Virtue signalling, as the term is used in this forum.

[phiwum]

The mods seem to bristle at somewhat off-topic digressions in the Trump and NFL thread, for reasons that are not altogether clear. Now, I am a good and obedient fella, not wanting to make waves, so let me split the discussion I wanted to have with Ziggurat here. It begins with Zig saying that those football players who take a knee during the anthem are merely "virtue signalling". I replied flippantly thus, followed by the rest of the discussion before moderation kicked in (though this discussion was not moved to AAH).

Virtue signalling: when someone takes a stand I don't like.

To be distinguished from acting on principle, which is taking a stand I like.

Not at all. When antifa assaults someone for having the wrong views, that's not virtue signalling. They're putting their money where their mouth is. That's real action. I consider it evil action, but it's undoubtedly genuine.

Nice try, though.

Standing for the anthem: virtue signalling or simply abiding by social conventions?

Complaining about PC excesses: virtue signalling or expressing an opinion?

NRA stickers on your pickup truck: virtue signalling or expressing political support?

You use the term "virtue signalling" to dismiss others' expressions of political and moral opinions. It is dismissive and utterly biased in the way you use the term. Many folk express opinions without laying their lives or livelihoods on the line (and arguably, some of the kneelers are putting their money where their mouths are) and tain't a damn thing shameful or dubious about it.

Again, this is not so. For example, I don't consider expressing opinions which are unpopular in your social circles to be virtue signaling, for reasons that should be obvious. I also don't consider expressions which contain significant effort and reasoning to be virtue signaling. To be virtue signaling, it must be popular in your social circle (or the circle you aspire to), and it must be cheap and easy to do.



If you want to argue that I'm being too cynical, go ahead. Hell, I even described my own interpretation as being cynical. And you don't have to agree with me. But at least do me the courtesy of not trying any more straw men. It's a futile effort. There are more productive uses of both our time.

I offered no straw men. I seriously asked your opinion on those three activities. You snipped those questions and pretend they are strawmen, but the highlighted gives us enough to determine your answers anyway.[1]

Standing for the anthem: popular, easy to do, hence virtue signalling

Kneeling for the anthem: unpopular in almost every context, hence not virtue signalling. Maybe virtue signalling if one aspires to be a detested liberal protestor.

Complaining about PC gone wild: Popular in conservative circles, easy to do, hence virtue signalling when done in conservative circles (or aspiring to same). Not virtue signalling when done at UC Berkeley or Evergreen State.

NRA stickers: Again, popular in conservative circles, easy to do, so virtue signalling in Tulsa, not in Cambridge.

If my reasoning is mistaken, do let me know. I'm simply trying to apply the criteria you just gave in an unbiased manner. You needn't accuse me of strawmen, since you left the questions unanswered but provided criteria which seem clear enough.

[1] To be fair, you stated these as necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions. Hence, only the negative results (e.g. kneeling is not virtue signalling) can be stated with confidence.

I invite anyone to give me a clear means for determining the difference between "virtue signalling" and expressing one's opinion without significant sacrifice.

Notice that, epistemologically speaking, even the popularity condition is meaningless, since one could always assert that the speaker is trying to appeal to those who agree with the speaker's opinion, a group in which the speaker's opinion is undeniably popular. Hence, unless we can determine which "social circles" are relevant prior to applying the definition, that clause of Zig's necessary conditions is nigh meaningless.

Thus, my question: in this forum, does the term "virtue signalling" really mean anything other than "expressing a position I don't like without making much sacrifice to do so"? (Related: do NFL players make a sacrifice to take a knee? That's probably more relevant in the other thread.)

 

[GlennB]

Thus, my question: in this forum, does the term "virtue signalling" really mean anything other than "expressing a position I don't like without making much sacrifice to do so"? (Related: do NFL players make a sacrifice to take a knee? That's probably more relevant in the other thread.)

I always took it to mean something like:

Expressing an opinion on a subject where one has no particularly strong feeling, in order to gain popularity or cement a position in one's social group.

In other eras it was known as "scoring Brownie points" or being "right on".

As for the "... I don't like ..." element I might disagree. I'd agree with anti-racist/sexist/ageist/etcist sentiments in general, but it becomes "virtue signalling" when done primarliy to create an effect even though the underlying sentiment might be genuine (or might not be, of course).

eta: So, you might express an opinion that I do like, but if I know or strongly suspect that it isn't sincerely held then I might take it as "virtue signalling".

Dunno if I expressed that very well or even whether it was the kind of response you were looking for

 

[phiwum]

I always took it to mean something like:

Expressing an opinion on a subject where one has no particularly strong feeling, in order to gain popularity or cement a position in one's social group.

