5 ms·

I think you're debating the merit of the "virtue" part - whether it's sincerely held or not - while to me the main idea is the "signal" part. You see this deba

I think you're debating the merit of the "virtue" part - whether it's sincerely held or not - while to me the main idea is the "signal" part. You see this debate regarding the value of, say, a Harvard education: is it the knowledge gained, or the "signal" of having been accepted to it? Similarly, when I hear accusations of "virtue signaling", I understand the person to mean that the action in question was used to signal something, not to inherently accomplish something. As an example, consider beliefs about global warming. Whether or not you "sincerely" believe in global warming is immaterial to most accusations of virtue signaling. What you do about it is the question. The question to ask is, what did that action accomplish? So, posting a link to some article on facebook is likely to not really accomplish anything, and so the point of posting it was likely to signal. On the other hand, posting about how every year your family takes a trip to Europe, but you've realized that uses too much fuel, and instead your family is going to have a nearby "staycation" in the woods out back: that actually accomplished something, and I wouldn't expect to see that called "virtue signaling".

woodruffw 8y ago
Is this not a rephrasing of the GP's position? To "signal something, not to inherently accomplish something" is to be insincere in one's virtue (and therefore, at least on some accounts, to fail to act in accordance with virtue). Edit: That probably sounds more confrontational than I mean it to be. Rephrased: I think 'claudiawerner nicely exposes some of the flawed reasoning behind characterizations of "virtue signalling." What advantage in understanding do we gain by divorcing "signal" and "accomplishing something" that is not covered by either (1) (unsubstantiated) insincerity, or (2) sincerity that we don't find objectionable (the "Alternatively" clause)?
claudiawerner 8y ago
I think that comes with a certain ideological slant and is highly issue-dependent and thus inappropriate for the concept of virtue signalling most generally. To say that one is virtue signalling when one complains about global warming may be virtue signalling by some definition, but if it is then I would also say that not all virtue signalling is bad. Telling your friends about some issues or even letting them know your position can be important. The idea that one can't care about global warming or loses the right to make an issue of it when they don't do much themselves seems to say to me that one must believe individual solutions work to combat global warming. Now I'm not arguing for or against such an idea, but I'm sure we can both imagine cases in which it is useful in itself to raise consciousness, or socially useful to let others know your position. Maybe 'hypocrisy' is a better word for what's happening, if you feel that way. It could also be said, using your point of view, that the 'virtue' part is important, because the virtue isn't held sincerely if you're just posting a link about it. You tie the virtue signalling to the authenticity of the signal, as do I but in a different way. The sibling comment to this one makes the same point. This issue also comes into play when one is accused of virtue signalling when in an Internet argument, which I think is mostly a bad faith accusation lacking evidence (which I mentioned earlier). Arguing for a particular position isn't necessarily virtue signalling.
- losvedir 8y ago
  > but if it is then I would also say that not all virtue signalling is bad. Well, sure, I wouldn't say "virtue signaling" is "bad". Just that on a scale of 0-10 of virtuosity, it's like a 2 (but not negative, i.e. unvirtuous). I usually see it in the context of "this is just virtue signaling", meaning it's only a 2, while the accused is maybe acting like they're doing something more of a 5. Like, I see it more as calling out someone for being a little pompous, not insincere. I've never accused anyone of virtue signaling or been accused, just seen it thrown around from time to time, so maybe my understanding of its meaning is different from yours. I see now in the article that the definition they're using is more aligned with yours, so maybe I'm the odd one out here. I'll have to pay attention the next time I see it "in the wild".
pergadad 8y ago
Why would sharing an article not accomplish something? It's an expression of opinion or support or an attempt to share information. Only actions that directly and immediately affect the planet are relevant and honest?

woodruffw 8y ago

Is this not a rephrasing of the GP's position? To "signal something, not to inherently accomplish something" is to be insincere in one's virtue (and therefore, at least on some accounts, to fail to act in accordance with virtue). Edit: That probably sounds more confrontational than I mean it to be. Rephrased: I think 'claudiawerner nicely exposes some of the flawed reasoning behind characterizations of "virtue signalling." What advantage in understanding do we gain by divorcing "signal" and "accomplishing something" that is not covered by either (1) (unsubstantiated) insincerity, or (2) sincerity that we don't find objectionable (the "Alternatively" clause)?

claudiawerner 8y ago

I think that comes with a certain ideological slant and is highly issue-dependent and thus inappropriate for the concept of virtue signalling most generally. To say that one is virtue signalling when one complains about global warming may be virtue signalling by some definition, but if it is then I would also say that not all virtue signalling is bad. Telling your friends about some issues or even letting them know your position can be important. The idea that one can't care about global warming or loses the right to make an issue of it when they don't do much themselves seems to say to me that one must believe individual solutions work to combat global warming. Now I'm not arguing for or against such an idea, but I'm sure we can both imagine cases in which it is useful in itself to raise consciousness, or socially useful to let others know your position. Maybe 'hypocrisy' is a better word for what's happening, if you feel that way. It could also be said, using your point of view, that the 'virtue' part is important, because the virtue isn't held sincerely if you're just posting a link about it. You tie the virtue signalling to the authenticity of the signal, as do I but in a different way. The sibling comment to this one makes the same point. This issue also comes into play when one is accused of virtue signalling when in an Internet argument, which I think is mostly a bad faith accusation lacking evidence (which I mentioned earlier). Arguing for a particular position isn't necessarily virtue signalling.

losvedir 8y ago
> but if it is then I would also say that not all virtue signalling is bad. Well, sure, I wouldn't say "virtue signaling" is "bad". Just that on a scale of 0-10 of virtuosity, it's like a 2 (but not negative, i.e. unvirtuous). I usually see it in the context of "this is just virtue signaling", meaning it's only a 2, while the accused is maybe acting like they're doing something more of a 5. Like, I see it more as calling out someone for being a little pompous, not insincere. I've never accused anyone of virtue signaling or been accused, just seen it thrown around from time to time, so maybe my understanding of its meaning is different from yours. I see now in the article that the definition they're using is more aligned with yours, so maybe I'm the odd one out here. I'll have to pay attention the next time I see it "in the wild".

pergadad 8y ago

Why would sharing an article not accomplish something? It's an expression of opinion or support or an attempt to share information. Only actions that directly and immediately affect the planet are relevant and honest?