.

oh and pic related was a massive conservative for his time, FYI. (relative and all that i know but theres a point there i feel)

I'm not even sure that's true. If you look at the fortune 500, A LOT of them are left-leaning.

because daddy gave them money

>Your not particularly giving any reasoning to your logic, nor addressed my gripe.
The directors he mentioned weren't very conservative.

Nah, just faggots.

>i fear people wont tolerate my ideas
Poor you.

>thats your ignorance
It's your cowardly attitude towards your very own views and values that triggers me, actually. You're incapable of showing your true self, you hide among your closest peers, and you're on an anonymous board complaining about artistic people who have the guts to express themselves.

Get the fuck out and stop posting random images that have nothing to do with your point, which is to rationalize your fear of expressing yourself.

>my work/ social life

lol

Why are older people more conservative? Is it because they've lived long enough to experiences the failures of liberalism?

>the left is more socially conscious

if by socially conscious you mean obsessed with propping up rent seeking parasites and having white people pay for it, sure.

Your 'argument' boils down to calling him a pussy for having modesty and not spewing Cred Forumsshit to his coworkers and family on a regular basis. Anyways, it's not an argument.

this also explains why artists from older decades are a lot more talanted than those of today, thats why they are retarded liberals in the first place, they are fucking stupid

So the 1% are left leaning is what you're saying? Weird!

>le wrong generashun

that has literally nothing to do with what i said

it's because artists don't contribute anything real to society and often need to rely on handouts

I don't think that's necessarily true -- 11 heads of Fortune 500 companies have come out for Hillary, 0 have for Trump -- but dynasty nepotism, enterprise bias and manipulation of free market regulation to benefit the 1% is usually a trait of those who benefit from Reagan style trickle-down economics, which is characteristically conservative.

Kek. I'm just saying that you're assertion is a bit dubious. But I'd say it's probably 50/50.

>for having modesty and not spewing Cred Forumsshit
But that's the thing. They come here, they complain about libtards this, SJWs that, and as soon as they leave the computer they're just as cucked and living in the same safe space.

So yeah, I feel right about calling him a pussy. Stick to your guns or shut the fuck up.

No, my assertion is not wrong, because fortune 500 CEOs do not make up the majority of business owners. Anyways, they are typically not left-leaning anyways; socially left-leaning, yes, but economically they support legislation that stifles all competition. These guys do not support Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, they support Neoconservatives and Democrats. They're mostly corporatist centrists.

I do not see any denial or attempt to hide his politics in his post. You're just strawmanning.

...

>they're mostly corporate centrists
You act like this is empirical. You're probably not wrong on that, tho'.

You are a smrt user

>empirical
It's not empirical, just look at the two major parties in US politics and who is funding them. Follow the money.

>open minded

>it's another "there aren't actually enough Cred Forums threads on Cred Forums to complain about so libtards make one so they can feel oppressed"

Liberals are the vocal minority in Hollywood. Either you're getting all your Hollywood leftist douche friends to stand on a soap box to endorse Hillary in some shitty commercial or you're not saying a word in order to avoid career suicide. Just look at every non-Manlet alpha male and you'll notice that they haven't said a word about political affiliation

tl;dr
If you're a Trump Supporter in Hollywood, you're quiet about it

>it's another Cred Forums false flagging comment

It's because you're all faggots

How is it "edgy"?

(((vocal minority)))

I don;t know if it's artists are liberal so much that art is a very opinionated usually, and so if liberal appears to be the majority, it can kill the interest for some right wingers.

My thanks to the chap whos been engaging this aggresive fellow, who seems to projecting some ingrained fear of 'reds under the bed', so to speak. As in, you and by you i mean:

are afraid of people like me who live amongst artist, my retort to this is thus: get used to it.

You see, just because i do not indulge in social suicide does not mean i do not express my inner politics... In fact i do it regularly amonst close friends and more importantly in my art. People like you wouldnt notice nor would it be intended for you; you'd be a lost cause.

Anyway as other anons have quite rightly pointed out before me, you havent really offered any concrete facts as to why you think conservative artists are inferior/non existent. All ypouve proved is you know of some liberal directors that im sure someone could offer directors to counter your claim.

The read question is this: why do you feel the need to justify your stance of Artistic superiority? Are you petty that you need to resort to name calling when your proved wrong on this matter?

Also I like these pictures ive saved, so fuck off in that regard.

>neocons and center-left dems
that's pretty much it.

Corporations are not inherently aligned with either party because they primarily follow Wall St.

As long as they both stimulate the economy they don't give a shit.

Yes, as I said, you're probably not wrong about most business owners being centrist; therefore, you're initial statement about most business owners being "conservative" would be inaccurate.

Wagner and Chopin hated the jews. Were they conservative?

Artists tend to be more liberal because artists rely on emotions instead of logic.

Liberals do the same; they rely on emotions. Conservatives use logic.

No, they were just reasonable human beings.

leftism is ultimately an intellectually hollow critique of the establishment and societal norms, with nothing to replace the institutions they tear down except existential tension, unease and nihilism. Today's leftists are not actually revolutionarys, merely tools of the establishment and its quest to undermine and atomize communities to depress wages and resistance to corporate exploitation. Real leftism died with the fall of communism and the continued failure of their laughable global revolution, which usually results in the deaths of millions. As such any committed revolutionary deserves nothing but a bullet through the back of the head. Hollywood was always a hotbed of communist subversion as well as the state department under FDR, another leftist hero. An FDR whose administration ignored the internment and killing of american citizens in Stalinist Russia.

Artists were just useful tools by jews and communists to subvert american society and undermine cultural institutions, cloaking their sinister power grabs in concern for the poor and the pursuit of an impossible ideal.

Makes me wonder what are you doing here.

>Today's leftists are not actually revolutionarys, merely tools of the establishment
This

Because artists are by nature populists.

They DEPEND on the highest number of people buying and seeing their movies and such, so they'll cling to the most widely accepted opinions because it's good business to do so.

They know conservatives won't complain too much and will see their stuff anyway and they know that liberals will instead throw a shitstorm if their opinion isn't shared.

Your retort to the idea that most business owners being conservative was that Rich Fortune 500 CEOs are leftists. Most business owners are not multimillionaires or billionaires, the big wig 1 percenters who you claim to be leftists are a very tiny minority.

