3 ms·

I'm confused why people think virtue signalling is a bad thing in the first place. "Hey, you're doing this very good thing just to show off how good you are!".

I'm confused why people think virtue signalling is a bad thing in the first place. "Hey, you're doing this very good thing just to show off how good you are!". Oh no, how terrible.

Shish2k 10y ago
As I understand it, the problem is when people are focussing on doing what looks good (posting on Facebook) rather than what is good (writing letters to their representatives)
lhnz 10y ago
Because fraud is bad. Virtue signalling is a term to describe people that are doing harm to a cause or providing no benefit to it, while also aiming to maximize the admiration they receive from others. That is at least how it's meant to be used. tptacek isn't wrong to point out that the Right generally uses it to denigrate people that are trying to do good just because there is a little 'show' with their 'action'. This is evil because people shouldn't be dissuaded from doing good things. In fact they should be celebrated. The Right have pretty much completely missed the point of talking about signalling, which is credible/costly vs. cheap.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I think you think there's confusion about the textual meaning of "virtue signaling". No, we all get what it means: in fact, it's such a pugnaciously vivid term that we probably all understood it the moment it was first used, without explanation. What I think you're missing is the subtextual meaning of "virtue signaling", which is, essentially, "there is no virtue except virtue I condone". Since that's obviously not the case, most --- maybe pretty much all, in fact --- of the time the term gets used, it's a nihilistic attempt to shut down the good works and careful thoughts of others, casually calling into question their good faith, solely because their broader intentions don't square with yours. And, as I said, those are the kinds of people we laugh at when John Goodman hucks a bowling ball into their gut. I'm laughing a little bit right now just thinking about it. Again I caution though, it could be more about Flea.
  - lhnz 10y ago
    I do not think I missed the subtextual meaning at all. I explicitly drew attention to the misuse of the term in my last paragraph. The textual meaning is in my opinion more important, and more often than not completely lost on people. The term 'signalling' is a bit of biology/economics terminology and people aren't very familiar with it. The idea of cost-based credibility isn't expressed within the term, but must be learned beforehand. So they just say 'virtue signalling' because it sounds clever and it remains opaque to them...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Nobody need study biology or economics to immediately understand what people who casually invoke "virtue signaling" are communicating textually. And, as to the subtext, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism...

I'm confused why people think virtue signalling is a bad thing in the first place. "Hey, you're doing this very good thing just to show off how good you are!". Oh no, how terrible.

Shish2k 10y ago

As I understand it, the problem is when people are focussing on doing what looks good (posting on Facebook) rather than what is good (writing letters to their representatives)

lhnz 10y ago

Because fraud is bad. Virtue signalling is a term to describe people that are doing harm to a cause or providing no benefit to it, while also aiming to maximize the admiration they receive from others. That is at least how it's meant to be used. tptacek isn't wrong to point out that the Right generally uses it to denigrate people that are trying to do good just because there is a little 'show' with their 'action'. This is evil because people shouldn't be dissuaded from doing good things. In fact they should be celebrated. The Right have pretty much completely missed the point of talking about signalling, which is credible/costly vs. cheap.

tptacek 10y ago
I think you think there's confusion about the textual meaning of "virtue signaling". No, we all get what it means: in fact, it's such a pugnaciously vivid term that we probably all understood it the moment it was first used, without explanation. What I think you're missing is the subtextual meaning of "virtue signaling", which is, essentially, "there is no virtue except virtue I condone". Since that's obviously not the case, most --- maybe pretty much all, in fact --- of the time the term gets used, it's a nihilistic attempt to shut down the good works and careful thoughts of others, casually calling into question their good faith, solely because their broader intentions don't square with yours. And, as I said, those are the kinds of people we laugh at when John Goodman hucks a bowling ball into their gut. I'm laughing a little bit right now just thinking about it. Again I caution though, it could be more about Flea.
- lhnz 10y ago
  I do not think I missed the subtextual meaning at all. I explicitly drew attention to the misuse of the term in my last paragraph. The textual meaning is in my opinion more important, and more often than not completely lost on people. The term 'signalling' is a bit of biology/economics terminology and people aren't very familiar with it. The idea of cost-based credibility isn't expressed within the term, but must be learned beforehand. So they just say 'virtue signalling' because it sounds clever and it remains opaque to them...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Nobody need study biology or economics to immediately understand what people who casually invoke "virtue signaling" are communicating textually. And, as to the subtext, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism...