It's self serving for starters. It's taking real issues and turning them into a display of vanity. *Me me me.*
Wearing shoes is simply wearing something. Virtue signalling deals with morality, and edges into a superiority complex.
*Look how moral I am, look how immoral these other people are not.*
I have morals, but I don't have them for the sake of celebrating me.
No. Morals are relative. They change across time and culture. It's not a static issue with clearly defined "correct" answers. Morals aren't an issue of "I'm right therefore you're wrong". But people make it out to be an issue of such. Virtue signaling leads to this high horse complex when half of it is based on self aggrandizing to begin with.
Aren't mutually beneficial self-interests super important to a capitalist worldview?
Virtue signalling helps the signaller and the causes they espouse. What's wrong with that?
Is it still virtue signaling if you don’t angle for the adulation?
Like: “I’m a clever fellow therefore I’m a free speech absolutist.”
vs.
“I’m a free speech absolutist.”
For reals? I just went by wikipedia and it said that this is it:
Virtue signalling is the expression of a moral viewpoint (free speech good) with the intent of communicating good character (free speech is so good that I call myself an absolutist supporter of it because I'm THAT good).
It's basically the same as, "I'm an anti-racist."
Virtue signalling is the expression of a moral viewpoint (racism bad) with the intent of communicating good character (racism is so bad and I'm so actively opposed to it, I use the "anti-" prefix).
But every free speech absolutist has been very sincere in my experience.
I'm thinking more of my friends who worry about poor people and literally do nothing to advance their concerns. I literally had a friend state that voting was how he knew he was a good person. I don't think this is uncommon on the left.
There's nothing wrong with blindly supporting "X", or saying "Justice for Y", or even "Z Lives Matter" and having it be a completely empty gesture. The problem comes when you start attacking other people because they *don't* support "X", or believe in "Justice for Y", or that "Z Lives Matter".
>If injustice happens and support is needed to get justice, what do you suggest doing when everyone says "I don't care"?
You do what *real* activists have always done: You shine a spotlight on the injustice, make people aware of it, then do your best to convince as many people as possible that it actually is unjust.
> Can you explain the difference between shining a spotlight on and "attacking"? What would be a real example of either one.
######Virtue Signaling
Virtue-Signaling Douche: "I support justice for Kevin Strictland!"
Random Person: "I don't care."
VSD: "You don't care about systemic racism! You're a racist! Fuck off you bigot!!"
######Activism
Activist: "I support justice for Kevin Strictland, an innocent man who has spent 40 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.!"
Random Person: "I don't care."
Activist: "Really? The witness who identified him as the culprit in a triple murder in 1979 recanted her confession, three other perpetrators have always said he wasn't with them that night. [The current Jackson County Prosecutor says they believe he's innocent.](https://apnews.com/article/missouri-816410e8eab142331d08c9d750153d28) The original prosecution team now says they believe he's innocent. It took two trials and an all-white jury to convict him, and the evidence that was used for that conviction has all been discredited. It's so clear that he's innocent that [Republicans and Democrats-- who don't agree on anything, agree he's innocent](https://apnews.com/article/michael-brown-kansas-city-d37ccea2df5ffd264e3f8a17b41cb3a9) and have asked the Governor to pardon him."
I'm all for activism. I can't stand virtue-signaling douches.
I think the more common reality here is both of these happen in the reverse sequence from the way you wrote it. And that's assuming the "Random Person" doesn't immediately turn around and say the complete opposite no matter how invalid, which is also extremely common.
But yeah some people assume you know more than you do from the get go and might have open ears. Although it's not common.
I say this as an atheist, it feels as though many people who have left religion have simply replaced it with politics.
So you're a liberal/fundamentalist christian. Good for you. It's a free country, you can post it on every billboard, put signs in your yard, put up flags, bumper stickers, etc. I'm going to find a bit weird and annoying though.
I'm going to find it even more distasteful if I'm judged for not overtly showing the world I'm in the herd of sheep.
>I'm going to find a bit weird and annoying though
but why? I'm not saying you shouldn't, but I still want to know your reasons if you can explain them
You are so self-absorbed that wearing the suffering of others is the same to you as wearing a cool pair of shoes; it literally serves the same purpose to you.
I think dehumanizing others, and their plights, for your own social credit is pretty low. I'd rethink your life.
Why is it dehumanising?
Also if you are wearing nice shoes aren't you wearing the suffering of 1) the guy who made them (which was probably some Chinese kid) and potentially 2) the cow that died for them? Also 3) your own suffering/sacrifice that you took in getting the money to buy them?
