Same reason as always: Wealthy people want less taxes, more power, and will lobby for the parties that always promise less taxes: Those on the right.
The problem is that the conservative and traditional right aren't too popular, so they need to go for the far-right. Those parties are in full MAGA-mode, focusing on things like immigration. It is so, so much easier to sway public opinion by blowing up incidents involving immigrants, than to convince the public that they should accept reduction or degradation of services due to tax cuts.
Far-right politicians discovered some time ago that they can straight up lie through their teeth, and face zero consequences. And those lies will propagate through social media, and people will accept them as facts.
It seems like critical thinking among huge parts of the population is considerably down. I've heard seemingly smart people I know regurgitate lies they've picked up on social media, which they could have fact checked in 30 seconds.
Social media seems to basically be a way of running A/B testing on the population until you find enough folks vulnerable to some sort of powerful misconception that serves your purpose.
For the SM network "purpose" means engagement, but it turns out that (to our disadvantage) it also serves the purposes of an army of grifters, opportunists and power mad sociopaths who are taking over the world. Once again (think the 1930s) it turns out mastery of new media technologies in the hands of bad people has consequences.
As techies, building productive rather than destructive media (and AI is the next "media" of consequence) really ought to be top of agenda.
Trust me, the climate is in as rough a shape as those so-called extremists would have you believe. You can quite literally read it off the veniers, or at least we could until we hired a strong man to smash them.
Nuclear is another matter -- I reckon the European anti-nuclear movement set climate change ahead by at least several years, but these days the cost/benefit leans solar, as political unrest pairs poorly with nuclear hazards, as Ukraine has learned in the past five years.
Nevertheless, the UK's administrative class' fetish for "sensible" solutions works great except during a generational upheaval, when they can't (to borrow a metaphor from aviation) see the horizon and must trust their instruments and the data they deliver.
It's the same here in Canada, I am sorry to report. A Commonwealth cultural tic we would all best be mindful of, lest we wear sensible shoes that take us all the way to calumny.
There are extremists who claimed the ocean would be destroyed by acid rain, oil would run out by 2020 and co2 levels would push the temps to 25+C in the UK for most of the year.
None of these things have happened but these people were still let near schools unvetted with these claims in the 90s. If day we've learned to communicate science better but fools in the know all to quickly become political bedfellows with money with agendas attached to it...
You have a great narrative there, with villians and deception, and sensible heroes who dismiss the nonsense with fresh air and clear heads.
But do look at the actual data. The AMOC slowing is ahead of schedule. Carbon use is down, but atmospheric carbon is accelerating (!) , strongly suggesting that there are now active feedback loops.
"Ha! It is Tuesday and I am not yet dead! Those silly doctors!" Feels good to shout, but won't see you through Sunday.
I agree with most of what the article has to say, but I feel like it's dancing around the fundamental issue. Like:
> These apparently disparate events all feature one obvious commonality: race. In each case, the riots were sparked by an act of violence in which the victim(s) were white and the attackers were not. The context: these events were focused largely in ethnically diverse working-class neighbourhoods, communities where resources are stretched.
I know the author is smart and informed enough to see the parallels between this and a number of high-profile incidents in the past decade. There's an increasingly widespread idea that this is simply how a wise person should see interracial crime, not as a series of tragic individual incidents but as attacks on the whole of Group X by the whole of Group Y. The idea has achieved enough prominence that it's starting to overcome the hard-fought taboo on white identitarianism, and now for the first time in decades we have to deal with it as an open political force.
I emphasize that white identitarianism is a bad ideology, incompatible with many of the nice things we enjoy about the modern world, and we have to defeat rather than accommodate it. But defeating it requires taking a serious look at the factors that allow it to grow.
It could well be the case that the growth of white identitarianism is almost entirely driven by white supremacist media moguls, who are unfathomably rich and shape the zeitgeist to a large degree.
See also: antisemitism in Nazi Germany. I’m sure some Jewish people committed serious crimes against non-Jewish Germans. But that was incidental, not causal, to the vile propaganda that eventually led to the Holocaust.
