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

[theprestige]

Given that you know they are just motions, yeah, okay, but what does it mean to dismiss motions? Surely, we are interested in issues, right?

Of course they're just motions. What's your issue? What's your argument?

 

[phiwum]

To be sure I'm not saying that bad argumentatives don't exist, aren't annoying (or even dangerous from an intellectual standpoint) or that labeling them is, in and off itself, a bad thing.

It's the... fetish for compulsively identifying, cataloging, naming, numbering and tracking bad arguemtatives and reflexively using nothing but that as your main argumentative style at the expense of the overall discussion as has become the backbone of internet (and broader cultural) debate.

Just because you slap an invented name on someone else's argument doesn't make it go away, to say nothing of disproving it or addressing it.

No there's not some single magical point at which this becomes a problem but at it's core it's the difference between:

Ted: I support X.
Bill: I feel that X will lead to Y
Ted: I disagree that X will lead to Y and here's why....

and

Ted: I support X.
Bill: I feel that X will lead to Y
Ted: SLIPPERY SLOPE! YOU MADE A SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY! I WIN THE ARGUMENT! AND THAT MEANS X IS TRUE!

I'm not supporting bad argumentatives. I'm just not liking how often discussion on the internet, even among otherwise intelligent people, turn into two idiots arguing by calling each other's arguments names instead of actually arguing or debating.

I'm just against the trend of condensing as many arguments as possible into quippy, "clever" one liners.

And in a broader sense I'm over meta. I'm over arguing about how to argue. You've seen it as bad as I have up in... that thread that shall not be named where one side is more interesting in the steps of the dance than anything else.

This is much more minor, much more good intentioned but at the end of the day still in the same broad category, rules lawyering.

This is a matter much on my mind these days. Once again, I'm teaching informal fallacies. These fallacies can be very useful, if one is careful to point out how the fallacy has been committed and (if needed) how the fallacy fails to establish the truth of the claim. They can also be much abused, as any reader of social media can attest.

On the other hand, what we have here in claims of "virtue signaling" is not drawing attention to a fallacy, but an instance of fallacy (someone here called it "poisoning the well", which is reasonable, but I'd call it an ad hominem more generally). These folk are just trying to look good to some group, therefore we ought to dismiss the issue to which they're drawing attention.

Again I don't disagree per se.

Okay feet to the fire. I'm pretty much over protesting as a concept. And before anyone starts I'm not talking about anyone's right to protest.

Just 99% of the time... I don't think it matters and I think the people doing it sorta know that. Most protesting seems to fall into the vague idea that the idea that they are wrong just never occurred to the other side and they are just waiting for you to tell them about it.

Bear with me a sec but I've got a weird parallel. You ever seen a really, really stupid PSA about doing something completely obvious? While I was in the military AFRTS (The Armed Forces Radio Television Service that provides American television programming to service-members and their families stationed overseas) was notorious for stupid, heavy handed PSAs. I'm not exaggerating when I say you could watch a normal prime-time television show and get reminded 6 times not to shake your baby.

And that always struck me as stupid. Nobody out there is shaking their baby because the idea that shaking babies is bad just never occurred to them. Nobody is drinking and driving because they've never been exposed to the idea that drunk driving is bad. Or as Denis Leary put it never has a smoking pulled out a pack of cigarettes, looked at the warning label and suddenly went "Holy $#@! This things are bad for you!? I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff."

Or all the "awareness" campaigns about diseases and social problems out there about things that pretty much everyone living in the free world knows about.

And to me most protesting falls under that same category. Pick any issue and, with only a handful of outlying exception, the problem isn't that the other side just isn't aware that there are people who disagree with them. Does anyone really think that hardcore "cause" people's problem, regardless of how you feel about the cause, is that they simply aren't aware that people who disagree with them exist?

Hell if anything it goes in the other direction where we have "causes" where... there's no other side. There's a scene from a movie or a TV show, not sure which one because honestly I've only ever seen it as a screenshot, where a guy is walking along a college campus and a woman runs up and shoves a flyer in his hand shouting "Stop cancer" and his reply is a, pretty reasonable, "Lady who are you yelling at? Who do you think is on the other side of this argument?"