In other eras it was known as "scoring Brownie points" or being "right on".

As for the "... I don't like ..." element I might disagree. I'd agree with anti-racist/sexist/ageist/etcist sentiments in general, but it becomes "virtue signalling" when done primarliy to create an effect even though the underlying sentiment might be genuine (or might not be, of course).

Dunno if I expressed that very well or even whether it was the kind of response you were looking for

It helps, thanks.

Let's take your definition as the right one, ignoring vagueness for a moment (understandable for a first pass). You see someone expressing an opinion. How do you determine whether it is virtue signalling or genuine?

Let me be clear: if your answer is, "I can't, without knowing their motives and these are more or less unknowable," I agree. And that doesn't necessarily make your definition wrong or bad, but it does mean that here in a skeptics' forum, we are never justified in claiming that any particular act is mere virtue signalling, since we do not know why the act was performed[1].

[1] On rare occasions, we might be aware of evidence that the opinion expressed is inconsistent with the actor's other actions, in which case we have some evidence that it is all for show.

 

[Upchurch]

I invite anyone to give me a clear means for determining the difference between "virtue signalling" and expressing one's opinion without significant sacrifice.

I'm not sure why any particular action couldn't be both. <insert "why not both?" girl here>

Is the problem here that letting one's principles or virtues be known is being made into an insult?

 

[BobTheCoward]

"Fake it 'til you make it" is a common English idiom, which suggests that by imitating confidence, competence, and an optimistic mindset, a person can realize those qualities in their real life. It echoes the underlying principles of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as a means to enable a change in one's behavior.

The phrase "fake it 'til you make it" is similar in meaning to the idiom "act as if", and is also similar to Aristotle's idea that to be virtuous, one must act as a virtuous person would act.

In the 1920s, Alfred Adler, a disciple of Sigmund Freud, developed a therapeutic technique that he called "acting as if". This strategy gave his clients an opportunity to practice alternatives to dysfunctional behaviors. Adler's method is still used today and is often described as "role play".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_it_'til_you_make_it

 

[GlennB]

It helps, thanks.

Let's take your definition as the right one, ignoring vagueness for a moment (understandable for a first pass). You see someone expressing an opinion. How do you determine whether it is virtue signalling or genuine?

Let me be clear: if your answer is, "I can't, without knowing their motives and these are more or less unknowable," I agree. And that doesn't necessarily make your definition wrong or bad, but it does mean that here in a skeptics' forum, we are never justified in claiming that any particular act is mere virtue signalling, since we do not know why the act was performed[1].

[1] On rare occasions, we might be aware of evidence that the opinion expressed is inconsistent with the actor's other actions, in which case we have some evidence that it is all for show.

I made a small eta, btw, which might clarify things a bit.

Of the highlighted I'd broadly agree. Describing something as "virtue signalling" without good evidence is mainly used as a cheap put-down and an excuse not to discuss the finer detail.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So basically we've reached a state where modern discourse is a game of giving as many twee, cutesy poo labels to as many ways, methods, tones, wordings, and phrasings of arguments as possible so they are easier to brush off.

I swear the internet isn't going to be happy until every possible argument can be dismissed with a "Rule of (Whatever)" style sarcastic retort.

Stop naming arguments and start arguing them.

 

[phiwum]

I'm not sure why any particular action couldn't be both. <insert "why not both?" girl here>

Is the problem here that letting one's principles or virtues be known is being made into an insult?

Sure, an action could be both. Perhaps my question wasn't clear.

The term "virtue signalling" is used hereabouts apparently to dismiss the genuineness of a display of some opinion or other. "That's just virtue signalling," seems to suggest that the opinion is being expressed primarily to increase one's status and hence can be dismissed.

I'm not one to wear my political beliefs on my sleeves, but were I, I imagine that I would do so both to express support for my candidate and also to bask in the glow of approval from likeminded folk. I tend to think the latter is less important than the former; we aim to get our folk elected more than we aim to be praised. Similarly, maybe the NFL kneelers gain some respect from the minority of fans and players who agree with their actions, but their actions (pre-Trump) were intended to draw attention to racism and justice. Indeed it's hard to know whether this is the case or not.

So, yes, there can be multiple motives for expressing one's opinions, including a desire for recognition. The question then becomes whether a desire for recognition is sufficient for dismissing an opinion.

 

[phiwum]

I made a small eta, btw, which might clarify things a bit.

Of the highlighted I'd broadly agree. Describing something as "virtue signalling" without good evidence is mainly used as a cheap put-down and an excuse not to discuss the finer detail.

I think your ETA is much in line with my footnote.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sure, an action could be both. Perhaps my question wasn't clear.