It could be, but I really don't think so. The splintering of Reform UK and then Restore Britain strongly suggests to me that there's a mass movement. If it were a plot by media moguls, I would have expected them to carefully manage discontent to keep people within the Tories.
To echo roryirvine, I don't think there's any plot. I do think that these moguls are genuinely, virulently racist and jump at the chance to propagate their toxic politics as widely as possible.
I think the real problem people are having is that a large amount of those immigrants are now no longer from the EU. But you have Brexit to blame for that.
A) people had an issue with immigration when it was mostly from the EU as well, one of the main drivers of Brexit
B) leaving the EU did not mean that non-EU migration had to go up
C) immigration going down for one or two years doesn’t change the fact that millions of people are in the UK that most British people didn’t want to enter in the first place over a period of 15+ years
D) net immigration going down still means lots of people are entering the UK from elsewhere, while people from the same culture (ie grew up in the UK) are leaving which still changes the culture of the country
Note: I’m not saying I personally agree with any of those points but it’s clear what the issues are if you’re prepared to listen. There is opinion polling on all of this.
Yeah this is just nonsense, not really worth dealing with for anyone even mildly serious. If you want to halt all immigration or deport all immigrants then you are on the wrong forum.
There certainly are forums for what you are suggesting though.
But we can look at the polling data going back decades now on this issue. People were not happy when it was 50,000 net migration. At one point it hit 950,000.
Obviously the issues that people are concerned about on housing, on transport, on education and more aren’t resolved by reducing the flow for a couple of years.
My point is simply that these feelings have existed for a long time and the government has generally gone against what the electorate have asked for. Are you prepared to concede that point?
If so, then I think blaming it on big tech is a major stretch since this all happened before they had as much command of our attention.
> My point is simply that these feelings have existed for a long time and the government has generally gone against what the electorate have asked for.
The electorate repeatedly asked for those policies by voting the parties that enacted them. If they had other opinions, they didn't express them in any way that actually matters.
That's a feature of first-past-the-post elections. The system deliberately prioritizes regional representation over public opinion. If you want a parliament that prioritizes public opinion, you need a different electoral system.
There has never been a British election where the majority votes cast have been for parties that pledged to increase immigration.
I take your FPTP point, but when has the winning party under FPTP had a manifesto commitment to increase immigration?
Let’s just face facts. We might disagree personally but a majority of people have always voted against immigration and it’s regularly a top 3 issue. Often the top issue!
People pay too much attention on what politicians say, and too little on what kind of people those politicians and their allies are.
My impression is that Reform and the Greens are the only mainstream parties with an actual opinion on immigration. The other parties approach immigration from a more technocratic perspective. They form policies based on expected outcomes, regardless of what the people with opinions think about that kind of immigration. (Except to the extent those opinions influence the outcomes.)
As long as people keep voting Tories, Labour, or Lib Dems, they are effectively saying that immigration is not that important issue after all.
In 2019, the Conservatives stood on a manifesto that promised, amongst other things, to ditch immigration targets (in favour of a more generous points-based system), to increase foreign recruitment of healthcare workers, and to introduce a new student visa which would attract "more students from all over the world" and encourage them to stay on and apply for work in the UK after graduation.
Read point 8 in your link - the 100,000 net target was from the previous (2015 and 2017) manifestos, but was never taken seriously and was ditched in favour of the looser points-based system in 2019.
Both the Tories and Labour shifted their position several times in the 2010s, but few people based their votes on it. The only real change in policy came with the Brexit referendum, which was widely interpreted as being a desire for a shift from European to Commonwealth immigration.
The recent wave of concern is a new thing, and it remains to be seen whether it will continue now that the Brexit migration surge has tailed off or whether the online shit-stirring will be enough to sustain it for longer.
If people prefer unskilled EU immigration to skilled non-EU immigration its says something about them.
People had a problem with EU immigration before Brexit so I do not think that is it.
