4 ms·
Though I appreciate your post, it only further emphasizes my original point. You, apparently a professor at CMU, praise folks for merely uninstalling an app. So
by tabeth 9y ago
Though I appreciate your post, it only further emphasizes my original point. You, apparently a professor at CMU, praise folks for merely uninstalling an app. Something you only knew because they bothered to post it on an internet board. This further reinforces that people should post that they're doing such virtuous things to begin with. Why, because they want to increase social standing among people in a given area, that is computer science, to which you already have a high standing in, given that you're a CS professor at CMU.
So yes, it is virtue signalling, pretty much by definition -- "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue." That being said, I don't think virtue signalling is bad. In fact, it's virtue signalling that has led to the pressure on Uber that brought about this very discussion.
---
As an aside, I didn't realize "virtue signalling" was such a bad word, as well as "hypocrisy." I guess I'll have to stop using those words.
- dgacmu 9y agoLet me quote from your original comment: > people don't actually care. It's just virtue signaling. You're making claims about their underlying motivation, and dismissing their actions as just virtue signaling. "They're not doing A, they're only doing B" Showing the presence of B is not sufficient to demonstrate the absence of A. Second, you haven't actually shown that they're virtue signaling. Note that your definition specifically includes intent: "publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character" -- the OP could be expressing their sentiments publicly in order to induce others to follow suit, for example. The same post admits many possible explanations, and you are in no position to read the mind of the posters in order to divine their intent. You're making assumptions, but you again haven't presented any evidence to suggest that your hypothesis is better than any others.
- tabeth 9y agoHmmm, lots of good points here. > You're making claims about their underlying motivation, and dismissing their actions as just virtue signaling. This is true. > Showing the presence of B is not sufficient to demonstrate the absence of A. This is also true. > Second, you haven't actually shown that they're virtue signaling. Note that your definition specifically includes intent: "publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character" -- the OP could be expressing their sentiments publicly in order to induce others to follow suit, for example. The same post admits many possible explanations, and you are in no position to read the mind of the posters in order to divine their intent. You're making assumptions, but you again haven't presented any evidence to suggest that your hypothesis is better than any others. Indeed, though, with respect to this there's no evidence -- save the person themselves stating that's what they intended -- that I could present that would be sufficient. Overall I regret my original post and the ensuing posts, since ironically, my original intent was far less aggressive than is implied by the responses. Oh well, live and learn.
- nothrabannosir 9y agoYou have my respect. Your profile says "Contact me" but there's no contact info. (It also says: “if you're going to claim something, please cite!” :) )
- dgacmu 9y agoThanks for engaging in good faith. The internet could use more of that.