4 ms·

> It's not so easy to understand the real agendas here. The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how eco-conscious you are (ide

> It's not so easy to understand the real agendas here. The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how eco-conscious you are (ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper stickers) than it does with costly and difficult initiatives like figuring out how to meet the world's energy requirements in a sustainable way.

gameswithgo 8y ago
I have a prius and I don't care about my neighbor's opinions. It was just available cheap to em used and doesn't use as much gas. How have you decided you can speak for all prius owners? If people ARE trying to "keep up with the Joneses" by buying priuses instead of SUVs and Corvettes that would be a great agenda.
- stretchwithme 8y ago
  Who said they are speaking for all prius owners?
WalterGR 8y ago
The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how eco-conscious you are (ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper stickers) This tired bullshit again? Yes, we understand that everyone could be doing more to help some cause, and that some people care more about appearances than improving the world, and some people do legitimately good deeds for ‘selfish’ reasons like increased self-esteem. The “virtue-signaling” “every decent action in the world is done just to impress one’s tribe” meme is getting old.
- x220 8y ago
  If you say you support something, but don't want to take actions that demonstrably promote what you are supporting, you are virtue signalling. It's quite simple, and it's maddening.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    But they are taking actions. You're trying to complain that they're not doing enough to satisfy you.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      Not quite. The complaint is that they are taking anti-action too, enough that their net action might be less than zero.
  - WalterGR 8y ago
    "Maddening" implies discomfort. If people didn't virtue signal, it would eliminate that discomfort. You don't like the discomfort, otherwise you would have written that you find virtue-signaling being maddening an enjoyable experience. If it was neutral, you wouldn't use an emotional word to describe it. Since you don't find the feeling enjoyable or neutral, and because of the meaning of "maddening," that means you don't like it. Therefore, to prevent your discomfort, you support people not virtue-signaling. What action are you taking to demonstrably promote the reduction of virtue-signaling? It seems like much of the calling out of alleged virtue-signaling is virtue-signaling itself.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      Virtue signalling in this context is giving the impression of doing something. Saying "We should treat the environment better" while being honest about your own [lack of] contribution is perfectly fine. By the same token, I can complain about a group, and as long as I don't claim that my complaints magically fixed the problem, that's fine.
      - WalterGR 8y ago
        By the same token, I can complain about a group, and as long as I don't claim that my complaints magically fixed the problem, that's fine. That's not at all how people use it colloquially. Nobody is claiming that bumper stickers, Priuses, statements of "thoughts and prayers," or changing one's Facebook profile picture magically fix any problem. And yet those are the exact things that get labeled virtue-signalling. In this thread alone, jaredhansen mentions "ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper stickers" - though admittedly doesn't say virtue signals. x220's definition is also at odds with yours. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=virtue-signalling https://hn.algolia.com/?query=virtue-signalling is rife with examples. The incessant cries of virtue-signalling on the web absolutely do not require someone claiming that they've "magically fixed" any problem, and are almost entirely gate-keeping, goalpost-moving, ad hominem attacks, simple partisanship, and general lazy argumentation.
nikdaheratik 8y ago
Nobody is chaining themselves to the equipment and preventing energy companies from building more nuclear plants. Heck, judging by the Dakota Access Line protests, that doesn't work anyways in the long run. The reason why more plants aren't being built is because they are not cost effective compared to other options. You can argue that maybe the government or whoever could do more research to change this, but every company that wants a nuclear plant in the U.S. has one already. Until the engineering and regulatory situation changes so that it's easier to build a nuclear plant than it is to build a solar one, they're going to keep building the latter instead of the former.

gameswithgo 8y ago

I have a prius and I don't care about my neighbor's opinions. It was just available cheap to em used and doesn't use as much gas. How have you decided you can speak for all prius owners? If people ARE trying to "keep up with the Joneses" by buying priuses instead of SUVs and Corvettes that would be a great agenda.

stretchwithme 8y ago
Who said they are speaking for all prius owners?

WalterGR 8y ago

The real agenda has a lot more to do with impressing your neighbors with how eco-conscious you are (ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper stickers) This tired bullshit again? Yes, we understand that everyone could be doing more to help some cause, and that some people care more about appearances than improving the world, and some people do legitimately good deeds for ‘selfish’ reasons like increased self-esteem. The “virtue-signaling” “every decent action in the world is done just to impress one’s tribe” meme is getting old.

x220 8y ago
If you say you support something, but don't want to take actions that demonstrably promote what you are supporting, you are virtue signalling. It's quite simple, and it's maddening.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  But they are taking actions. You're trying to complain that they're not doing enough to satisfy you.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Not quite. The complaint is that they are taking anti-action too, enough that their net action might be less than zero.
- WalterGR 8y ago
  "Maddening" implies discomfort. If people didn't virtue signal, it would eliminate that discomfort. You don't like the discomfort, otherwise you would have written that you find virtue-signaling being maddening an enjoyable experience. If it was neutral, you wouldn't use an emotional word to describe it. Since you don't find the feeling enjoyable or neutral, and because of the meaning of "maddening," that means you don't like it. Therefore, to prevent your discomfort, you support people not virtue-signaling. What action are you taking to demonstrably promote the reduction of virtue-signaling? It seems like much of the calling out of alleged virtue-signaling is virtue-signaling itself.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Virtue signalling in this context is giving the impression of doing something. Saying "We should treat the environment better" while being honest about your own [lack of] contribution is perfectly fine. By the same token, I can complain about a group, and as long as I don't claim that my complaints magically fixed the problem, that's fine.
    - WalterGR 8y ago
      By the same token, I can complain about a group, and as long as I don't claim that my complaints magically fixed the problem, that's fine. That's not at all how people use it colloquially. Nobody is claiming that bumper stickers, Priuses, statements of "thoughts and prayers," or changing one's Facebook profile picture magically fix any problem. And yet those are the exact things that get labeled virtue-signalling. In this thread alone, jaredhansen mentions "ideally via cheap signals like signs and bumper stickers" - though admittedly doesn't say virtue signals. x220's definition is also at odds with yours. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=virtue-signalling https://hn.algolia.com/?query=virtue-signalling is rife with examples. The incessant cries of virtue-signalling on the web absolutely do not require someone claiming that they've "magically fixed" any problem, and are almost entirely gate-keeping, goalpost-moving, ad hominem attacks, simple partisanship, and general lazy argumentation.

nikdaheratik 8y ago

Nobody is chaining themselves to the equipment and preventing energy companies from building more nuclear plants. Heck, judging by the Dakota Access Line protests, that doesn't work anyways in the long run. The reason why more plants aren't being built is because they are not cost effective compared to other options. You can argue that maybe the government or whoever could do more research to change this, but every company that wants a nuclear plant in the U.S. has one already. Until the engineering and regulatory situation changes so that it's easier to build a nuclear plant than it is to build a solar one, they're going to keep building the latter instead of the former.