>mfw user busted this out from his backlog of diatribes.
>communism = leftism, and leftism = communism
>being this much of a simpleton

Leftists are more creative. Conservatives don't understand subtlety. At best they can produce shitty Oscar bait movies or some Christian garbage films like God's Not Dead.

probably to post that opinion which probably would have been censored, downvoted, removed, or would have exceeded the word count on virtually any other discussion platform or social media site

Go wash your vagina

What people on here seem to mean when complaining that all artists are "leftists" seems to really be that all artists aren't bigots. That's probably because narrative storytelling film requires empathy for people who aren't you.

Ford's conservatism seems to only be political to the times and not at all part of his character. Most of his films are about unity between disparate and often undesirable people. His favorite of his films was Wagon Master, a movie where next to nothing happens except showing Mormons, cowboys, Indians, alcoholics, and prostitutes hanging out in Monument Valley. If he was born 100 years later you'd call him a multiculturalist cuck

What is he doing on a film board? Film has been always influenced by leftist politics and ideologies. And even most so-called conservative directors have some leftist leanings.

I see his pointing out the fact that you're a useful idiot caused some irritation.

You still haven't provided anything even resembling evidence to support your point, user. Any other unsubstantiated claims you'd like to make?

>his
>my
Fixed

Stop it, user

Wouldn't right be the revolutionaries too?

One goes for a pet government (left)

The other goes for less government (right)

So no, you're wrong.

You can find art by left and right people all the same.

Heinlein for example, is a right leaning artist that's as good as any left one.

Which claim?

Not like i can really prove to you that i'm a different user, so i won't waste my time.

Point still stands.

esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260

also read the follow books

Witness by Whitaker Chambers
The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia
Kevin McDonald's jewish trilogy

>liberals
>open minded

One of the basic tenants of conservatism is that things shouldn't change. If you have a group of people who embrace change and another group that wants to keep living the same way it always has, the later group will stagnate creatively. Kids in that group won't be encouraged to try new things as much and the people will be less willing to take risks.

Most of the golden era of fantasy and sci-fi was written by right leaning people

Few were social liberals/socialists

Nvm, you're an idiot

first of all, (You) are not an artist

second of all, the "artist industry" (ie capeshit and niggerbeats) is ran by literal kikes.

Not an argument

>read these books that talk about the communist boogeymen.
No, I'm good.

Because this is the only human interaction some of these people get. Having outrageous or insulting opinions helps get replies, because it's easier than being funny or endearing. Typically they're at least one of socially retarded, unemployable, or disabled.

Are we still talking about films? This is a film board, you know?

>Conservatives don't understand subtlety.

>nigga I fucks bitches all day erry day
>blackz be opreshun
>WE WUZ
>colorful tights sky-fighting muscle men
>muh fat vagina

yeah, real subtle there, buddy

this entire post is a meme

old leftists wanted global revolution
new leftists want soul destroying global capitalism and centralization

its the same shit, artists just happen to be leftists because they are told by the establishment that conservatives run everything, their "embracing change" is just another tool of global capitalism to eliminate cultural barriers for easier cross corporate integration and profits. Back in the day the Christians were the revolutionarys against the roman establishment and created all kinds of art and expression in their oppression. Nowadays peoples creative expression is essentially channeled into safe forms of pseudo rebellion.

It changes depending on the period and place, at the moment artists in the west lean more left, but in different cultures or decades they also lean right.

Plenty of sci-fi has been adapted into films, you dumbfuck

Considering a good portion of films are based on those works, it's probably relevant.

>everyone who isnt a leftist cuck is a NEET

Or, maybe, you know, the world isn't your hugbox and people actually believe in the antithesis of the things you hold so dear to your faggot little bleeding heart

conservative doesn't mean "opposed to change", you goof. Stop getting your education from John Currentyear. Conservative means you want LESS government. That is literally all.

Can you name them? And please tell what's so conservative about them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers

here's a list of proven soviet agents. Notice how many have jewish last names, but please continue to believe what the media and your shitty public education tells you about the world, instead of learning and reading yourself.

>Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[1][2]

>le wrong generashun hackneyed nonsense

kys my man

Brave New World is full of degenerate losers who fill themselves with drugs

That's something people seem to forget

right = less government involved in individual life

US conservatives want to conserve that

And note the rest of that wikipedia article goes on to say:

>There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time

>wikipedia
nic b8. Here, have a Comfy Pence

Sci-fi (at least most 50s sci-fi which I assume you mean by Golden Age) seems to be the inverse of what is saying. Movies about how scary the future/science/fantasy is are conservative less in politics than in a general fear of change and the unknown. They ignore internal character drama for external threats, and stories about external threats almost always end in the status quo being restored. Character driven stories generally end in the character growing or learning about themselves.

These are only right/left themes if you impose politics on them

>conservatives can't read or post legible reaction images

what the fuck you are even saying?

So, Jewish communists are well represented. Your point?

Also, it isn't that Communism is inherently bad, but that it simply doesn't work.

Australian game dev here. When trying to find new artists we found the further left someone goes the more they post on twitter and the less time they spend doing work so generally their skill level is lower. Programmers are almost always centrist/contrarians or hard right wingers.

Problem with all the sjw devs is even when you find one who is talented they are almost impossible to work with.

Literally the only emotions millennial conservatives and alt-righters are comfortable feeling are hate and anger.

That's a book. I don't think it was ever adapted into a film. IMDb lists only some cheap TV films.

I enjoy art in all its forms, just because it happens to produce stuff i disagree with sometimes doesnt mean i wont watch it from time to time. Once you recognize the narrative driven propaganda stuff you can just laugh at it.

Don't respond to me again fucktard.

>I don't think it was ever adapted into a film.
> I don't think it was ever adapted into a film.

Way to contradict yourself, lmao.

So wouldn't all these "liberal" manchildren movies be considered "conservative" by your definition. Every Seth Rogan degenerate film has Seth scared of becoming an adult with responsibilities. Isn't that "conservative" by your bizarre definition?

>haha it's wrong because it's on wikipedia XD

>Still going with this retarded left vs right dichotomy
Why are my fellow burgers so foolish?

