4 ms·

The problem is when you write off your culpability to do more because "At least I did something" via virtue signaling. So no, it's not wrong to virtue signal n

The problem is when you write off your culpability to do more because "At least I did something" via virtue signaling. So no, it's not wrong to virtue signal necessarily, but often is seen as an empty gesture by people who don't talk/act towards the actual problems.

IAmEveryone 9y ago
It's an intellectually dishonest argument, because it actually uses someone's profession of good intentions, accepts them, and then somehow turns it against the speaker. As used on the internet, it's also useless because it always assumes the speaker doesn't actually act on their believes, and there usually is no way for them to prove their willingness to act on their believes. It also ignores that even just stating such believes can have an effect. After all, these statements are used to convince others to adopt them. The best proof of the last point may actually be this protest by Google employees: their conviction was probably formed by reading and hearing about the ethical responsibility of engineers, a topic that is certainly teeming with "virtue signalling" according to the common definition. They might even be the product of Google's own "virtue signalling", i. e. "Do no Evil". Maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin only ever wanted to pay lip service to ethical behaviour. But their employees didn't get the full memo, took them by their word, and are now acting upon it. In this sense, "virtue signalling" aka "Greenwashing" or "diversity boilerplate" may start as a cynical profit-motivated lie, and end up changing the world for the better.
- jpttsn 9y ago
  Reliable signals are as a rule expensive. In decrying “virtue signaling”, I think critics express “talk is cheap” not just “talk can be false.”
  - AndyNemmity 9y ago
    Saying "talk is cheap" implores the listener to act on their statements. Saying "virtue signaling" implores the listeners to stop expressing their views.
    - olleromam91 9y ago
      Potato potato
- nickpinkston 9y ago
  Yea, I don't think virtue signaling is always wrong, but I think there is wrong virtue signaling. A lot of the vitriol on the internet is destructive virtue signaling using holier than thou approaches that alienate people close to your position, this causes division, not unity, and is one of the key issues on the Left - i.e. the Left attacking itself over minutiae as the Right marches on.
opportune 9y ago
Sure, and I agree that Google shouldn't stop here. But then again there is a difference, at least in my opinion, between doing something that helps the military in a support role and doing something that actively assists them in killing people. Letting the military use google cloud or google search is different than working on an AI-assisted targeting system for drones. That is where I would draw the line for myself.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

It's an intellectually dishonest argument, because it actually uses someone's profession of good intentions, accepts them, and then somehow turns it against the speaker. As used on the internet, it's also useless because it always assumes the speaker doesn't actually act on their believes, and there usually is no way for them to prove their willingness to act on their believes. It also ignores that even just stating such believes can have an effect. After all, these statements are used to convince others to adopt them. The best proof of the last point may actually be this protest by Google employees: their conviction was probably formed by reading and hearing about the ethical responsibility of engineers, a topic that is certainly teeming with "virtue signalling" according to the common definition. They might even be the product of Google's own "virtue signalling", i. e. "Do no Evil". Maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin only ever wanted to pay lip service to ethical behaviour. But their employees didn't get the full memo, took them by their word, and are now acting upon it. In this sense, "virtue signalling" aka "Greenwashing" or "diversity boilerplate" may start as a cynical profit-motivated lie, and end up changing the world for the better.

jpttsn 9y ago
Reliable signals are as a rule expensive. In decrying “virtue signaling”, I think critics express “talk is cheap” not just “talk can be false.”
- AndyNemmity 9y ago
  Saying "talk is cheap" implores the listener to act on their statements. Saying "virtue signaling" implores the listeners to stop expressing their views.
  - olleromam91 9y ago
    Potato potato
nickpinkston 9y ago
Yea, I don't think virtue signaling is always wrong, but I think there is wrong virtue signaling. A lot of the vitriol on the internet is destructive virtue signaling using holier than thou approaches that alienate people close to your position, this causes division, not unity, and is one of the key issues on the Left - i.e. the Left attacking itself over minutiae as the Right marches on.

opportune 9y ago

Sure, and I agree that Google shouldn't stop here. But then again there is a difference, at least in my opinion, between doing something that helps the military in a support role and doing something that actively assists them in killing people. Letting the military use google cloud or google search is different than working on an AI-assisted targeting system for drones. That is where I would draw the line for myself.