4 ms·

First, you claim that it virtue signalling is made-up nonsense. Then, you claim that use of the term virtue signalling is an instance of virtue signalling. You

First, you claim that it virtue signalling is made-up nonsense. Then, you claim that use of the term virtue signalling is an instance of virtue signalling. Your statements contradict themselves. Describe your position more accurately, please.

kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
Calling something a "hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals", is undeniably, irrefutably, uncontroversially, a hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals. I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions. People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves. It is not a thing.
- challenger22 7y ago
  You accept that it describes what people think it describes, so the concept exists. You also give an example of the concept being applied, so it is not only a concept, but it exists in reality as well. Sounds to me that you think it is a thing, but you do not enjoy the fact that it is a thing.
- Nadya 7y ago
  >I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions. This runs under the very, very, very large assumption that one actually truly believes in the opinions or positions they share. You have far more trust in people and corporations than I do if you believe this to be the case. Do many poor people flaunt wealth they don't really have by wearing expensive products as a way of being seen as wealthy as a form of social signalling? Yes. Do many immoral people flaunt fake morals they don't really believe in hopes of being seen as more moral as a form of social signalling? Not surprisingly, also yes. If there are benefits to an individual for having a higher perceived social value irregardless of their actual social value then there will always be con artists who try and game the system. Poor people are rarely wearing Supreme listening to their iPods or Beats by Dre for themselves: it's social signalling. Virtue signalling is a form of social signalling. The goal is to masquerade as moral. Whether actions are taken for moral reasons or result in any form of net positive to society isn't relevant - only how people end up judging the action. This is how you end up with things like diversity quotas and people who feel like they're the "token person" of the office. Where the only black person in the company finds themselves on 90% of outgoing marketing material so that the company can pretend they're more diverse than they are. >People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves. It seems to me you're misunderstanding exactly what virtue signalling is. The difference between "being moral" and "virtue signalling by pretending to have morals" is predicated entirely on why an action was taken and what the expected result of that action is. Yes, some people may be virtue signalling by being against virtue signalling - but I have a feeling that most are people who are able to grasp the difference between "doing a good thing to be a good person" and "doing a good thing to get Instagram likes and brand recognition". The two sometimes overlap. Imagine these three scenarios: 1) A person donates $10,000 to charity anonymously (doing a good thing) 2) A person donates $10,000 to a charity and shares that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (doing a good thing / virtue signalling ; it kinda depends on the intent doesn't it?) 3) A person lies about making a $10,000 donation to a charity and shares the fact that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (virtue signalling)

kilo_bravo_3 7y ago

Calling something a "hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals", is undeniably, irrefutably, uncontroversially, a hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals. I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions. People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves. It is not a thing.

challenger22 7y ago
You accept that it describes what people think it describes, so the concept exists. You also give an example of the concept being applied, so it is not only a concept, but it exists in reality as well. Sounds to me that you think it is a thing, but you do not enjoy the fact that it is a thing.
Nadya 7y ago
>I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions. This runs under the very, very, very large assumption that one actually truly believes in the opinions or positions they share. You have far more trust in people and corporations than I do if you believe this to be the case. Do many poor people flaunt wealth they don't really have by wearing expensive products as a way of being seen as wealthy as a form of social signalling? Yes. Do many immoral people flaunt fake morals they don't really believe in hopes of being seen as more moral as a form of social signalling? Not surprisingly, also yes. If there are benefits to an individual for having a higher perceived social value irregardless of their actual social value then there will always be con artists who try and game the system. Poor people are rarely wearing Supreme listening to their iPods or Beats by Dre for themselves: it's social signalling. Virtue signalling is a form of social signalling. The goal is to masquerade as moral. Whether actions are taken for moral reasons or result in any form of net positive to society isn't relevant - only how people end up judging the action. This is how you end up with things like diversity quotas and people who feel like they're the "token person" of the office. Where the only black person in the company finds themselves on 90% of outgoing marketing material so that the company can pretend they're more diverse than they are. >People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves. It seems to me you're misunderstanding exactly what virtue signalling is. The difference between "being moral" and "virtue signalling by pretending to have morals" is predicated entirely on why an action was taken and what the expected result of that action is. Yes, some people may be virtue signalling by being against virtue signalling - but I have a feeling that most are people who are able to grasp the difference between "doing a good thing to be a good person" and "doing a good thing to get Instagram likes and brand recognition". The two sometimes overlap. Imagine these three scenarios: 1) A person donates $10,000 to charity anonymously (doing a good thing) 2) A person donates $10,000 to a charity and shares that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (doing a good thing / virtue signalling ; it kinda depends on the intent doesn't it?) 3) A person lies about making a $10,000 donation to a charity and shares the fact that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (virtue signalling)