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

[JoeMorgue]

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.

True which, to me anyway, makes the concept even more nebulous meaningless.

Now we don't only have to split the hair, third party no less, between a heartfelt show of support and a showy show of support but between different motives behind a heartfelt show of support.

When we've reached the point of having to define the motivation behind another motivation I can't see us in a useful place.

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?'.

Without letting this get too deep into a specific example which might risk hijacking this discussion or taint it with my own personal feelings about a specific example one of the things that tends to push protesting into the "overly showy and pointless" category for me is the use of symbolism that is so broad and general as to have little to no connection to what is being protested.

With zero context if someone is standing outside a gun factory holding up a sign with a picture of a gun in a circle with a line through it... you can tell what they are protesting. A person holding up a picture of a bloody fetus outside an abortion clinic, you can tell what they are protesting. Overly symbolic acts that need to be explained just don't have the same context for me.

 

[angrysoba]

If there is such a thing as virtue signalling (in a pejorative sense), I think it should be distinguished from displays of solidarity.

In my opinion, a display of solidarity is born of a genuine feeling of support or sympathy for someone or some group whether or not the person doing it belongs to that group.

For example, if someone were to, say, go on a killing spree by shooting cartoonists in Paris, a person might change their avatar to something a bit French because that person may want to show in an admittedly extremely small way, that they support something like the freedom of expression which the French state or French way of life stands for in the face of murderers. Some people might want to call that virtue signalling because it is clearly a very easy and non-dangerous act, and may win Brownie points even if that is not the exact intention.

And of course, many people on Facebook did exactly that kind of display of solidarity which I personally find perfectly reasonable.

But then I noticed that in some cases, other people on Facebook began making subtle attacks on those that had French flag or Eiffel Tower profile pictures, particularly when there was, say, a suicide bombing in Pakistan. I would start to see snide comments about how nobody wants to change their avatar to the Pakistani flag suddenly, and what is that about, could it be racism? etc... That to me is an attempt to signal virtue (I am well against racism) by subtly or not so subtly denigrating others and insinuating racism in others.

I would personally not change my avatar to the Pakistan flag simply because I don't think it represents what the French flag represents (or should I say that French flag signals virtues I agree with, whereas the Pakistan flag signals virtues I don't agree with?), and moreover that I think the state of Pakistan with its laws against blasphemy and its support of armed Islamist groups is the very opposite of what the French state stands for.

Perhaps, in short, it is a holier-than-thou attitude which seeks to promote the person doing it while trying to make others look bad.

 

[phiwum]

I did?

I apologize. For some reason, I thought that post was from Zig, not you, and responded accordingly.

My mistake, sir.

 

[pgwenthold]

IMO, "virtual signalling" is often used like one of those BS PC tags (like "microaggression") used by the intellectually lazy to criticize anything they don’t like without having to front a debate and discuss an issue honestly.

Virtual signalling is what SJWs use to advance their identity politics.

 

[ahhell]

My two cents:

Virtue signally is doing or saying something that has little or no consequence with little or no actual benefit other than to secure one's social status among a selected group. Pretty much all political discussion on the internet is virtue signaling. Especially on facebook. I don't think it has much to do with how authentic the statements or actions are. For me, its all about the risk reward ratio. Low risk, middling to high reward, virtue signaling.

Being for gay marriage in 1996, not virtue signaling, load and proudly for gay marriage in 2016 in the western world, probably virtue signaling.

Posting on facebook about how you hate NAZI's, virtue signaling, beating the F@#$ out of possible NAZIs or conservatives, not virtue signaling.

Taking a Knee during the anthem, I think there has been consequence and it was not risk free when it started. So not virtue signaling. Burning up the internet in support of it, definitely virtue signally.

In part its a way to strengthen bonds among a group of folks, literally telling everyone in the group that you are one of them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So is this just a new term for "Slacktavism?"

 

[xjx388]

I think virtue signaling (as used in the context of internet arguments) is when, instead of making a rational argument for a cause, you make a statement that only serves: to make you look like a good person OR to make the person you are arguing with look like a bad person:

"If you are against universal healthcare, you just want to kill people legally!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know why but this phrase I heard on a random internet comment just jumped into my head.

"The worst thing the internet ever did was take social justice and turn it into just another fandom."

 

[ahhell]

So is this just a new term for "Slacktavism?"

I think slacktavism is a subset of virtue signaling.

 

[phiwum]

Virtual signalling is what SJWs use to advance their identity politics.

Please pardon me, but is this sarcasm or intended more or less seriously?

 

[phiwum]

I think virtue signaling (as used in the context of internet arguments) is when, instead of making a rational argument for a cause, you make a statement that only serves: to make you look like a good person OR to make the person you are arguing with look like a bad person:

"If you are against universal healthcare, you just want to kill people legally!"

Surely that kind of nonsense is aptly described by a slew of terms, including "straw man", "slippery slope", "ad populi" or "non sequitur".

Every time I argue, I try to convince others of the truth of my claim. If the claim is moral or political, I am trying to convince others that this claim expresses something more or less good. In doing so, I will be implicitly casting myself as a good person. Surely, this doesn't make every assertion about morality or politics mere "virtue signaling", does it? If not, what is the difference?

Simple example: The shooting in Las Vegas was horrible. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. The man who did this was horrible (barring mental illness).

Is all that virtue signaling or genuine expression of concern?

