3 ms·

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

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".

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".