People are a little too often want to act like people are "against" them when all that it is that they have different priorities. Nobody is "Against the Environment" in the abstract. They might put political freedom or business profits or whatever ahead of the environment and you might, rightfully, disagree with that but the real world is not full of Captain Planet villains who are going to hijack and oil tanker and crash it into a beach just to teach those baby seals a lesson and you can't frame your arguments in that context. They want something; either something literal and physical or something more tangible more than they want to help the environment but they don't hate the environment in a literal direct sense. They only "hate" the environment in the sense that it gets in the way of things they consider more important. (ETA: Or they are using the "environment" as a symbolic pawn in a larger Us v Them ideological way but the same argument still applies. They don't hate the environment, they like tweaking the liberals) People might have differing priorities as to medical ethics and how to properly spend a limited biomedical budget but nobody is going to take time out of their Sunday afternoon to walk around in front of the Mayo Clinic with a sign that says "More Cancer Cells!"

I know this seems like a little bit of a hijack but it speaks, I think, to the same broad mentality as what is being discussed when we talk about Virtual Signaling and similar concepts.

Could be. Could be that protesting is ineffective. That is, of course, an allegation that this isn't how one ought to try to bring about change, but not a criticism of the change proposed.

Certainly, many forms of protest look stupid to me. Shutting down rush hour traffic on a freeway is not likely to make commuters think seriously about the issue to which you're trying to draw attention, for instance. Rather, they will have a hostile reaction. Maybe the same is true for taking a knee. I don't know.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay let's try to break this down to brass tacks.

There's a "Cause." Death penalty, abortion, stem cells, gay marriage, whatever. For the purpose of the argument it doesn't necessarily matter if you agree or disagree with the cause or if you feel the cause is or isn't worth worrying about is also against the point.

For the purposes of this scenario all that matters is is that cause is "known" as in it's a cause that's already being widely discussed on a social level and it's a cause where various strong opinions about the cause have already developed.

So somebody makes an obviously... err showy symbolic act about the cause. It doesn't present new information about the cause or present a new argument about the cause it simply references the person's personal opinion about the cause.

How much does whether or not the person is genuine (if arguably mistaken) about actually raising awareness about the cause/their opinion of the cause or just doing it to show off or be trendy actually matter?

 

[phiwum]

Of course they're just motions. What's your issue? What's your argument?

I reckon my argument is that claims of "virtue signaling" are (1) poorly evidenced, generally speaking, and usually applied in a biased manner and (2) utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. To fix (1), we have to address how one might distinguish genuine expressions of opinion from posing. For (2), I see no fix at all.

Hence, whether a particular act is virtue signaling or not is both very difficult to establish and rarely relevant to our discussions.

 

[phiwum]

Okay let's try to break this down to brass tacks.

There's a "Cause." Death penalty, abortion, stem cells, gay marriage, whatever. For the purpose of the argument it doesn't necessarily matter if you agree or disagree with the cause or if you feel the cause is or isn't worth worrying about is also against the point.

For the purposes of this scenario all that matters is is that cause is "known" as in it's a cause that's already being widely discussed on a social level and it's a cause where various strong opinions about the cause have already developed.

So somebody makes an obviously... err showy symbolic act about the cause. It doesn't present new information about the cause or present a new argument about the cause it simply references the person's personal opinion about the cause.

How much does whether or not the person is genuine (if arguably mistaken) about actually raising awareness about the cause/their opinion of the cause or just doing it to show off or be trendy actually matter?

You and I often disagree, particularly when philosophy is the topic. I agree with your point here wholeheartedly.

 

[Belz...]

How much does whether or not the person is genuine (if arguably mistaken) about actually raising awareness about the cause/their opinion of the cause or just doing it to show off or be trendy actually matter?

Well, much like trolls, if the whole purpose is not discussion, you can at least avoid discussing with that person.

 

[Beerina]

"Beware the Pharisees, who like to stand on the corners where they can be seen praying."


Virtue signalling is just another name for a concept thousands of years old.

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Beware the Pharisees, who like to stand on the corners where they can be seen praying."


Virtue signalling is just another name for a concept thousands of years old.

Accusing other people of doing it on the internet, however, is relatively new.

 

[phiwum]

"Beware the Pharisees, who like to stand on the corners where they can be seen praying."


Virtue signalling is just another name for a concept thousands of years old.

