Celebrities: why we love to hate them

Show summary Hide summary

• From Dostoevsky to modern celebrities: the long history of moral showmanship
• How one prison case exposed celebrity activism as image-making
• “Love has no borders”: celebrities, charities, and the fashion of activism
• Who feels patronized — and why the resentment grows
• Rethinking the border debate: empathy, realism, and policy trade-offs
• New findings on masculinity: men, friendship and the limits of emotional prescription
  • What the research observed
• Why Blackadder’s dark humor still resonates 40 years later

When celebrities make moral pronouncements about migration and kindness, they often do it as if declaring membership in a better class of people. That public display of compassion can feel less like sincere solidarity and more like an upscale performance: carefully chosen causes, polished photos, and an audience of peers nodding in approval.

But beneath that glossy public virtue lies a growing irritation. For many observers, the performative charity of the cultural elite reads as condescension — an attitude that can alienate the very people these celebrities claim to champion.

From Dostoevsky to modern celebrities: the long history of moral showmanship

Writers have been mocking self-satisfied moralizers for centuries. A 19th-century Russian novelist famously skewered progressives who loudly proclaimed their benevolence while alienating ordinary people. The satire targeted the sort of grand declarations that amount to little more than social signaling: loudly affirming one’s own goodness while treating others as objects of pity rather than equals.

That same dynamic is visible today when public figures treat humanitarianism as a way to polish their reputation. The gestures may be well-intentioned, but the effect often reads as performative rather than practical.

How one prison case exposed celebrity activism as image-making

Over the holidays the debate around Alaa Abd el-Fattah — the Egyptian activist imprisoned for years — reignited questions about celebrity intervention. An open letter calling for his release and for the UK to offer him refuge gathered signatures from high-profile names, reviving an old pattern: stars rallying behind causes that enhance their moral brand.

Critics pointed to problematic aspects of Abd el-Fattah’s past social-media postings and asked whether signing the letter reflected careful judgment or reflexive virtue-signaling. The episode highlighted two trends running side by side: a genuine belief in human rights among some signatories, and a tendency among others to back causes that boost public standing.

“Love has no borders”: celebrities, charities, and the fashion of activism

Beyond single cases, a wider phenomenon has emerged: border politics turned into a cultural statement. The charity Choose Love — which frames refugee support as an expression of compassion and solidarity — has attracted a parade of familiar faces promoting slogans like “love has no borders.”

• High-profile supporters such as Louis Theroux, Nish Kumar, Chris Martin and Tamzin Outhwaite have helped raise visibility.
• The messaging is intentionally simple and emotionally direct: stand with refugees, choose compassion over hate.
• That simplicity appeals to mass sentiment, but it also flattens complex policy debates into feel-good soundbites.

For many people, the spectacle of celebrities aligning with causes can be reassuring — or irritating. It reassures those who agree with the message; it irritates those who see this as a form of moral one-upmanship that ignores practical consequences.

Who feels patronized — and why the resentment grows

There’s a widespread perception that the modern cultural elite lives in insulated neighborhoods, attends the same schools, and rarely experiences the strains that animate ordinary voters: housing pressures, stretched public services, and rapid demographic change. When celebrities pronounce broad moral judgments from that perch, the result can feel patronizing.

Critics of celebrity-led advocacy argue that:

• Labeling political opponents as hateful shuts down debate instead of addressing real concerns.
• Blanket moral formulas often ignore the lived realities of border pressure and local strain.
• Public virtue-signaling can amount to symbolic politics — gestures without operational plans for implementation.

The backlash against performative compassion is not necessarily rooted in xenophobia. For many, it’s a reaction to perceived elite arrogance: the idea that sincere concerns about immigration are dismissed as immoral simply because they conflict with the tastes of celebrities and commentators.

Rethinking the border debate: empathy, realism, and policy trade-offs

People who advocate for stricter border controls are often painted as lacking empathy, but many hold a different view: they recognize refugees and migrants as human beings who act rationally to seek better opportunities. Their stance typically combines compassion with an insistence on sustainable policy.

Common arguments offered by those skeptical of open-border approaches include:

1. Capacity and infrastructure limits: public services and housing can be strained by rapid population growth.
2. Rule of law and orderly processes: uncontrolled migration can incentivize dangerous journeys and criminal networks.
3. Social cohesion: very fast demographic change can create tensions that require careful management.

For many voters, the issue is pragmatic rather than moralistic: they want policies that respect human dignity while preserving public order and viable public services.

New findings on masculinity: men, friendship and the limits of emotional prescription

The narrative that men are broken because they don’t talk enough about feelings is being challenged by recent social research. A study from a British university suggests men often prefer doing things together — working, sharing jokes, even spending companionable silence — to structured emotional disclosure.

What the research observed

• Many men report feeling closer through shared activities rather than through verbal confessions.
• Friendship rituals — banter, teamwork, shared tasks — provide support and belonging.
• Pressuring men to adopt a female-coded model of emotional interaction can feel alien and unhelpful to them.

This doesn’t deny problems like abusive behavior or emotional illiteracy. It suggests that one-size-fits-all prescriptions for male mental health can backfire when they ignore how many men actually build and sustain relationships.

Why Blackadder’s dark humor still resonates 40 years later

This month marks four decades since the first episodes of a beloved British sitcom that mined class frustration and the gap between ambition and reality for laughs. The series centered on a scheming underdog whose plans are repeatedly tripped up by the social order — a comic portrait of disappointment many viewers find familiar.

In a digital age of curated perfection, the show’s bleak humor can be oddly consoling: it reminds audiences that life often goes off-script and that resentment, absurdity and missed chances are common ground. For viewers tired of relentless self-improvement narratives and social-media comparison, that kind of comedy feels refreshingly honest.

Patrick West is a columnist and author whose work examines culture, politics and ideas.

You might also like:

• Gertrude Himmelfarb: conservative historian who shaped today’s culture wars
• Entitled people push back: why entitlement fuels revenge and social backlash
• Zack Polanski’s butt-wiping quip exposes true colors
• Shabana Mahmood surge: why voters are suddenly drawn to the Labour MP
• Tony Blair makes last-ditch push to save technocratic order