Any adaptation or homage based on Heinlein, Dick, Clarke, Matheson, Lovecraft, and whatnot, is art from right leaning people

Starship Troopers is a good example of a left leaning individual messing with the source material

>I enjoy art in all forms
Yes, your favorite form of art is Cred Forums shitposting.

>it isn't that Communism is inherently bad...
top b8. Here, have a Cozy Pence

well sure, modern leftism is just soviet and jewish memes written large on a group of people, it just shifted from an economic revolution to a social one. I dont think socialism is inherently bad either, people in america dont like it because it forces them to give money to niggers though.

Right doesn't mean conservatism unless it means to conserve the right leaning ideals

Right means less government and individual freedom

Heinlein is your right leaning author as a good example, from the golden age, which puts right leaning politics into his works

What part of
>These are only right/left themes if you impose politics on them
did you get confused by? And all those comedies do end with Rogen taking a bit of adult responsibility, so there is growth. Your post doesn't make any sense to me

>I dont think socialism is inherently bad either, people in america dont like it because it forces them to give money to niggers though.

I don't think America has adopted socialism is because the country was founded on the idea of small government that kept their nose out of everyday life.

This is really pathetic, user. You can't name a single film? Oh, and I hope you realize that the adaptation is often different than the source material.

Do you consider From Beyond or Re-Animator (both adaptations of Lovecraft's work) conservative? With severed head and monsters trying to rape women and silly BDSM action? Is this what conservatives like?

>here, have a cozy corporatist, psychopathic politician who's literally everything anyone should hate about the establishment
Be honest, do you like him because he goes to church on Sunday, user

>things i disagree with is shit posting

okay

I don't doubt you believe the utter nonsense you write, just explaining to that user why you're here.

I don't know what point you were trying to make there but I think you were talking about global trends and not people.
Liberal PEOPLE are less likely to be hostile towards gays or halal restaurants or refugees.
The more different shit you experience the deeper your creative well is.

>I don't think America has adopted socialism is because the country was founded on the idea of small government that kept their nose out of everyday life
Perhaps, but during some of our most successful years, this wasn't the case... at all.

Things unrelated to films or televisions is shitposting.

Because art requires a higher IQ, and it's well-documented that conservatives are lower IQ'd individuals

By your definition,
>conservative = scared of change
Every whiny libfag manchild movie is about a Seth Rogan character being afraid of change. Seth Rogan would be considered "conservative" by your strange definition of it.

Basically, you are trying to control language using Saul Alinksy tactics and I'm not letting it happen. Conservative does not mean "scared of the future hurr durr". You're a moron.

>small government meme

that died about 150 years ago, its literally impossible with the united states as it is now.

You're moving the goal posts

The question of the thread is why are artists more left leaning -- many of the classics are from people that held right leaning views

They needn't put right leaning into the works

And yes, Lovecraft adaptations are often butchered to have things that weren't in them, often by left leaning people

"Can't name a single film"

2001/2010
Lovecraft ones
Conan
Blade Runner and all other Dick adaptations (Total Recall)

Exactly, which is why we need a good financial collapse to get the people angry enough to lynch all of the traitors

You seem angry about the fact that Pence has dug Indiana out of an economic hole created by liberal economic policies. You might not like the fact that he denied "refugees" a place in Indiana. Or Maybe the fact that he absolutely destroyed Tim Kaine last night doesn't set well with you. You seem to be instead bigoted towards his personal beliefs. Calm down and have a Reflective Pence

How is 2001 a conservative movie?

>Lovecraft ones
There are barely any films based on Lovecraft works. And the ones that exist are full of 80s sleaze.

>Conan
I give you that.

>Blade Runner and Total Recall
What's so conservative about them?

>projecting your own insecurities
>explanation

pick one

Thats fine, you just can never be allowed to run things in a meaningful way.

Lets be real here though, you will win in the end. I am still sad about it though

They tend to appeal emotionally when dealing with issues in film and real life. This tends to lead to unrealistic beliefs in the ability of others.
Comedy only really works when you are in the minority which is why right wing comedy is on the rise
>soulless child's toy
In the same way every flick cranked out for the big cinema chains is a brainless CGI slideshow

>Liberal PEOPLE are less likely to be hostile towards gays or halal restaurants or refugees.
>The more different shit you experience the deeper your creative well is.
This is literally the opposite of reality. Liberals live in all-white upper-class suburbs where they might meet one black/Hispanic person their entire lives.
>muh refugees
jesus christ, kid

>we

Look my dude, i want to hang the kikes and niggers as much as any right thinking man but you cant come out and say that shit.

>Pence, himself, dug Indiana out of an economic hole
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/05/mike-pences-economic-record-is-better-than-tim-kaines-thanks-to-timing/

Try not to be so intellectually dishonest, user.

> claims to be superior at understanding and connecting with people
> immediately fails to understand or connect with approximately half of all people

Yep, you're an Artist.

It needn't be conservative

The point is that right leaning people make art just as well as left leaning ones, and it's ironic that left people in Hollywood use source material from right leaning people

To conserve literally means to not change
Yeah less interferance
+Foreign War
+Abortion Ban
+Marriage Ban
+Unbreakable Encryption Ban

Your fucking system is retarded there are traditional liberals, civic nationalists, neo-cons/paleoconservatives and all sorts not just fucking left and right. American populace falls into the paleoconservative group. They believe in reductions in government economics but strong social regulations

>right means less government and personal freedom

Then why does nearly every right-wing person I meet irl or online base their politics on religious and social morals and use that as a foundation to try and dictate what people can or can't do? I feel like you're arguing from the dictionary and not the reality of the conservative voter base.

The spectrum is way too wide anyway to group all people on either side under a single definition based on one or two phrases. Aren't left-wing anti-war protesters also anti-big government? Aren't religious conservatives who oppose gay marriage or abortion for a more intrusive government and against personal freedom? It's an endless circle

>less conservative in politics than a general fear of change and the unknown
Meaning socially conservative. Again, I said right there I wasn't talking about politics, just people's perception of things as being "political" in either direction.

>It's ironic
What's so ironic about that? Like I said, most adaptations are very different from their source material.

>it needn't be conservative
Of course it needs to be conservative. We are talking about conservative artists in a film industry. Why wouldn't they produce conservative art?

