I was thinking about how these freaks tend to be shitty writer and came up with some explanations. Sorry for making it TL;DR
-Their stories tend to be more simplistic, bland and less creative because they refuse to write anything that can violate their ideology as they are pathologically obsessive with it due to extremism. Diversity hire bullshit which includes extremist staff pandering was also suggested as a reason due to the poor staff quality that results from this practice.
-They love shoving their extremist ideology into everything, which is why several of their stories contain negative depictions of whites and men, with the nature of said depictions being comparable to a neo-nazi's depiction of Jews. They also tend to be full of other themes designed to pander to their kind as well as references to their conspiracy theories that are depicted as if they are all true. An example of this would be the infamous Mafia III, which contains several instances of regressive leftist themes and a reference to the regressive left's "alt-right" conspiracy theory in the form of a Klan like org known as the southern union, which it's leader denies on their radio show.
-They're prone to making Mary Sues and turning preexisting characters into them like in the case of Marvel character Carol Danvers, which was so disastrous that people now mix up the character's name with the joke nickname Carl Manvers. This is because they think that depicting a character who's supposed to be "diverse" with any real flaws violates their ideology, and they have responded to the criticism of their characters being Mary Sues by declaring the term to be hate speech.
-Their pathological extremism often distracts them from proper writing, resulting in writing issues such as the fact that it was never really explained how in the sequel trilogy that some imperial warlord in the outer rim was able to successfully build a massive planet integrated death star successor that is powerful enough to obliterate multiple planets rather than something more realistically powerful lore-wise for their factions size, and intimidate at least half the galaxy into surrendering to their rule while somehow being able to establish and keep that rule when said superweapon got destroyed in a small time frame after it's first firing.
If there are any other notable issues or corrections you may have then feel free to suggest them
PS: I think it would be funny if someone turned against the regressive left because they got falsely declared a troll and wrongfully banned from some community for calling Carol Danvers Carl Manvers by mistake, just because of the joke nickname's popularity among the anti-regressive movement.
Bring on the downvotes, but this is mostly nonsense and a comforting delusion. Most popular writers are leftist. This has many explanations, including: gate-keeping, groupthink, peer-pressure, economic status, shifting political narratives and of course, the simple fact that literature and fiction tend to appeal to people who are on the left more than the other way around (for reasons that are irrelevant to this discussion).
Unless you're into some very specific niches, most of the work you like and cherish was written by leftists, full stop. As the overton window slides leftward at ever-increasing speeds, and social media echochambers make people lose their minds, it is quite likely that the talented artist you remember as reasonable and moderate is now a proper leftist ideologue in 2021. Probably an insufferable asshole, too. Now sure, often this "progressivization" process makes them worse artists, who do display some of characteristics discussed in OP. But not always and pretending like there's some hidden league of "true moderate artists" out there, who are the real architects of American popular culture, is nothing but a lie.
Now, pay attention: this is different from grift "artists" like Ta-Nehisi Coates that haven't actually produced much work of value (if at all) and are simply carried by social justice or are politically-savvy opportunists. I'm talking about the real juggernauts here. The vast majority are at the very least left-of-center.
I do not know if what you are saying is true or not but stop using "full stop", I hate that. Most people writing have been on the left, I was on the left. Being on the left a decade ago is the equivalent of a alt-right today. I consider the older works as based, cause they are, even if the writer joins some woke movement today.
If you separate past and present versions of the writers as different persons and judge them by todays standards the non-leftist works are considerably superior, even if the writer is the same. I've yet to see a work be improved by woke/SJW mind sets.
Edit: I'm re-watching House, I'm certain that the writers were leftists and maybe now they are SJWs but the show today is so based, it is literally making fun of todays SJWs.
I think you're missing the point that OP is trying to make. He's referring specifically to the woke intersectional idpol SJW flavor of leftism, which is different than socialist non-SJW leftism, and different than basic bitch liberals, and other ideological flavors on the left.
You're right, most artists are left wing. However, the criticism that most people here have is with the SJW idpol crap. That is the cause of most of the stuff people here are critical of, like Mary Sues, race-swapping, in your face ideological lecturing, etc.
I didn't miss that point, see my last paragraph. My point is that most of the boomer-era artists (and even the still-living ones of one generation prior) have drifted left enough that they basically hold the same opinions as the SJW leftists and they are about as unhinged. Worse, the grifters like Coates are self-aware. They know that this is all performative. They act differently behind closed doors. On the other hand, many of the previous-generation artists got genuine TDS a couple years ago, so their lunacy is the real deal.