Historically speaking, why do low IQ entertainers become popular?
They don't
>>2961129
By "Low IQ entertainers" do you mean the entertainers themselves have a low IQ?
Because that sinply cant be true. To be successful you have to be smart (or steal jokes like Amy Schumer)
Take pic related for example. A charming fellow who derailed his career. Do you think he's accidentally making the same movie over and over and over again?
No. He does it on purpose. Why? Because idiots will pay money to see him. Knowing this, he plans a bunch of vacations throughout the year where they shoot the movie in a week and then release it. Haven't you noticed that all the same actors appear in his movies? Because its all a big scam. Sandler and his buddies take advantage of the stupid audience they've gathered and are exploiting it. The higher ups dont care, because they're making money off him.
It's not the entertianers that are stupid, its their audience. A majority of the world population doesn't like to think. Thinking makes people sad. But look, Adam Sandler is playing his own sister! Ahahaha!!
See: Pandering and Adam Sandler's entire career
>>2961174
This.
Most celebrates are fucking smart as shit, but they act like mongs because it sells anon, makes the consumer feel better about themselves as "hurr durr look how stupid that popstar is" is better for the celebrity than everyone hating them because they are better in every way (looks, wealth, intelligence, etc).
>>2961129
Most entertainers are closet conservatives so by default they have iq
>>2961377
*high
>>2961199
>2017
>not realising adam sandler is the greatest director in the last 50 years
they have high IQ handlers. Blacks and Jews ,as a low IQ and high IQ populations, have a long history of media partnership (terms applied loosely) since the Jazz age.
>>2961821
t.Snoozenstein Beekleberg Boruwitz