I think most of the problem people have is with is to illegal immigration. The sentiment is "stop the boats". There are bizarre things happening in the asylum system. Do we need to consider claims made by people from the EU or the US? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/18/eu-citizens-hand... That is an extreme but there are lots of claims by people from safe countries.
I know, but the people complaining about immigration do not. I partly blame the media and social media, and partly politicians focus on net migration numbers.
There's being fed up with something and there's fomenting civil war. The huge wave of immigration, which has since subsided, happened under the Tories.
The most likely candidates are places like Bradford and Birmingham, which are still - according to wikipedia - 60%+ white british, that's without even considering british asian or other people born in and native to the UK.
Again, sorry, I can't find any sources to support your facts here, maybe I looked in a different place to you, so perhaps you could share your sources?
I’m not taking sides on the wider argument here, but I think it’s you who should check your sources? Copy pasting direct from wikipedia:
> The city of Bradford is 45.8% White according to the latest 2021 census data, with the White British population being 40.5%. 45.3% of the city's population is Asian, primarily from the Pakistani community
The difference we're seeing in numbers here is because the centres of cities are historically have a higher number of immigrants.
Fortunately, ONS did a specific report on "Bradford", which is the source for the wikipedia page I cited. The source link was broken on wiki, here it is though:
"In the latest census, around 437,800 Bradford residents said they were born in England. This represented 80.1% of the local population."
I chose Bradford because it's locally referred to (pejoratively, not by me) as "Bradistan". But despite that, according to ONS, 30% cite Muslim as their religion, which is more than "no religion" at 28%, but still lower than Christianity, at 34%
I encourage you to go check the sources for your sources, like I should have done (and you forced me to). If you look at this debate with an open mind, I believe you will find the majority of us rightly don't feel represented by the statement "Brits are legitimately fed up with immigration" any more. My bias' are that I'll almost always be pro immigration, within reason, but I completely recognise there have been times over the past 10 years where I've felt that position has been legitimately hard to defend. Now is not one of those times
The real issue is that every single time someone or something suggests immigration is a problem in the UK, it can trivially be reframed as an inequality issue.
To get back to the original topic, I think beneficiaries of inequality - like certain big tech players - are strongly motivated to keep the general public blaming anyone other than them for the problems caused by inequality.
edit: I just understood the census page a bit more, it's a generic report by area. You can put Birmingham in there too. It says basically the same: the overwhelming majority of residents are UK born and Christian or of no religion. Yes this is changing, slowly, like the world and populations change, slowly - not at a new or concerning rate.
The times are clearly changing, as they always do. Are you saying that it is “natural and sensible” to be racist and xenophobic? Perhaps it is. But perhaps we can do better.
Yes it is natural to prefer your own ethnicity and culture, which has existed for thousands of years. It is okay to say you want it to survive.
Japan, Korea, China, all have a strong preference for preserving their culture and ethnicity. Japan is 99% ethnic Japanese and has strict immigration laws. Yet they are also tolerant to outsiders who are visitors and we respect their right to govern themselves. I don’t think anyone regards the Japanese as a hateful people, yet by your definition they are indeed “racist” and “xenophobic”.
If the choice is to see your people replaced or be labeled “phobic”, then the obvious choice is to just accept the label and fight for your people.
It's natural to be a bit racist an xenophobic internally. We're all animals at the end of the day who are motivated to protect our in groups and people like us.
The same way as it's natural to have strong feelings of wanting to inflict pain and suffering on someone who's done wrong to us or people we care about.
Choosing not to do these harmful but natural things is called "being civil". Nobody has to be civil, but a civil society is that way because it makes uncomfortable consequences on people who aren't civil.
It is not sensible to be xenophobic and racist in a civil society unless you consider harming others and inviting uncomfortable consequences on yourself as sensible.
But you don't have to pretend. You can choose to be outwardly racist and xenophobic if you want, it just doesn't seem very sensible.