>American populace falls into the paleoconservative group.
Lol, no

Even if they do live in an all white suburb, a kid from a liberal family will have fewer social sanctions against trying different stuff. In a conservative community anyone who wanted to openly experiment with their sexuality or date someone with a different religion would more likely be crushed into conformity by social sanctions.
You're ignoring sociology and psychology which is really what OPs question boils down to.

>WaPo
fairly decent bait. Here, have a Smug Pence

Yeah the country with 75% christian population and has the least social programs of any developed nation and is really not paleoconservative

>we

Stay ignorant, m8. Be honest, would you suck Trump's dick if he asked you to?

Dude, you're literally a retard, we have neocons running amok not paleocons.

Trump isn't even a fucking paleocon if that is what you're thinking of saying next.

This country isn't filled with Buchananites, you fucking idiot.

dumb frogger

>To conserve literally means to not change
Yes in the literal definition of the word "conserve" is to "not change". However, if you would put down the Rules for Radicals and stop obfuscating for one second, then I will explain the simple concept of "conservative" in the American political sense.

You see, this country was founded on a Constitution and a specific set of ideals. Conservatives want to "conserve" the original intention of the Constitution and American values. "Conservative" doesn't mean "omg change is scary, hold me mommy", but then again I'm trying to get through to somebody who gets their news from John Currentyearman.

>Even if they do live in an all white suburb, a kid from a liberal family will have fewer social sanctions against trying different stuff.
How do you figure that? You realize that the south is full of black people, right? You realize that conservatives have much more frequent contact with "minorities" than liberals do, right? You can't be this out-of-touch? Putting on a hijab for fun at school one time doesn't mean you have "fewer social sanctions". Holy shit, you must really love the smell of your own farts.

They don't conserve the constitution they conserve the state that tramples over the constitution

>mfw when conservatives act like they are well informed and get their news from good sources.

The current mainstream theory is that it's because conservatives tend to divide concepts into groups into clear boundaries while liberals tend to see things as a continuous spectrum of grey.

Art is all about nuances, so those who excel in art are more likely to be liberal in political beliefs too.

Note this does not mean liberals are more or less intelligent than conservatives. Conservatives tend to do better in jobs where quick, decisive decisions are necessary.

>mentioning Trump's dick
you seem hung up on degeneracy, probably from watching all your "creative" liberal media. Here, have a Sad Pence.

>Why are artists more liberal?

because art is garbage and humans don't need it to survive

liberals love doing time-wasting shit and making it seem important

If you are referring to neo-cons, then sure, I agree.

>conservatives don't have fewer social sanctions
Not user, but this is the most moronic post I've come across in a while.

>mfw liberals act morally superior for sucking globalist cock

Lol oh boy

HAHAHA CONSERVATIVES DONT EVEN HAVE FACES
jk you're right and liberals are human garbage

>mfw I'm a leftist and you're using my gif to express yourself

It does. You were literally saying older artists are better than current ones which obviously isn't true.

It would be harder to act morally superior if conservatives would just stop with social/identity polotics and just focused on foreign policy and fiscal issues.
Republicans passing those stupid fucking bathroom bills and gay marriage bans and sharia law bans and saying women should be punished for having abortions and all that other shit has basically given liberals permission to be smug for at least another 50 years. I'm sure you'll keep kicking that ball farther and farther down to the road to.

That's circular logic. Also, liberalism is a good example of having a mind which is so open that your brain falls out.

Please post a screenshot of your Pence folder, I want to see how many you have

>You realize that conservatives have much more frequent contact with "minorities" than liberals do, right?

I seriously question this bullshit everyone says. NY, LA, San Fran, are very ethnically diverse cities but probably the most liberal in the country. I live and work in a midsized, politically ambiguous city and see all types of people every day. What contact is the almost unanimously red mid-west having with minorities on a regular basis?

"Hitler was right about nearly everything"

-Stanley Kubrick

This
I would respect conservatives a lot more if they would quit trying to control the decisions people make. I fucking hate how every candidate has to pander to Christians now.

I would respect liberals more if they quit trying to make everyone accept their deviant behavior

Revolutionaries aren't anti government.

they are anti this government.

A majority of the revolution's over the past 100 years have been socialist

>LA
A couple of asian hotspots and hispanics everywhere else
>San Fran
Could you even get more gentrified

>forgetting that he worked on a holocaust film for 2 years that he scrapped only because of Schindler's List.

You don't have to accept my behavior, just realize it doesn't effect you in any way and that's a dick move to take away people's rights.

>What contact is the almost unanimously red mid-west having with minorities on a regular basis?

so are we a society of collective individuals or not? liberals want their cake and eat it too

"you didn't build that, society did"

>deviant behavior

> just realize it doesn't effect you in any way

Except it does affect me because you cunts NEVER SHUT THE FUCK UP about your identity bullshit. You go out of your way to blab on and on, in inappropriate conversations and situations about your identity politics. Every liberal says the same "I'm not that kind of liberal that pontificates" rhetoric and then you pontificate about how white men are literally the devil. You're all lying hypocrites and the DOTR approaches one day sooner.

Oh, and you keep shoving your identity everywhere. It's like how gay people never stop talking about gay sex. No one wants to see your disgusting degeneracy.

WUZ

>Stuff that never happened: The post
Maybe you should figure out what angry echo chamber keeps telling you those stories and stop listening to it if the stories piss you off so much.

Someone sounds salty

>liberals will defend this
zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/

>everyone who isn't an alt-right edgelord is a cuck

Liberals aren't trying to overturn indecent exposure laws.

>You're all lying hypocrites
Nice irrational blanket statement. I realize liberals are pretty goddamn annoying. Conservatives can be just as much. I don't think white men are literally the devil though, I just think women should be allowed to kill their fetuses and shit like that.

Because they are blue blood rich and they suck at math. Useless aristocrats. If you can't solve a simple equation in less than two minutes you shouldn't claim your IQ is three digits.

>I think both sides are stupid
>extremists are awful
>I am le superior by moderation

Appeal to moderation is the worst meme of 2016 2bh

That's what I believe though. You've fallen victim to the increasing "us vs them" mentality that has sweeped this country in the past 20 years. You realize the majority of Americans were moderate before that, right? The less moderate people were voting, the more parties started appealing to the extremist sides. It is idiotic to completely go with one side without having any differing opinions at all. It isn't a meme at all.

