4 ms·

Specifically regarding virtue signalling, im not sure you’re arguing anything beyond meaningless rhetoric. The claim simply amounts to “you say you believe in s

by setr 8y ago

Specifically regarding virtue signalling, im not sure you’re arguing anything beyond meaningless rhetoric. The claim simply amounts to “you say you believe in something, but your actions say otherwise, because you don’t actually treat it as a ‘cause’, but as social political stance”. See the term “champagne socialists”. It’s really easy to utilize something like “changing the psychology of racists” for virtue signalling. Or any other stance for that matter. Taking the stance isn’t at issue, but rather stopping there (having the opinion publicly, but not following through in any meaningful manner).

cazum 8y ago
I agree with the terms, I just don't see how the author has determined that progressives have universally decided to stop there, and not follow through in a meaningful manner. Deplatforming, for example, is meaningful praxis for a lot of lefties. I happen to think it's counter-productive, but just because I disagree with them, that doesn't now mean that the actions don't count and they are simply just champaigne socialist.
- setr 8y ago
  The problem is that the champagne socialist does things too, to support his stated goal... just nothing useful. It just further entrenches his social position, but never actually the peoples he claims to help. That they do work does not ensure its meaningful; at a minimum it needs to somewhat justified...by something. Personally, I’ve yet to find a decent argument for deplatforming (it seems to go against every acceptable idealistic political stance; I mean, its fundamentally against freedom of speech, which is an absurd stance to be taking — and afaik, not a stance otherwise taken), which for me implies that not much thinking actually went into the operation as to whether it was something that should be done. Which is the behavior you’d expect... of a champagne socialist. Calling for big political events, possibly even organizing them, without considering whether this would actually support their cause in any real fashion.. because it doesn’t matter whether or not it does. It just needs to be interpreted as helping. Its just positioning. Ofc, this is also the behavior we associate with politicians, but thats another can of worms ;)

by setr 8y ago

cazum 8y ago

I agree with the terms, I just don't see how the author has determined that progressives have universally decided to stop there, and not follow through in a meaningful manner. Deplatforming, for example, is meaningful praxis for a lot of lefties. I happen to think it's counter-productive, but just because I disagree with them, that doesn't now mean that the actions don't count and they are simply just champaigne socialist.

setr 8y ago
The problem is that the champagne socialist does things too, to support his stated goal... just nothing useful. It just further entrenches his social position, but never actually the peoples he claims to help. That they do work does not ensure its meaningful; at a minimum it needs to somewhat justified...by something. Personally, I’ve yet to find a decent argument for deplatforming (it seems to go against every acceptable idealistic political stance; I mean, its fundamentally against freedom of speech, which is an absurd stance to be taking — and afaik, not a stance otherwise taken), which for me implies that not much thinking actually went into the operation as to whether it was something that should be done. Which is the behavior you’d expect... of a champagne socialist. Calling for big political events, possibly even organizing them, without considering whether this would actually support their cause in any real fashion.. because it doesn’t matter whether or not it does. It just needs to be interpreted as helping. Its just positioning. Ofc, this is also the behavior we associate with politicians, but thats another can of worms ;)