3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral

by vecter 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group. I don't think Aaronson states his views on Trump with the hopes of increasing his social status. He does it because it's just what he feels and wants to express himself.

monochromatic 9y ago
And which part of that definition has anything to do with the views being inauthentic? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
- kbutler 9y ago
  You're correct. Virtue signalling is usually done by people who sincerely believe the values they espouse - but they emphasize or show those values in order to gain or reinforce social status within the group. It usually is done by proclaiming things you hate, rather than things you like. If the comment adds nothing besides an "I'm with you guys, that's the worst", it's fair to see and describe it as virtue signalling. And yes, it happens on both sides of the aisle - heard lots of conservatives proclaiming their distaste for Obama over the last decade.
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  When you express a view that you don't hold in order to receive social approval, or when you express a view that you hold lightly with more intensity and frequency than you would except for your desire to receive social approval you are being inauthentic. The whole value of the phrase 'virtue signalling' is that it accuses those you disagree with of inauthenticity. If I'm saying a thing I genuinely believe because I genuinely believe it, I'm not virtue signalling. It's only if the reason for saying the thing is to gain social approval that it's 'virtue signalling'. Any assumption that your opponent is doing something for this reason is uncharitable, and kills rational debate. It's essentially an ad hominem attack. It's also ignoring the fairly detailed entry that Scott posted explaining in his own words why he started talking about Trump in his blog: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2777 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2777 when previously he'd avoided the subject. Maybe it is virtue signalling, or maybe he really did feel as he claimed, that he had a moral responsibility to speak out against Trump. If you assume that it is only 'virtue signalling', you are cutting yourself off from engaging with his points.

by vecter 9y ago

monochromatic 9y ago

And which part of that definition has anything to do with the views being inauthentic? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

kbutler 9y ago
You're correct. Virtue signalling is usually done by people who sincerely believe the values they espouse - but they emphasize or show those values in order to gain or reinforce social status within the group. It usually is done by proclaiming things you hate, rather than things you like. If the comment adds nothing besides an "I'm with you guys, that's the worst", it's fair to see and describe it as virtue signalling. And yes, it happens on both sides of the aisle - heard lots of conservatives proclaiming their distaste for Obama over the last decade.
kybernetikos 9y ago
When you express a view that you don't hold in order to receive social approval, or when you express a view that you hold lightly with more intensity and frequency than you would except for your desire to receive social approval you are being inauthentic. The whole value of the phrase 'virtue signalling' is that it accuses those you disagree with of inauthenticity. If I'm saying a thing I genuinely believe because I genuinely believe it, I'm not virtue signalling. It's only if the reason for saying the thing is to gain social approval that it's 'virtue signalling'. Any assumption that your opponent is doing something for this reason is uncharitable, and kills rational debate. It's essentially an ad hominem attack. It's also ignoring the fairly detailed entry that Scott posted explaining in his own words why he started talking about Trump in his blog: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2777 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2777 when previously he'd avoided the subject. Maybe it is virtue signalling, or maybe he really did feel as he claimed, that he had a moral responsibility to speak out against Trump. If you assume that it is only 'virtue signalling', you are cutting yourself off from engaging with his points.