See here's the issue, you kill the extremists. That's great, no more bullshit crazies, right? Then things normalize until you realize that Mr. X is acting a little extreme. So you go after him, to nip the problem in the bud, right? But there's two sides, the people that think stomping out extremism is bad, and others that don't want a repeat of this society. It just devolves from there, because people will always have strong feelings and emotions about stuff.

In other words, you just created an "us vs them" mentality, only it's moderates vs extremists.

I don't have a Pence folder. I'm doing it live.

Where did he say anything remotely like that?

Obviously there will and should be people who feel passionately and take up extreme stances. But today the instant you disagree with one extreme you're labelled the other. The middle ground has vanished, and is now apparently demonized and considered a meme. That should not be the case

>you kill the extremists. That's great, no more bullshit crazies
Except they will have children who will be even more extremist. Unless you are talking mass genocide of a culture over a short period of time

I'm not proposing that we stomp out the extremists. I do hope that eventually our society will change, or the parties will reform themselves somehow. I'm still gonna choose to be moderate and hate the crazies either way though. Idk why I'm even on Cred Forums to be honest considering how much I hate them, but oh well

>NY, LA, San Fran, are very ethnically diverse cities
>Literal ghettos divided and sectioned off by race = ethnically diverse.
You've obviously never been to America.

So you're against crazies and that's your plan of action to save society from itself? Just sitting on your ass and bitching about both sides and merely hoping things will change? This is why moderation has failed, is failing and will always fail, because it has no end goal, no master plan, nothing.

>all artists are cowards
>so dont produce anything worthwile

Wew, lad. What an autistic post. Are you by chance alt right too?

>gov't getting involved in marriage doesn't effect anybody
>men in wigs going to bathroom with little girls doesn't effect anybody
Let me guess, you're just pretending to be retarded? Here, have a Disgusted Pence.

That is a fantastic painting

>Art I dont like is inferior
This was cringe to read

lol How much did you become involved in politics this week? How much civic voluntarism did you participate in? Aw heck, you may be right.

And how much did YOU do?

>Seth Rogen is art
kys literally irl

>art isnt substantial to human society
What the fuck happened to America? Its like you are willingly trying to step into a fucking stone age

>gov't getting involved in marriage doesn't effect anybody
50%, user. 50% divorce rate.

>men in wigs...
This is a non issue, as it's not stopping anyone from dressing as a woman as it is.

I guess gay marriage being legal effects the pastors who don't wanna marry two dudes, but that's not as much as an inconvenience as gay people all across the country not being allowed to be married IMHO.

>50% divorce rate.
What is this supposed to be refuting?

So dont ever persue art then? Okay, got it. Thats def how we get more diverse art

The gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Give me one good reason why they should?

Nothing wrong with drugs, mate. Unless you work at DARE and are a retard who has no self control

Nothing. I'm a 19 year old in CC.

50% of marriages on the US end in divorce.

I suppose they're all liberals though, huh?

>This is a non issue,

Yeah, it's a non issue to the women who felt uncomfortable to share a bathroom and locker room with a man in a wig. They're just transphobic. It's 2016, come on

Some of the richest people are liberal
Also, liberal billionaires give more money away to charity

Really makes you think

You are probably just projecting

Isn't fair to people in other states who can't get married when others can. I guess they could move, but making it legal everywhere just makes it easier.

>destroying your brain and having drug-addicted babies is cool
literally Seth Rogen tier thinking. Here, have a Disappointed Pence.

Yeah, I got that. And what is it supposed to be refuting?

Dont know why you are focusing on Seth Rogen, but yes. He creates art. You dont have to like something for it to be art, you fucking neet retard

>sausage party
>art

It's not about making it "legal". What the fuck does the gov't have to do with marriage? Why are they involved in the first place? Do you even understand the issue or do you think it's "hurr duur Chrisitans hate gays"? I'm being serious, do you understand the concept "small government" (ie conservatism)?

Again, I dont know why you are obsessing over Seth Rogen's bowel movements, but yes....it doesnt fucking matter what the example is. All of it is art. Whether you personally enjoy it or not

Sorry if that triggers your autism

>government getting involved in marriage
>acting like it's a big deal
Keep shillin

FILMMAKERS

>completely trusting this government
*licks boot*

Seth Rogen is just an example. I'm just wondering where is all this "great liberal art" that liberals go on and on about? Do you mean "muh dick" over drum samples? Do you mean James Franco dude weed lol movies? Capeshit?

its because youre filthy hedonists

Why do we have laws to stop me from shooting people? Like pssshhh! Come on. Im never gonna shoot anyone what the fuck government! Get out of my life!!! We dont need cops!!! Wtf I hate big government now. Its not like these laws are in place for equal protection or some shit . nah, how about I just form my own communities? Then I can make damn sure those faggots dont make my pee pee feel weird by marrying. Get government out of marriage so I can control other people's lives myself!!! Freedom!

>we
kys

>wants to live a bureaucratic, orwellian, state-owned lifestyle where everything is taxed
>calls other people shills
Here, have an Amused Pence

>if you smoke weed, your baby will be some crackbaby addicted to all sorts of drugs
>I dont know what responsible drug use is

Are you honestly that retarded?

Yes I understand the concept and it isn't my position. Why are you so flabbergasted about this concept of the national government becoming involved? They did it because it wasn't legal for some reason so they made it legal. This his how laws work. I guess I'm just not scared of them like you are, but maybe I will be when I'm older.

This isnt an argument.

Are you normally this angry? It's time to take a break from posting and take a walk. This is what you look like youtube.com/watch?v=_f50nRBIApo

Also, look up the necessary and proper and the supremacy clauses.

Are you the same user that keeps spamming this link on tv all fucking day? Ive seen this three times in the same hour. Jesus fuck, go to bed

This is the first Cred Forums thread I've posted in all day. Maybe it's you.

This is the strawman that broke the camel's back. Here, have a Proud Pence.

>Orwellian state
Do you honestly not see how Trump exhibits some of the main character traits of an authoritarian?

Literal Seth Rogan tier arguments and a strawmanning of the Alinsky variety. Are you sure you're not underaged?

Its not a strawman, your argument is hypocritical foundationally. You want government to step out of protecting everyone equally under the law concerning legal marriage contracts, so that you, a minority, can decide for everyone else who should or shouldnt marry. Yes? So gays shouldnt marry? But you should? Or am I missing some of your argument, im a different user.

