• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Argumemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes... but... accusations of virtue signaling are often used to poison the well, and are employed as a means of closing down discussion. How do you determine which is which?
 
smartcooky said:
I don't see sportsmen "taking a knee" as being "Virtue Signalling" at all, nor do I see it as disrespectful of/to the flag. The latter is simply what that POS Trump and his supporters want people to see it as because it suits their political agenda.

I see it as them telling the POS what they think of his racist ass while maintaining in respect for the flag. This isn't virtue signalling, its protesting against the actions and attitude of the asshat in The White House.
Click to expand...

I think it's probably a mix. Some of the kneelers have a strong feeling about it, others are probably doing it to score points.

My bigger question is what does the anthem have to do with racism? In what way is racism combated by taking an arguably disrespectful posture during the national anthem? How does this further the cause?
 
pgwenthold said:
Virtual signalling is what SJWs use to advance their identity politics.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's true... but... Accusations of virtue signalling are what anti-SJWs use to label people they disagree with as SJWs and to dismiss a topic as 'identity politics' without having to actually engage in the discussion itself.
 
Can someone explain to me how a complaint of virtue signalling is not also, itself, an example of virtue signalling?
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think it's probably a mix. Some of the kneelers have a strong feeling about it, others are probably doing it to score points.

My bigger question is what does the anthem have to do with racism? In what way is racism combated by taking an arguably disrespectful posture during the national anthem? How does this further the cause?
Click to expand...
I don't know much about the anthem or its author, but I heard the other day that he was a devoted racist and that his racism came out in the third verse.

But that has little to do with how you and I interpret the anthem.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
I get a feeling lines are being drawn here at least somewhat based whether or not (or to what degree) a person can reasonably infer the intentions of another person.

If you don't think one person can with some regularity make at least an educated guess as to the motivation of another person, the concept of "Virtue Signaling" is probably harder to jump onboard with.
 
Regardless which vague definition one uses, it's generally impossible to know if someone is virtue signaling. Using this term amounts to empty, presumptuous neenering.
 
varwoche said:
Regardless which vague definition one uses, it's generally impossible to know if someone is virtue signaling.
Click to expand...

I gave a specific example of someone loudly and repeatedly signaling the conservative virtue of being "pro-life" upthread.

We know now that this was merely an act of signaling, not an expression of personal conscience.
 
d4m10n said:
I gave a specific example of someone loudly and repeatedly signaling the conservative virtue of being "pro-life" upthread.

We know now that this was merely an act of signaling, not an expression of personal conscience.
Click to expand...
Noted. We've always called that hypocrisy and that works for me. I don't think "virtue signaling" adds anything.
 
varwoche said:
Noted. We've always called that hypocrisy and that works for me. I don't think "virtue signaling" adds anything.
Click to expand...
Other than an emphasis on the signaling aspect as opposed to the actions which run counter to the signals?

Personally, I see quite a bit of utility in calling attention to the signals themselves, even before we dig in to find out whether the signals are true or deceptive. If someone is trying to broadcast their virtues, they usually have a social motivation. If I see someone making a big show of patriotism (or piety, family values, hypersensitivity to microagressions, or what-have-you) I tend to wonder what ends are being served by that show, what norms are being promulgated or reinforced.
 
phiwum said:
I confess that I'm not sure what you mean to convey here.

I really feel bad about my ignorance, since this post contains more words than you've written in a month, even ignoring the asterisks.
Click to expand...

I don't think you should feel bad; it sounds like a you lead a blissful life. Thinking taxes scarce mental resources.
 
IMO, the difference between the two centres around the impact that the action has.

If a person hasn't properly considered the impact of their actions, and their actions have no reasonable impact, then it's likely that their motive is virtue signalling or something else.

If a person's actions or words are carefully considered and meant to have impact, then it's likely that they actually want to effect change.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom