|
|
|
|
|
|
by thrwyoilarticle
1324 days ago
|
|
|
To answer your question, since the other replies are being disingenuous, it's a dog whistle for groups including 'liberals', left wingers, and - historically - Jewish people. This is why the OP comment makes the unsubstantiated claim that it's a method of coordinating an in-group's thought - as though agreeing with a left-wing bias Twitter is because of brainwashing and propaganda. It's unsubstantiated because it's easily proven wrong. Twitter was home to Trump's presidential campaign. It's home to groups like ISIS, the Western output of the Kremlin, of the CCP, of Bolsonaro. Of Musk. There is a point to be made about the changing role of Twitter. In my mind it is for some definition of 'elites' - but for expressing their views to their followers, not for coordinating. Sad that this opportunity to discuss such has been co-opted by conspiratorial rhetoric. |
|
|
Well not necessarily. In some contexts that may be how it is used - I've heard GOP hardliners in the US using it this way. But for example the "elite" in the UK would largely refer to the right-leaning upper-class who attended "public schools" (note: discussed on HN previously, public school == very fancy, expensive, exclusive private schools) and Oxbridge, and who stumble into well-paid careers in finance and politics. I wouldn't say religion is a big part of it - both Jacob Rees-Mogg (Catholic) and Rishi Sunak (Hindu) would be considered members of the "elite", but their religious beliefs are orthogonal to their place on the class hierarchy.
The best answer I saw in this thread was from "bakuninsbart" but it was downvoted and appeared in greytext so many won't have seen it: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=bakuninsbart