Because artists rarely know anything about politics and rely on their feelings. That is a common trait among liberals.

Because a national government is literally the anti-thesis of the original intent of America. You're European is showing.

>everything I dont like is a strawman
It is a literally retarded point to assume that all responsible drug use is bad, and even dumber still to assume that it always leads to crack babies.

Thats an actual strawman, kiddo. Thanks for visiting.

the IQ of left leaning chaps generally tends to be higher than those of the right

>Cred Forums literally doesn't realize they're posting in a Cred Forums pasta

>You want government to step out of protecting everyone equally under the law concerning legal marriage contracts, so that you, a minority, can decide for everyone else who should or shouldnt marry
Straw meet man

You literally are a teenager. I'm done arguing with a Rules for Radical brainwashee.

Based on what? The number of women's studies degrees.

>countries are never allowed to change despite democracy being a thing

This was always the great autism of the right to me: they praise the democratic system, but then hate when we vote to change it. Who gives a flying fuck what the founders wanted more than 200 years ago? Thats not an argument. You cant just judge everything by some standard set literal centuries ago and pretend that all change that people demand is bad. Its autisim. Pure autism. Either you support a democratic system which changes over time or you hate freedom by being some traditionalist fuckwit.

You cant just call everything you dont like hearing a strawman. Are you 14? Can you address the points without being a deflectionary faggot?

The fact is, it's the government going into a religious institution and violating the sacred liberal cow that is "the separation of church and state." The secularization of a formerly religious ceremony makes me disgusting and it's a testament to how cucked the state of Christianity is that they lovingly embrace gay marriage.

It's not just about gays marrying either. There's a gigantic clusterfuck in the divorce court, thanks to the government's meddling. It's just further division of the family, the cornerstone of a society.

> they praise the democratic system, but then hate when we vote to change it.
>they like a system the way it is but hate when it gets changed
>either you love freedom or you hate it
Are you a teenager?

What point? You don't have a point literally because you are strawmanning. The gov't should not be involved in marriage and the only good reason you could come up with to refute this is that murder is illegal (a literal strawman). What good reason does the gov't have for taxing marriages?

>Who gives a flying fuck what the founders wanted more than 200 years ago?
Millennials are shit.

>Who gives a flying fuck what the founders wanted more than 200 years ago?
You mean those guys who created this country after fighting off the biggest empire in the world? Yeah, fuck those guys. I wanna hear want some college-aged, pink-haired, tattoo freak thinks instead.

I have no problem with proper taxation with representation, which we have. So write your congressman if you disagree. The point I was making is called an analogy, you learn what those are in highschool, once you get that far in life. The analogy was that there are laws made not for the purpose of restricting personal freedoms, but for equal representation and protection under the law. If you take government out of marriage and then...what? What good would having a marriage contract even serve? It would be meaningless. Not to mention that you open up a can of worms of "well, who gets to DECIDE then who shouldnt marry?" If nobody is protected under the law from unruly treatment and discrimination in terms of filing for marriage licenses, then who does?

Most adults understand why you at least need some legal groundwork to say "no, nobody can prevent you from getting a marriage license with consenting adults", and that is (if you cared to understand federal marriage law) is what equal rights protection is.

>I have no problem with proper taxation with representation, which we have
Then why is the federal government forcing state's to abide by non-representative laws? I'm assuming you're okay with Obama shutting down all of the marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, right?

>we don't want actual modern democracy to decide for itself what is best for the people, it needs to fall in line with the fee fees of men centuries ago.

Conservicucks are the best at pretending they like democracy, arent they?
>its only democratic if it is run by standards that may not even be relevent and applicable anymore.
>GAAAAA SAVE ME JEFFERSON

>"no, nobody can prevent you from getting a marriage license with consenting adults",
literally what? My argument is that marriage licenses shouldn't exist in the first place. What are you on about?

>Then why is the federal government forcing state's to abide by non-representative laws?
Such as...?
>Obama shutting down all of the marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, right?
Sauce? Because I feel like that never happened, at least not in the sense you are saying

Also, you are changing the goal posts a bit

>>we don't want actual modern democracy to decide for itself what is best for the people
That is not what's happening you dipshit. If the federal government is forcing states to abide by these laws, how is it a democracy? What are you even saying?

>have you ever been to Cred Forums?

You mean a smart and creative board? Doesn't that debunk your point.

And im telling you thats an autistic thing to want. Marriage contracts are necessary for insurance and tax purposes. They serve a real economic function. You cant just abolish them because what...? Because you dont want the government to let everyone marry? What is your fucking goal?

Because we have both a federal and a state governmental system. Did you just forget the federal government exists?

I mean, if you want to just shout "da big bad federal gohvmunt waahhh" without giving examples....sure...go right ahead

>a smart and creative board

>its a pol destroys the reddit libtards episode

My favourite

>such as...
gay marriage, tranny bathrooms, common core, etc,

>Sauce? Because I feel like that never happened, at least not in the sense you are saying
No, it hasn't happened. That's my point. Would you be okay with it if he did? Marijuana is federally illegal, after all. And according to you, federal laws should usurp state laws.

>Marriage contracts are necessary for insurance and tax purposes

You do know they're supposed to be a religious right rather than a human right, correct? As in the government shouldn't even be fucking involved with it in the first place thanks to the separation of church and state.

>Marriage contracts are necessary for insurance and tax purposes.
Literally statist nonsense that has no validity whatsoever.

As much as people hate to admit they really are

>Did you just forget the federal government exists?
Obama apparently did in regards to marijuana in Colorado, didn't he? Or should the federal gov't only force conservative states to be liberal?

Youre so fucking dumb i literally cant even. You also sound like an emotional female hehe

@75039059

You don't even deserve a (You) for that weak bait

It is comment like this that prove how Cred Forums really doesn't know anything when it comes to the political spectrum. Sometimes you don't even know what right leaning politics or conservatism even means. Simply weak stereotypes. I mean, jesus christ. No wonder you keep bitching about Cred Forums.

Hey answer me this Cred Forums. How come there are far more "conservatives" in Japanese entertainment media? Far more then there are among westerners.

The thing is you really are stupid if you were being serious

Conservatives tend to be more traditional while liberals generally tend to seek change and experimentation. Art generally tends to favor creativity and creativity stems from experimentation.

@75039148

No (You)s for that. And with this, the thread is in auto-sage.

Agreed. Its like saying modern liberals stand for freedom

>gay marriage, tranny bathrooms, common core, etc,

Lol besides you autistically putting common core in there, the examples you gave are equal access and equal protections...stop being a retard. Nobody is getting their rights stripped away because the goverment gave the same rights to people who asked and fought for them. They dont take anything away from you, and thats virtually the only point you can make. A state government cant deny a person basic freedoms and liberties. I dont understand why this triggers you, if you just were okay with everyone having the same legal protection in the first place, the federal government wouldnt have to fucking baby you in the first place.

>Marijuana is federally illegal, after all. And according to you, federal laws should usurp state laws.
I never said anything close to usurp state laws. I think drugs should be legalized in all fifty states, weed has already been downsized to a different tier so its just a matter of time before its federally legal. But your example was a conflation, you are saying that kicking down the door to arrest people for weed use because there is no federal legalization is somehow the same as equal legal protection of hetero and homosexual couples under a federal law...of course I dont agree with invasivr drug laws, its just as fucked up as not letting certain people marry

name ONE good movie directed by a liberal. ill wait :)

Wow so youre actually a dumbass. And youre definitely a female too.

Marriage exists as a legal institution in the US. Nobody gives a rat fuck about your religious sacrament, nobody has ever denied you your religious right to perform your internal religious ceremonies. You dont own the concept of marriage you dumb neet

>I never said anything close to usurp state laws.
>literally says it in this exact same post
I'm done.

Thank god there is empirical evidence to quash unusual claims like these.

Here it is. Now the guy you are quoting is a fool, what he should have said that people who encounter minorities on a daily basis are more likely to suffer psychologically and be more racist. Your brain can still recognize what a threat "minorities" really are, yet still be a giant SJW progressive. That's a fact. Here is the IAT scores of White University participants. Notice something?

This conflation is so fucking inept..I'

>I lick boots and I'm proud of it

>I think drugs should be legalized in all fifty states

>fullretard.jpg

I'm sorry your reading skills are so poor and you lack basic critical thinking ability

School in the morning, eh?

How butthurt will you libtards be when Trump is elected like the absolute madman he is?

Remember when the media said he wouldnt win a single state?

God theyre idiots....

>I dont want drugs to be regulated or controlled in any way that benefits the economy and de-stigmatizes drug use and drug users
>I hate freedom

>I hate freedom

You're libertarian, aren't you?

Will you kill yourself in November when he loses?

Either federal laws should supersede state laws or not. You can't have it only when it's your pet political ideology. I know liberals are trying to force the country to the Greater Republic of California by letting illegals and dead people vote in the general elections and what not, but this country is still majority conservative (see Congress and Senate for the last 30 years).

Nope. I just recognize that not being a hypocrite means you support reasonable freedoms like drug use and dont criminalize millions of people for it. Id be a monster if I believed that was somehow okay

>selling meth to your citizens is good

This isnt an argument really

>de-stigmatizes drug use and drug users
>implying this is a good thing
You are obviously a privileged upper-middle class white kid who smokes weed. Nobody cares about that. You have obviously never seen the effect of heroin or any other hard drug use. You very obviously live in the suburbs.

> not being a hypocrite means you support reasonable freedoms like drug use and dont criminalize millions of people for it.
>I want a society of meth/coke/heroin addicts stabbing me for more money to fuel their addiction
>As long as they have their freedom

>Trump losing
Lol k

>the gov't should be consistent with it's use of federal usurpation of state's rights
>not an argument
literally kys irl

>throwing people who use meth in jail is good
>ruining lives with criminal records for nonviolent drug crimes is good
>not helping drug addicts and pushing them away from seeking help is good
>not letting responsible drug users live their lives is good
>not regulating drugs right off the streets and reducing drug related deaths is good

Do you think all junkies just live in alleys like on The Wire?

This. Anyone who really knows the horrific damage of drug abuse would not want to legalize them.

>>throwing people who use meth in jail is good
Executing them would be better and I'm not even joking. Bleeding hearts suburbanites like you are draining this country's economy with your utopian nonsense.

>thinking "slipperly slope" autism has ever been a rational argument
>thinking fear mongering about future crime is a real point

Tell me more about that broken window theory too, while we are discussing autistic shit

>encouraging peoples drug habits

Youre too stupid. Bye.

>seth rogen tier arguments
I'm out

Yeah, Colorado was really "bled dry" after legalization....its like a dystopian future down there, isnt it?

Youd know all about autistic shit you fucking retard

Wait they legalized heroin and stuff? I thought it was just the ganja

Slippery slope arguments are autism tier bullshit you alex jones dick-sucking retardo. Do you have any intelligent points to fucking offer? Or you just gonna scoff like the uneducated infowars faggot waste of sperm you are?

>>throwing people who use meth in jail is bad

Nigga you've never lived with a meth head, you have no idea how awful it is. Meth dealers and meth heads need to be executed. I can tell you all sorts of stories of living with one.
>responsible user
>methhead

That's naivity on how the world works, liberal. It's all fun and games until the methhead comes home at 2am and stares at you while he thinks you're sleeping, holding a hammer and wearing a dust mask and sunglasses.

>slippery slope autism
>ugh just let women have their rights sexist
>ugh just let black people have their rights, racist
>ugh just let homos have their rights, homophobe
>ugh just let trannies have their rights, cisgender
>ugh just let the furries have their rights, humie
All of those have used the "please don't use the slippery slope fallacy" fallacy

Now I know Cred Forums is filled with retards, but here is the reason.

The current culture of the US has essentially has had one side of conservatism demonized by a deliberate agenda by far leftist. Having far right leaning politics is over 100x more damaging to you then having far left politics, and the same is true no matter where on the spectrum you are on. They have been successful in essentially shutting up people with conservatives idea, and they have made it that being a Hollywood conservative is a "faux pas" and can even hurt your chances to get far in the business. They are successful because they control the narrative. Don't forget that many people in high power in Hollywood have a certain ((politics)) about them, whether they are right or left, and they defiently don't appreciate any white ethnocentric politics, which they have also labeled the entire conservative movement as being part of it. Furthermore, the action of the neocons during the 2000s, and the way the Republicans have been pandering evangelicals has also turned away a large number of conservatives, which means that even if you are right-leaning, you are less inclined to defend the Republican party and their voices become even weaker.