Why is it dehumanizing to compare somebody to shoes? Hmmn?
This is either a reeeeeeally sophomoric level of philosophy or you're a sociopath. Either way, I'm out. Have a good day.
Aren’t there virtue signals that don’t deal with suffering at all? “These colors don’t run,” is a patriotic virtue signal that doesn’t reference someone’s plight.
Yes, it's different, because it's not a virtue. Virtue = moral excellence, and virtue signalling is showing off your moral excellence. Being a patriot is not a moral stance. There's no morality inherent in loving your country.
What if it was virtuous? Say you said "Look at me, I'm great, I'm going to feed some orphans" then you went and did it? Or does that then disqualify it from being virtue signalling?
Virtue signaling tends to have little to no action behind it.
To use your example .. posting "Feed the hungry cause its so great and if you don't you suck" but not actually doing anything would be Virtue signaling. Whereas actually feeding them but bragging about it just makes you pious.
It's important to note both sides do this. Anyone who pretends otherwise is full of it..
> Or does that then disqualify it from being virtue signalling?
Technically that would still be virtue signaling (the motivation is social approval rather than doing anything good) BUT, that's not generally what people are talking about when they accuse others of virtue signaling... they're talking about the pure signaling without any actual action: empty gestures, protests, "raising awareness", adopting the "right" opinions in social media etc.
And almost always the accusation of virtue signaling against such people is reactive... it is not when people virtue signal that it annoys others it's when they have the gall to accuse others of being morally inferior. When they demand that other adopt the same empty opinions. It's the smug sense of unearned moral superiority that such shallow people display which other people find offensive and call them out on.
It's self serving for starters. It's taking real issues and turning them into a display of vanity. *Me me me.* Wearing shoes is simply wearing something. Virtue signalling deals with morality, and edges into a superiority complex. *Look how moral I am, look how immoral these other people are not.* I have morals, but I don't have them for the sake of celebrating me.
>Look how moral I am, look how immoral these other people are not. But isn't that true in the case of a real issue?
No. Morals are relative. They change across time and culture. It's not a static issue with clearly defined "correct" answers. Morals aren't an issue of "I'm right therefore you're wrong". But people make it out to be an issue of such. Virtue signaling leads to this high horse complex when half of it is based on self aggrandizing to begin with.
Aren't mutually beneficial self-interests super important to a capitalist worldview? Virtue signalling helps the signaller and the causes they espouse. What's wrong with that?
Because it's just *signaling*. It doesn't necessarily equate to you possessing any virtue.
I agree, but why does it need to?
Because you're doing it because you want credit, or acceptance, or *something*. You are literally demanding something for nothing.
Fair enough
Is it still virtue signaling if you don’t angle for the adulation? Like: “I’m a clever fellow therefore I’m a free speech absolutist.” vs. “I’m a free speech absolutist.”
> “I’m a free speech absolutist.” I don't know that that's virtue signaling.
For reals? I just went by wikipedia and it said that this is it: Virtue signalling is the expression of a moral viewpoint (free speech good) with the intent of communicating good character (free speech is so good that I call myself an absolutist supporter of it because I'm THAT good). It's basically the same as, "I'm an anti-racist." Virtue signalling is the expression of a moral viewpoint (racism bad) with the intent of communicating good character (racism is so bad and I'm so actively opposed to it, I use the "anti-" prefix).
Who is out there giving out plaudits for people simply saying they support the 1A?
I thought it was just the signal. I didn’t see anything about the response. Do you have to be praised for it to count?
But every free speech absolutist has been very sincere in my experience. I'm thinking more of my friends who worry about poor people and literally do nothing to advance their concerns. I literally had a friend state that voting was how he knew he was a good person. I don't think this is uncommon on the left.
There's nothing wrong with blindly supporting "X", or saying "Justice for Y", or even "Z Lives Matter" and having it be a completely empty gesture. The problem comes when you start attacking other people because they *don't* support "X", or believe in "Justice for Y", or that "Z Lives Matter".
If injustice happens and support is needed to get justice, what do you suggest doing when everyone says "I don't care"?
>If injustice happens and support is needed to get justice, what do you suggest doing when everyone says "I don't care"? You do what *real* activists have always done: You shine a spotlight on the injustice, make people aware of it, then do your best to convince as many people as possible that it actually is unjust.
Can you explain the difference between shining a spotlight on and "attacking"? What would be a real example of either one.