Well, sort of, but what is the difference between trying to appear as if you care and trying to draw attention to an issue? The Pharisees could have prayed in private, but the kneelers want to draw attention to police discrimination. They can't do that in private.

Similarly, Trump supporters putting signs on lawns are trying to encourage support. They can't do that in private.

 

[phiwum]

I never did get a very clear view of what counts as "virtue signaling". I wonder if folks could give an answer to these (yes/no/don't know).

(1) Standing for the anthem.
(2) Kneeling for the anthem in order to protest police violence against blacks.
(3) Publicly complaining about PC gone wild.
(4) Publicly complaining about Trump.
(5) NRA sticker on your vehicle.
(6) COEXIST sticker on your vehicle.

Now, some of these might depend on context. If popularity of a viewpoint matters, as Zig suggested, then an NRA sticker in Oklahoma is not the same as an NRA sticker in Massachusetts. Feel free to point out where context matters.

Here's my answer to all of the above: I don't know unless I know the motives of the person performing the act. It is virtue signaling iff his primary motivation is to generate approval in those viewing the act.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I never did get a very clear view of what counts as "virtue signaling". I wonder if folks could give an answer to these (yes/no/don't know).

(1) Standing for the anthem.
(2) Kneeling for the anthem in order to protest police violence against blacks.
(3) Publicly complaining about PC gone wild.
(4) Publicly complaining about Trump.
(5) NRA sticker on your vehicle.
(6) COEXIST sticker on your vehicle.

*With the same overreaching caveats that context does matter (in some cases greatly) and this is all dependent on the tricky proposition of being able to make a best guess as to someone else's motivation for something*

1-4 I can't really say given the information provided.

5/6 are interesting. Now again the full answer is "I don't know" but as a general tendency I would lean more toward 6 being.. showy.

5 is more of a direct opinion. The NRA has a stated goal of promotion of gun ownership and protection of rights related to same that it is possible for someone to be for and against as a fully formed opinion. You can be for or against private gun ownership.

6 is too vague, too meaningless. It's a truism. People in general just aren't against "coexisting" as base concept. Again as I discussed earlier they could be against and have all sorts of ways to rationalize it away (and it could become a symbolic argument in the larger left/right divide) but in the abstract nobody is against coexisting in the same way people are against guns.

If any of that makes any sense.

 

[Ziggurat]

On the other hand, what we have here in claims of "virtue signaling" is not drawing attention to a fallacy

Of course it isn't drawing attention to a fallacy. To be a fallacy, you need to be making an argument. And these protests don't even rise to the level of making an argument. So no, what they're doing isn't a fallacy.

These folk are just trying to look good to some group, therefore we ought to dismiss the issue to which they're drawing attention.

I never said that.

Could be. Could be that protesting is ineffective. That is, of course, an allegation that this isn't how one ought to try to bring about change, but not a criticism of the change proposed.

What proposed change? There is no proposed change. Not one that can be gleaned from these protests, anyways. I'm not being dismissive of proposed change, I'm being dismissive of these protests in part because there is no proposed change.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What proposed change? There is no proposed change. Not one that can be gleaned from these protests, anyways. I'm not being dismissive of proposed change, I'm being dismissive of these protests in part because there is no proposed change.

I thought they were attempting to call attention to a problem, and at least get people to acknowledge there is a problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought they were attempting to call attention to a problem, and at least get people to acknowledge there is a problem.

That's generally useless, absent some specific advocated course of action. In fact, in the absence of such a proposal, the efforts can easily end up being counter-productive.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Maybe we're making this more complicated and looking for grand meanings (or some grand meaning in a lack of grand meaning) where none exist.

People want to express their views. It's a base human need and doesn't always require a motive beyond "I'm a human being with a viewpoint and functioning psyche."

Does "Virtue Signaling" exist? Sure on some level. Like everything else outward symbolic displays about broad social causes can become trendy. I'm sure for at least some people kneeling during the anthem or wearing a pink ribbon or slapping a "You'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" bumpersticker on their car carries all the emotional and intellectual weight of dabbing or playing with a fidget spinner. I'm not trying to deny anyone the feeling of annoyance at someone that is giving off that vibe. Lord knows I'm rolled my eyes enough at White Knights in my day for it to be considered a viable alternative energy source.