Maybe native Brits should make more babies? Or maybe the powers that be should enact changes to make native baby-making more compelling? Dunno what to tell you. Without immigration, the wheels fall off completely.
>Without immigration, the wheels fall off completely.
Do you recall the criticism that a blind commitment to economic growth at all costs is a social pathology that (among other adverse effects) prevents us from addressing climate change?
It is easier when that is the zeitgeist. If every other country in Europe has the same thing going on, it becomes easier to campaign on that sort of stuff. Suddenly the extreme parties don't seem that extreme, and people start to question whether or not previously extreme opinions are that extreme anymore.
well, first, you need to filter out the foreign influence before you tell people "Brits" and then you also need to adjust your history of brits importing immigrants from their colonies.
After you do that, then people might listen to you.
That’s on you to prove. Is this an “obvious” truth? Or is it just the narrative spun by the fascists and fear-mongers who, incidentally, own some of the biggest media platforms in existence?
Today, a man stabbed four people in islamophobic rage: a ghastly crime. Where are the riots in protest of racist UK natives?
I think you missed the point. Claiming legitimate voter unhappiness with some sort of conspiracy of foreign actors, is Politics 101. It's massive spin.
They have citizens rioting on their streets and yet somehow claim it's nefarious foreign actors.
If they are fed up with immigration they are stupid. “Gee we have declining birth rates and we want to deny this pool of labor that might correct course because they are brown.” The american empire was built on easy immigration. Turns out the tired and poor that we took in can build empires and win europe’s major wars for them.
Ah, friend, America was importing people from Africa. Indeed “import” is rather more apt in this case than the several other you’ve ignored (e.g. the mass immigration from Vietnam at the finish of that war).
What a horridly dull country it would be were your understanding nearer the truth; what a betrayal of its dream to wish it as you see it; how silly you would seem to your know-nothing antecedents so lumping “Europeans” as one (it is an irony that in their comparatively more nuanced racialism they at least understood a little more of that continent’s ethnic and cultural diversity).
Up until 1965 the US had strict origin requirements for where immigrants could come from and it was capped at a relatively low number throughout much of the 20th century.
Yes actually up until 1990 the US was overwhelmingly European ancestry, just go look at any demographic data from before 1990. Many states were 90+% white and indeed many were even higher.
The places with African slave descendants in the US were the main sources of “diversity” and were of course the ones with lower social trust and higher crime/poverty.
>has found the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, donate to charity, and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust each other only half as much as in the most homogeneous environments.
Not fear, a clear understanding of reality. It’s easy to understand that if you import a large number of Somalians, your country will change to be more similar to Somalia. It shows itself in statistics time and time again. Just take a look at any crime stats broken down by race in any country. Indeed look at even Sweden, they imported a large population of Syrians and Afghans and their gun violence rate has doubled in the last decade.
It’s no coincidence that the US was founded by European Christians and that it took on many of the best characteristics of those same European Christian societies (the ones who invented science, the enlightenment, the rule of law, etc). That is the real power behind the American Empire.
>Do you suppose your response to an ethnically or culturally different neighbor differs from some your ancestors’?
Likely I have very similar views to my ancestors. That is that our country and people have a right to continue existing as they have for thousands of years.
>morally superior
Our country does not owe anybody the right to live here, we reserve the right to allow or disallow anyone we want to move here and become a citizen, that is one of the main characteristics of a sovereign nation. If your criteria for immigration is purely “what is the most moral policy?” (An extremely vague idea, subject to interpretation by anyone), then your country will very quickly cease to exist.
You are fear mongering here. I do think immigration is double edged, but if you look at the statistics I posted it is very far from replacement level. If you would prefer to have immigrants from the EU instead, then something needs to be done about Brexit.
Ahh, so you want to lock down the border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, because if you drop 1 million citizens of Ireland into London they also don't simply become British but are just Irish living in London.
The Welsh might have a comment about how much the British government tried to erase the native culture and people who lived on those isles for thousands of years before various foreigners came in on little boats. How are the native Cornish speakers doing these days?