That's a big reason, and I'm sure if you took all that away, there would still be more "leftist" or "liberal" people in the film media due to certain personality differences. But that's a big part in why there is such a discrepancy.

I am also basing this idea on how the right wing was strangely killed off in the sciences since the 1950s. Many scientist right now identity as "liberals" or "democrats", but this discrepancy was never large until the 80s starting rolling around.

>you alex jones dick-sucking retardo

You need to stop. This needs to stop. Get off Cred Forums, you're on tilt. Hit the weights, run a lap and get a clue.

Its called an example of legalizing and economically controlling a drug and reaping the benefits of it. People who use heroin are gonna use it if its legal or not. Best make it a controlled enviornment to cull heroin related deaths and make it harder to push on the streets. This is literally how you reduce drug use..,not by making it illegal...that doesnt fucking work. Reduction happens when there is no demand...

Too redpilled for tv. Triggered liberals inclming

>All of those have used the "please don't use the slippery slope fallacy" fallacy
What in the fuck are you saying here?

So are you saying meth and heroin are the same as the ganja?

Thats not the fucking point

Hes saying youre fucking wrong. Hes right. Youre a retard.

Im not, that anons point was retarded as all fuck. But whatever helps you sleep at night, pol.

>make it harder to push on the streets
Like adderall? Because that's legal too, and it's dealt out like candy. Or the massive opiates addiction in millenials due to doctors over-prescribing norco for a fucking toothache. Or xanax, which is another legalized drug with supposed economic control.

>muh persecution complex projection

If you take the tin foil off your head, what is your main point?

>anytime I'm wrong or cant argue anymore
>"y-you just a retard user. Cya! Got em"

>I cant argue anymore so the opposition is just a dum dum

This would work if I was 5

>it's tinfoil to point addy, xanny and opiate addiction

My point is that legalizing drugs isn't going to magically make addiction go away. It's not going to reduce deaths related to them. Street pushers aren't going to stop pushing drugs because they're legal. Especially when you want to legalize meth, heroin and coke, the three most addictive and destructive drugs.

>slippery slope autism
>ugh just let women have their rights sexist
>ugh just let black people have their rights, racist
>ugh just let homos have their rights, homophobe
>ugh just let trannies have their rights, cisgender
>ugh just let the furries have their rights, humie
I dont understand what this point is....how are these all negatives?

But it negates your point if you answer no or makes you an idiot if you answer yes. Which is why you chose to not answer it.

>My point is that legalizing drugs isn't going to magically make addiction go away.

Ive never said addiction goes away. But it is much easier to handle addictions if you decriminalize the drug they use and make it easier to receive access to treatment.

>It's not going to reduce deaths related to them.

It quite fucking literally does lower drug related deatg rates. We have known the correlation of lower drug death and decriminalization for years, mate

>Street pushers aren't going to stop pushing drugs because they're legal.
Yes, jesus christ, yes they are. It already happens. It devalues the product and makes the demand for it lower. We see this in other countries that decriminalize.

You are being willfully ignorant of howndrug enterprises work and function. Demand correlates to the supply, when governments take out or lessen demand, the illegal supply suffers.

>Especially when you want to legalize meth, heroin and coke, the three most addictive and destructive drugs.

Those who use these drugs will continue to use, nobody autistically thinks that the minute you legalize these drugs that an epidemic of heroin or coke use ravages the land. Thats retarded. It just makes it easier to control these substances for the people who DO use, does real damage it reducing street pushing and allows for less stigma for people who need help with abuse

Its naive to think we cant control it

I dont answer it because its not the point of the argument.

But dude legalizing hard drugs makes people less addicted i saw it on reddit lmao just look at weed being legal in some states its exactly the same bro

Nobody should be labeled a criminal for doing a drug in the privacy of their own home. Period.

So for tje case of your argument we should just assume weed is the same as meth and heroin?

That doesnt mean it should be legal and sold in stores. Period

Again, the point isnt what level the drug is...whether weed is or isnt like other drugs has nothing to do with the argument. You are shifting goal posts, faggot.

No im not, im simply trying to understand the basis of your argument by asking questions. Sorry youre upset since its proving you wrong.

You want to tell a tax paying citizen what not to consume or use properly and responsibly if he can? Because you have to be his moral compass for him? Why do you not want to let your neighbor purchase heroin? Because of your fee fees? Because of da children?

Making distribution to children illegal. Make driving under inflience illegal. Set up drug locations where it has to be consumed at if you will. Charge high prices if you want. But dont tell a person what to fucking out in his body

m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsMU77TwYM0

Based hitchens destroys retsrd russell on drugs.

Goal post shifting doesnt "prove me wrong". Scroll up if you forgot what the fucking point is. The severity of the drug is not the point. The type of drug is not the point.

But please, continue to think you are correct Mr Dunning Kruger

being INTP means I'm too intelligent to be racist

Yes. For many reasons which i wont go into, since the thread will 404 and i need to go to bed.

I never said it was the point. But if you consider it your argument is extremely flawed. Stop being an emotional liberal and think for a second

>tfw too intelligent to not be racist

I like this thread desu
Learning a lot from you guys
Recommend me conservative and liberal films so i can contrast pls

Zootopia is redpilled af my nigguh

It really isnt flawed, you just want it to be.

>everyone I disagree with is a liberal
>its liberal not to want to throw everyone needlessly in fucking prison because Reagan dont like those drugs

>oh I got so many reasons. I-I wont tell you tho ;-) rest assured, I got reasons
>checkmate libruhs

Ive identified a clear flaw but youre too dumb to get it

Im not saying youre wrong, i just dont personally agree with your childish view of things

You havent all you went was
>durrr but is weed the same as heroin? Is weed the same as heroin? Weed the same as coke? Is weed the same?
>you wont answer?
>checkmate!!!

>being pro freedoms and liberty
>is "childish"
>im not saying you are wrong, but let me devalue what your points are and dismiss them as childish

Fucking faggots. The whole lot of you

Emotional liberal confirmed

No i didnt. If thats all you got out of it youre a moron. Which would explain your retarded argument and getting upset.

Pretty much ya.