 

[phiwum]

I think slacktavism is a subset of virtue signaling.

You sure? From your description, I'd think virtue signaling is a subset of slacktivism. Maybe I misunderstood you, but virtue signaling requires making something like an argument, and slacktivism surely doesn't.

 

[ahhell]

You sure? From your description, I'd think virtue signaling is a subset of slacktavism. Maybe I misunderstood you, but virtue signaling requires making something like an argument, and slacktivism surely doesn't.

I'm not sure of much really.

As I understand it, slacktavism is doing things like, liking the Koney 2012 video or doing the icebucket challenge. Ostensibly for a cause but not really doing something for that cause. Essentially saying, "I like this cause" but not really doing anything about it. Saying you support a charity without actually giving to it or giving very little. Where virtue signaling would include that but also include general statements about values and politics that aren't necessarily even pretending to be doing something useful.

Both terms describe things with little or no consequence and minimal benefit beyond signaling your friends that you share there values but in the case of slacktavism the signal would have to include a pretense of accomplishing something useful.

Edit, I think virtue signaling also includes actually doing something useful, so long as there are limited consequences and social benefit. If all your friends think voting is important and you vote then post on facebook about it, that's virtue signaling. A virtue most people value so it has little consequence.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You sure? From your description, I'd think virtue signaling is a subset of slacktivism. Maybe I misunderstood you, but virtue signaling requires making something like an argument, and slacktivism surely doesn't.

I don't think any of these terms are being used that exactly.

I mean these are, at the end of the days, insults. These are terms applied to various forms of protesting and outgoing activism that for one reason or another, often times a reason that is felt but can't be verbalized, strikes a person as overly showy or pompous or trendy or whatever.

Trying to define stuff like this so exactly is trying to be a referee in a game of Calvinball.

You are trying to wring dictionary perfect definitions out of... gut feelings and emotional biases.

 

[xjx388]

Surely that kind of nonsense is aptly described by a slew of terms, including "straw man", "slippery slope", "ad populi" or "non sequitur".

Every time I argue, I try to convince others of the truth of my claim. If the claim is moral or political, I am trying to convince others that this claim expresses something more or less good. In doing so, I will be implicitly casting myself as a good person. Surely, this doesn't make every assertion about morality or politics mere "virtue signaling", does it? If not, what is the difference?

Simple example: The shooting in Las Vegas was horrible. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. The man who did this was horrible (barring mental illness).

Is all that virtue signaling or genuine expression of concern?

You aren't making an argument there so I would say that it comes off as genuine concern. Context matters.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am sure some people would say that Rosa Parks was "Virtue Signalling".

No, she was protesting.

Sadly, 90% of the time when the term is used, it is just that good old Logical Fallacy Poisoning the Well under a different name.

Yeah, see it come off that way a lot.

My two cents:

Virtue signally is doing or saying something that has little or no consequence with little or no actual benefit other than to secure one's social status among a selected group.
...snip In part its a way to strengthen bonds among a group of folks, literally telling everyone in the group that you are one of them.

That's one of the better definitions I've seen, thanks.

"If you are against universal healthcare, you just want to kill people legally!"

That seems to me a different thing with a similar pathology, closer to pure well poisoning.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

Ah, so! We just keep a list of how each poster uses various terms. That'll be easy. I'm sure the dictionary publishing industry is glad you didn't reveal this sooner.

 

[theprestige]

Ah, so! We just keep a list of how each poster uses various terms. That'll be easy. I'm sure the dictionary publishing industry is glad you didn't reveal this sooner.

You make it sound like people are idiots, but they're not. Most usage variances are easily decoded in context, without any trouble. Sometimes, you have to ask a person for clarification. And then you have to keep track of their usage while you're talking to them. People arguing in good faith can easily clear up such minor misunderstandings as phiwum presents here, and then continue with their fruitful debate. All I'm saying is that it looked to me like Ziggurat was holding up his end of that bargain, but for whatever reason phiwum refused to cooperate. And now you're trying to say that such cooperation is impossible.

 

[phiwum]

You make it sound like people are idiots, but they're not. Most usage variances are easily decoded in context, without any trouble. Sometimes, you have to ask a person for clarification. And then you have to keep track of their usage while you're talking to them. People arguing in good faith can easily clear up such minor misunderstandings as phiwum presents here, and then continue with their fruitful debate. All I'm saying is that it looked to me like Ziggurat was holding up his end of that bargain, but for whatever reason phiwum refused to cooperate. And now you're trying to say that such cooperation is impossible.

Not at all! Strictly speaking, if we take Zig at his word, he has given necessary but not sufficient conditions for how he uses the term. I asked for clarification, by asking whether a few other situations counted as "virtue signaling". He has, I'm sorry to say, been mostly silent aside from a comment regarding strawmen which suggests that I didn't understand his meaning.

But let us suppose that I had captured his meaning precisely. The next question is relevance and import. Should we dismiss acts of "virtue signaling" as mere playacting? I think Zig has indicated we should not (but please, Zig, correct me if I am mistaken) and hence what relevance has the fact that someone has "virtue signaled"?

 

[theprestige]

and hence what relevance has the fact that someone has "virtue signaled"?

Does it matter when someone boasts of their accomplishments? Is it significant when someone flaunts their tokens of membership in some arbitrary in-group? Gestures are just that: gestures. Their relevance, if any, depends entirely on their context, and on their intended audience.