The American Empire grew in no little part by specifically importing people from Africa to work as slaves.
I don't think it's a made up idea that immigration is a problem, some people clearly, definitely consider it a problem, and it can cause problems. But it's a problem that's been heavily worked on recently and has had a lot of success in solving in the UK over the past 2 years.
This is why it's completely barmy to suggest the average brit is fed up of immigration now, and I'm not sure why many people pointing that out are being heavily downvoted.
The whole reason the British government pushed Brexit was so Britain could control its immigration. That's how Brexit was presented to the population, that's why people voted for it. Then the government got Brexit, and then Boris Johnson more than tripled immigration, chasing away EU immigration and getting all the immigrants from the (very coincidentally very low-wage Pakistan, I mean there aren't very many countries anywhere that have lower average wages than Greece)
Meanwhile the government did not fix the housing issue, the cost of living disaster in London, the unemployment problem, ... and so on. And the central UK government forced small towns, cities and the like into bankruptcy. Now, in the UK, things like social support are financed by municipalities EXCEPT when it comes to immigrants. So, effectively, the government massively increased immigration, reduced social support and raised taxes on everybody except immigrants.
Then the government blamed very large youth services scandals, like the Rotherham scandal, on immigrants. This, despite the fact that these children had been taken from their homes by youth services and were under their custody AND despite the fact that youth services AND the police have been credibly accused of taking payoffs. Those people were definitely not immigrants, but they did not feature in the court proceedings "for some reason".
So government causes, to varying extents, large social problems. It ostensibly saves immigrants from these problems, and then the government itself blames immigrants for problems the government caused.
The problem here is not Twitter. I mean, they're not helping. But they're not the problem.
Right. "The government" didn't push for Brexit. Then-prime minister David Cameron pushed for a Brexit vote largely because he thought that the measure would be defeated. Quoting Wikipedia, "Supporters of the Remain campaign included then-prime minister David Cameron, the future prime ministers Theresa May, Liz Truss, and Sir Keir Starmer, and the ex–prime ministers John Major, Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit>.
Retrospective analyses and Cameron's own account make clear that he saw advantage in calling for the referrendum with the expectation that it would be defeated. Example:
Cameron chose to commit to a vote, not because the country’s population was clamouring for one but because a significant minority of his own MPs ... were demanding that he do so...
Naturally, Cameron was aware he was running a risk – after all, his best friend in politics, Chancellor George Osborne, told him so again and again. But he thought he would win the vote....
It's implied by the article that there wouldn't be much opposition to immigration without big tech. That isn't true if there is widespread opposition to immigration anyway and the government broke its promise about dealing with it.
The project was started by wealth offshoring groups on the Isle of Man that were afraid their loopholes would finally be closed, so if it could deliver on anything it claimed in order to get adequate votes then that would be coincidental. (The structure of EU and Schengen law also meant that leaving was the most likely way to raise the percentage of illegal immigrants making it to the UK.)
I also find your account interesting as a choice. If were not going to swap that account, I would at least update the "about" to reflect the risks from a Musk worth over a trillion.
The article specifically disclaims that. "To identify Musk as the cause of the riots is to airbrush the messy reality. Comforting, but ultimately deluding."
>The whole reason the British government pushed Brexit was so Britain could control its immigration. That's how Brexit was presented to the population, that's why people voted for it.
>Meanwhile the government did not fix the housing issue, the cost of living disaster in London, the unemployment problem, ... and so on.
These two things might be connected. It's almost like Brexit caused a series of large social problems.
Brexit promised a solution just like loads of solutions had been promised within the EU framework prior to it - all these "solutions" were akin in that they were all promised (from left and right within the political establishment) and all not delivered. This is also why people seek to go outside the regular voting pattern with Reform, it's not cause they suddenly love something completely different but because the former voting pattern did not deliver improvements as expected.