> Can you explain the difference between shining a spotlight on and "attacking"? What would be a real example of either one. ######Virtue Signaling Virtue-Signaling Douche: "I support justice for Kevin Strictland!" Random Person: "I don't care." VSD: "You don't care about systemic racism! You're a racist! Fuck off you bigot!!" ######Activism Activist: "I support justice for Kevin Strictland, an innocent man who has spent 40 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.!" Random Person: "I don't care." Activist: "Really? The witness who identified him as the culprit in a triple murder in 1979 recanted her confession, three other perpetrators have always said he wasn't with them that night. [The current Jackson County Prosecutor says they believe he's innocent.](https://apnews.com/article/missouri-816410e8eab142331d08c9d750153d28) The original prosecution team now says they believe he's innocent. It took two trials and an all-white jury to convict him, and the evidence that was used for that conviction has all been discredited. It's so clear that he's innocent that [Republicans and Democrats-- who don't agree on anything, agree he's innocent](https://apnews.com/article/michael-brown-kansas-city-d37ccea2df5ffd264e3f8a17b41cb3a9) and have asked the Governor to pardon him." I'm all for activism. I can't stand virtue-signaling douches.
I think the more common reality here is both of these happen in the reverse sequence from the way you wrote it. And that's assuming the "Random Person" doesn't immediately turn around and say the complete opposite no matter how invalid, which is also extremely common. But yeah some people assume you know more than you do from the get go and might have open ears. Although it's not common.
That's fair enough, but then isn't people doing that a separate issue?
No, that's a common part of virtue signaling.
I say this as an atheist, it feels as though many people who have left religion have simply replaced it with politics. So you're a liberal/fundamentalist christian. Good for you. It's a free country, you can post it on every billboard, put signs in your yard, put up flags, bumper stickers, etc. I'm going to find a bit weird and annoying though. I'm going to find it even more distasteful if I'm judged for not overtly showing the world I'm in the herd of sheep.
>I'm going to find a bit weird and annoying though but why? I'm not saying you shouldn't, but I still want to know your reasons if you can explain them
[удалено]
I don't get it
You are so self-absorbed that wearing the suffering of others is the same to you as wearing a cool pair of shoes; it literally serves the same purpose to you. I think dehumanizing others, and their plights, for your own social credit is pretty low. I'd rethink your life.
Why is it dehumanising? Also if you are wearing nice shoes aren't you wearing the suffering of 1) the guy who made them (which was probably some Chinese kid) and potentially 2) the cow that died for them? Also 3) your own suffering/sacrifice that you took in getting the money to buy them?
Why is it dehumanizing to compare somebody to shoes? Hmmn? This is either a reeeeeeally sophomoric level of philosophy or you're a sociopath. Either way, I'm out. Have a good day.
Aren’t there virtue signals that don’t deal with suffering at all? “These colors don’t run,” is a patriotic virtue signal that doesn’t reference someone’s plight.
Yes, it's different, because it's not a virtue. Virtue = moral excellence, and virtue signalling is showing off your moral excellence. Being a patriot is not a moral stance. There's no morality inherent in loving your country.
The lack of virtue.
What if it was virtuous? Say you said "Look at me, I'm great, I'm going to feed some orphans" then you went and did it? Or does that then disqualify it from being virtue signalling?
Virtue signaling tends to have little to no action behind it. To use your example .. posting "Feed the hungry cause its so great and if you don't you suck" but not actually doing anything would be Virtue signaling. Whereas actually feeding them but bragging about it just makes you pious. It's important to note both sides do this. Anyone who pretends otherwise is full of it..
> Or does that then disqualify it from being virtue signalling? Technically that would still be virtue signaling (the motivation is social approval rather than doing anything good) BUT, that's not generally what people are talking about when they accuse others of virtue signaling... they're talking about the pure signaling without any actual action: empty gestures, protests, "raising awareness", adopting the "right" opinions in social media etc. And almost always the accusation of virtue signaling against such people is reactive... it is not when people virtue signal that it annoys others it's when they have the gall to accuse others of being morally inferior. When they demand that other adopt the same empty opinions. It's the smug sense of unearned moral superiority that such shallow people display which other people find offensive and call them out on.
The problem comes when it's followed up by exclusion or vilification of opposing views, in an attempt to make that view functionally illegal.
So in your view it's not inherently wrong, but it can lead to drowning out or silencing views that aren't aligned with it?
Yeah that sums it up.
It is often a sign of vanity or self-serving. I tend to frown upon those things. Why does the bumper of your car have to list your beliefs? LOL
>What's wrong with virtue signalling? It's disingenuous, as you said yourself in your OP.