The term "virtue signalling" is used hereabouts apparently to dismiss the genuineness of a display of some opinion or other. "That's just virtue signalling," seems to suggest that the opinion is being expressed primarily to increase one's status and hence can be dismissed.

I'm not one to wear my political beliefs on my sleeves, but were I, I imagine that I would do so both to express support for my candidate and also to bask in the glow of approval from likeminded folk. I tend to think the latter is less important than the former; we aim to get our folk elected more than we aim to be praised. Similarly, maybe the NFL kneelers gain some respect from the minority of fans and players who agree with their actions, but their actions (pre-Trump) were intended to draw attention to racism and justice. Indeed it's hard to know whether this is the case or not.

So, yes, there can be multiple motives for expressing one's opinions, including a desire for recognition. The question then becomes whether a desire for recognition is sufficient for dismissing an opinion.

If it is not sufficient, I want to bring up something similar. I'm accused of being a Poe. I also don't think I should have to prove myself to not have my arguments dismissed.

 

[Brainster]

I googled it and found a definition:

To take a conspicuous but essentially useless action ostensibly to support a good cause but actually to show off how much more moral you are than everybody else.

I think your example of virtue signaling as standing for the flag/anthem falls down on the "conspicuous" part. With the exception of the only Pittsburgh Steeler who came out for the anthem last week, the people who stand for the anthem are not being conspicuous. It's the kneelers who stand out in the crowd. Indeed, that's the whole point--to draw attention, ostensibly to the cause (although the cause itself gets no attention, since all the arguing is about whether kneeling is appropriate).

 

[Thermal]

Another vote that virtue signalling is driven by showing the world the kinda guy you are, rather than discussing, actually doing something, or observing convention. The motivation defines it, rather than the effort.

ETA: ninja'd by Brainster

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'll take a fake shallow display of kindness over a genuine display of hatred any day.

The concept of "Virtue Signaling" just seems like a way to dismiss arguments by pretending that A) you can magically know a person's motivation and B) it matters.

 

[phiwum]

I googled it and found a definition:



I think your example of virtue signaling as standing for the flag/anthem falls down on the "conspicuous" part. With the exception of the only Pittsburgh Steeler who came out for the anthem last week, the people who stand for the anthem are not being conspicuous. It's the kneelers who stand out in the crowd. Indeed, that's the whole point--to draw attention, ostensibly to the cause (although the cause itself gets no attention, since all the arguing is about whether kneeling is appropriate).

You're right, standing is not conspicuous in that context. I was using Zig's comments as a basis for my answer. Mind, urban dictionary is hardly authoritative but we can work with that definition.

Again, we are required to infer why someone took the conspicuous action, an inference complicated by the fact that folks have multiple motives.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[GlennB]

So basically we've reached a state where modern discourse is a game of giving as many twee, cutesy poo labels to as many ways, methods, tones, wordings, and phrasings of arguments as possible so they are easier to brush off.

I swear the internet isn't going to be happy until every possible argument can be dismissed with a "Rule of (Whatever)" style sarcastic retort. Stop naming arguments and start arguing them.

Amen.

 

[Ziggurat]

The concept of "Virtue Signaling" just seems like a way to dismiss arguments by pretending that A) you can magically know a person's motivation and B) it matters.

Well, no. You have overlooked a rather critical feature of these protests: kneeling for the anthem isn't an argument. It may be intended to signal belief in an argument (though what argument isn't actually clear), but it sure as hell isn't itself one. So dismissing such a display is not, in fact, equivalent to dismissing an actual argument.

 

[phiwum]

Well, no. You have overlooked a rather critical feature of these protests: kneeling for the anthem isn't an argument. It may be intended to signal belief in an argument (though what argument isn't actually clear), but it sure as hell isn't itself one. So dismissing such a display is not, in fact, equivalent to dismissing an actual argument.

Quite right, protests aren't arguments and neither are patriotic displays. So how to tell which of these are genuine displays of concern or allegiance and which are mere virtue signaling, to be dismissed as posturing?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

Dunno why you need the whole forum to weigh in on this, nor why you imagine there might be some consensus here.

Ziggurat told you everything you needed to know about how *he* means it, for you to continue your discussion with him. Why not just do that?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[Belz...]

Virtue signalling, as the term is used in this forum.

The way I understand it, it's voicing an opinion for the sole purpose of showing everyone how X you are. In a lot of cases, how empathetic and progressive you are.

 

[Belz...]

So basically we've reached a state where modern discourse is a game of giving as many twee, cutesy poo labels to as many ways, methods, tones, wordings, and phrasings of arguments as possible so they are easier to brush off.

You are aware that words are, in general, a way to package one's thoughts quickly? That's what the term is. Otherwise it takes longer to mention that someone is engaging in this sort of behaviour.