What do you mean "not delivered"? The solution to too much immigration was that Boris Johnson and the conservatives tripled immigration (and >10x'ed Pakistani immigration) because they got power through Brexit.
That's not what any reasonable person would call "not delivered".
(note: this was not loose enough for Johnson and with support from Rishi Sunak he loosened immigration policy even further. This was just the first shot)
its a higher percentage than voted for the current government. Its also, obviously, a higher proportion than voted to remain. Its been at least a 100 years since a government was voted in by the majority of the electorate, and only once in that time has a government even got the majority of votes cast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...
you are right, although i would point out that when you use the word “government” you’re mostly referring to a series of conservative party governments.
at the same time. two things can be true. everything you mentioned plays a large part in why we’re in a bit of a mess as a country.
this is being exacerbated by big tech firms, especially social media ones. the fact that a lie from some tech bro with a large soapbox can travel all the way around the world in less than a second makes it very hard to have a reasoned discussion or debate about the problem.
"The government" in British politics (as with most parliamentary systems) is a term of art which in a policy context refers specifically to present executive authority as embodied in the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet.
"The government" at the time, embodied by David Cameron, were not pushing for Brexit. It, and Cameron, pushed for a vote, but with the expectation that the referendum would be defeated.
> "The government" in British politics (as with most parliamentary systems) is a term of art which in a policy context refers specifically to present executive authority as embodied in the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet.
Fair. Although that particular term of art obfuscates some specific nuance. Namely that there were like 10 different conservative "the governments" that were referred to throughout spwa4's comment (i can't remember exactly how many different govts there were now and i cba to remember).
> "The government" at the time, embodied by David Cameron, were not pushing for Brexit.
Yes, although elements of the conservative party, some of which were part of David Cameron's government, were pushing for a referendum.
Billionaires can't have the UK passing sensible taxation policies to curtail the influence of the super-rich. If the UK achieves success in preventing the collapse of their society into a form of feudal poverty, Americans might catch on that there are other options. The Musk-types enjoy playing god and would rather risk systemic collapse than shed some part of their power.
"Big Tech" seems to basically be Elon Musk, known for nazi salutes and nazi grandparents who moved out of South Africa because it wasn't racist enough.
Yeah that article is missing a very major point that immigration in the UK hasn't meant assimilation or a coherent mixing of cultures as people want or may have observed at times.
The problems in the UK are actually focused around sticky blobbyness caused by a) lack of integration, b) left vs right flavor of the moment causing further segregation and c) long term socioeconomic factors leading to govt(councils) fixing the problem in the cheapest way possible which is unfortunately high profile in the British high street by the public.
A lot of British are moving out of the city centers themselves (or already have) and into suburbs which leaves the cities hollowed out. Lack of footfall means lack of investment means decay and cheap housing/buildings.
All of this is a predicable recipe for friction but very short term British politics combined with a "not my problem" attitude prevalent in the nhs and public sectors means people doubled down in short term solutions for over a generation.
That combined with more hardship causes people to look at the biggest broken problem which is our immigration system needed reforming over 20yr+ ago and unfortunately this was locked into place by EU laws and policy (such ironically we pushed for, for other political reasons).
It's less of a grand conspiracy and more of the dominoes we're set to fall this way after dragging us out of the 80s without fixing anything and then the post recession being used to fuel boom and growth vs fixing underlying issues at a national level.
British people miss the fact that assimilation happens in the generation after the immigrant generation. Italian immigrants were looked down on in the US too. Too catholic, not speaking the language and not engaging in american culture practices. The next generation speaks fluent english and is scarcely different than any other american out of the school system.
I wonder if we (the countries experiencing mass immigration numbers) are also missing that between 1908 and 1923 35% to 40% of all immigrants who arrived in the U.S. eventually returned to their home countries. I wonder if those were people who were unable to assimilate and if those numbers are true today or if with access to media from home, etc, it no longer occurs as much and the dynamics today are incomparable to historical immigration/assimilation patterns.