But at the end of the day I can't get onboard with what the Virtue Signaling argument seems to really be about. People that seem really... into it as a concept and argumentative retort seem to see it as a special, bad subset of outward symbolic shows of support for a social or political topic when to me it just... isn't. Most all protesting is a symbolic act that is separate from the actual question of whether the opinion is valid and the only criteria "Virtue Signaling" seems to require is a vague judgement call as to motivation and intent and for me at least questions of motivation and intent just usually aren't enough for me to hit a vein with it being that big of a deal about.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I thought they were attempting to call attention to a problem, and at least get people to acknowledge there is a problem.

Well, they're not being very specific.

 

[tyr_13]

Maybe we're making this more complicated and looking for grand meanings (or some grand meaning in a lack of grand meaning) where none exist.

People want to express their views. It's a base human need and doesn't always require a motive beyond "I'm a human being with a viewpoint and functioning psyche."

Does "Virtue Signaling" exist? Sure on some level. Like everything else outward symbolic displays about broad social causes can become trendy. I'm sure for at least some people kneeling during the anthem or wearing a pink ribbon or slapping a "You'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" bumpersticker on their car carries all the emotional and intellectual weight of dabbing or playing with a fidget spinner. I'm not trying to deny anyone the feeling of annoyance at someone that is giving off that vibe. Lord knows I'm rolled my eyes enough at White Knights in my day for it to be considered a viable alternative energy source.

But at the end of the day I can't get onboard with what the Virtue Signaling argument seems to really be about. People that seem really... into it as a concept and argumentative retort seem to see it as a special, bad subset of outward symbolic shows of support for a social or political topic when to me it just... isn't. Most all protesting is a symbolic act that is separate from the actual question of whether the opinion is valid and the only criteria "Virtue Signaling" seems to require is a vague judgement call as to motivation and intent and for me at least questions of motivation and intent just usually aren't enough for me to hit a vein with it being that big of a deal about.

Thanks for your posts in this thread. I think that something is being mostly missed however.

Virtue signalling and protests both can serve an important function beyond trying to show ones worth to a group, feel good, and all that. It also signals what one finds virtuous. It's a way of expressing values, and letting people know what is important to you, and how much. Protesting takes a lot a time, effort, and a certain amount of courage. It lets people know 'I'm on the outgroup/ingroup on this topic for these people'. Topics can then be introduced into experimental groups for consensus and solution.

For example, more than a few people who I know that were outraged about the taking a knee have since learned both that taking the knee part was added to express gratitude for the troops even while criticizing the country, and that the national anthem is not to represent the armed forces, but the nation. They'd honestly never thought about it like that before a bunch of vets started saying things like, 'you know this isn't about us at all right?'.

Very useful socially if you ask me, even it if does have dangers, pitfalls, and abuses.

 

[phiwum]

*With the same overreaching caveats that context does matter (in some cases greatly) and this is all dependent on the tricky proposition of being able to make a best guess as to someone else's motivation for something*

1-4 I can't really say given the information provided.

I'm a little surprised here, since you said that the NFL players taking a knee are virtue signaling.

5/6 are interesting. Now again the full answer is "I don't know" but as a general tendency I would lean more toward 6 being.. showy.

5 is more of a direct opinion. The NRA has a stated goal of promotion of gun ownership and protection of rights related to same that it is possible for someone to be for and against as a fully formed opinion. You can be for or against private gun ownership.

6 is too vague, too meaningless. It's a truism. People in general just aren't against "coexisting" as base concept. Again as I discussed earlier they could be against and have all sorts of ways to rationalize it away (and it could become a symbolic argument in the larger left/right divide) but in the abstract nobody is against coexisting in the same way people are against guns.

If any of that makes any sense.

(6) should have been more similar to (5), I suppose. Maybe an ACLU sticker.

Given what you've said here, what is it about the NFL players that persuades you they are significantly concerned with positive image rather than the issue of police violence and race?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm a little surprised here, since you said that the NFL players taking a knee are virtue signaling.

I did?

 

[Belz...]

Here's my answer to all of the above: I don't know unless I know the motives of the person performing the act. It is virtue signaling iff his primary motivation is to generate approval in those viewing the act.

Exactly: it's not the act but the motives.