3 ms·

You think the desire to protect individuals from racism is merely virtue signalling?

• taneq 9y ago
  Only if (as in this case) it discards the other side of the debate, which is the desire to protect individuals from harm predominantly perpetrated by a particular demographic.
  • brucephillips 9y ago
    That's just the racist side. You're quite simply defending racism. Racists are still morally culpable even if their prejudices are statistically true, because it harms individuals who don't happen to adhere to those stereotypes.
    • taneq 9y ago
      I'm asking how far we should go to 'not be racist' on principle, when doing so causes measurable material harm. Is your answer genuinely "I would let myself and those I care about suffer an unlimited amount of harm in order to avoid the possibility of inflicting an unfair prejudice on any individual"? Because according to your stated position, anything less is "defending racism". And I strongly suspect that, if it were put to the test, you really would not accept arbitrary harm in order to "not defend racism". And if so, then you're publicly declaring that you hold a 'virtuous' position, when in reality you do not. And that is the definition of 'virtue signalling'.
      • brucephillips 9y ago
        Except you're defending racist signs that ostensibly protect people from rude behavior, not "unlimited amount of harm", so this is all a straw man. Of course there's a practical limit to tolerance. This isn't it.