Most immigrants in UK do assimilate. Seen the stories about the high proportion of births where at least one parent is foreign born? In most cases the other parent is British born.
Simple answer is power, look at how things have changed since Musk bought the largest communication platform on the planet. Look at who's backing him and what they want.
The UK's stance goes right against the values and goals these billionaires want and that's basically to do whatever they want without recourse. What better way to sow diversion than to stoke civil unrest and cause change to the systems that stand in their way.
I'm sure it's about power. I am also sure that having that much wealth, that little accountability, being surrounded by people who've a vested interest in telling you you're a genius, would make anyone go a little insane. Call it Roman Emperor syndrome. Not many people can be Marcus Aurelius.
Hehe... in ancient Rome, a billionaire-type sociopath would be poisoned, killed on a battlefield, or (as is the fashion these days), fall through a window in a high-rise office building.
NOT proposing that as a fix! But society at large would do well to ask why we let such extreme wealth (and with that: power) concentrate in the hands of so few individuals.
These aren't demi-gods! These are people with all the failings & weaknesses regular folks have. Spread the risk ffs.
As much as I abhor his behaviour and think the world does not need stateless trillionaire bullies, the blame for Elon Musk's deteriorating character does not lie with his money or his yes-men.
It was baked in right from the start. We need to understand on a societal level how this happens.
The blame lies with Errol and Maye, who are absolutely fucking awful people (particularly Errol, a man even Elon describes as despicable) who should never have had children, and who are responsible for the early childhood trauma and neglect etc. that turned Elon into a textbook malignant narcissist.
We would pity that man if he were not so destructive, because he is broken in a way that nobody can fix. Part of me does pity him.
And FWIW I do believe that at his best, he fights against this — he is clearly aware of who broke him and how, and I do think that at his best he is trying to build things for people rather than surrender to hating everyone because they cannot give him enough love to fill the hole inside.
At his worst, which is now, he's just a malevolent force — a textbook Bond villain. He will only get worse as he attracts more hatred he cannot unsee.
It's the same for Donald Trump (broken by evil, evil parents) and Andrew Tate (broken by an evil, cruel father at the very least.)
Comments being used as measure of 'public sentiment' is one of the ways perception is being manipulated by big tech in the first place.
In the archived version (linked elsewhere) there is a sea of negative comments within ~55 minutes of the article being posted, I seriously doubt a large percentage of them are legitimate (all of them doing the same routine, telling the exact same lines and stories).
> The author could not find the elusive videos of maniacal Whites stabbing, beheading, assaulting, machete-ing or raping non-White strangers in the streets because they do not exist
That capitalization convention is included in the Associated Press Stylebook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Stylebook); the author's use of that convention is not evidence of any broader "allegiance." (Maybe some feel that adhering to the AP's guidelines is enough evidence of bias, but I think it is imprecise to judge the author specifically for following that convention.)
(I am not expressing any opinion on the broader topic(s). I only wanted to call out that the author's writing conventions may have less significance than OP implies.)
Don't capitalise black, don't capitalise white, write like we used to do before the identity politicos started messing things up. Even by capitalising white you're falling into their trap of raising identity as a political factor. Dump the lot of those identity politicos in the bin where they belong and let's get to the actual issues no matter what they say.
Please just flag egregious comments or email us (hn@ycombinator.com) if it seems like something needs moderator attention. We've had bad stuff on HN since the start. We can deal with it easily if we know about it.
The problem is that the conservative and traditional right aren't too popular, so they need to go for the far-right. Those parties are in full MAGA-mode, focusing on things like immigration. It is so, so much easier to sway public opinion by blowing up incidents involving immigrants, than to convince the public that they should accept reduction or degradation of services due to tax cuts.
Far-right politicians discovered some time ago that they can straight up lie through their teeth, and face zero consequences. And those lies will propagate through social media, and people will accept them as facts.
It seems like critical thinking among huge parts of the population is considerably down. I've heard seemingly smart people I know regurgitate lies they've picked up on social media, which they could have fact checked in 30 seconds.