4 ms·

Isn't virtue signalling just a modern trendy name for what the ancients called sanctimony? Accusations of hypocrisy or virtue signaling are a distraction, a wa

Isn't virtue signalling just a modern trendy name for what the ancients called sanctimony? Accusations of hypocrisy or virtue signaling are a distraction, a way to shout down another without addressing the substance of what they've said. To me, the important thing is to judge whether something is good or not. If it is good, that goodness is independent of the person saying it's good, and it does not cease to be good if the person urging it upon others doesn't really practice it (hypocricy) or is sanctimonious about applying it. Social media is what perverts morality, by rewarding hypocrisy and sanctimony. The best thing to do with it is to not read it, not participate in it, not contribute to it.

ncmncm 7y ago
Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony. It is inherently hypocritical, besides. Saying, "this is good, so I do it" is fundamentally more meaningful than, "this is good, so you should do it". The latter is sanctimony. We may contrast actual virtue signaling with, e.g., Gwyneth Paltrow scams, which the ill-equipped may confuse with it.
- romaniitedomum 7y ago
  > Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony So complaining about sanctimony is itself sanctimonious? > It is inherently hypocritical, besides. How so? Hypocrisy is when someone tells others to do something they don't do themselves. > Saying, "this is good, so I do it" is fundamentally more meaningful than, "this is good, so you should do it". The latter is sanctimony. Not really. Sanctimony is the excessive parading of a supposed virtue. Telling someone to do something is not in itself sanctimony. Anyway, my original point was that hypocrisy and sanctimony are irrelevant and a distraction in any consideration of morality. For those of us raised Catholic, they're what we'd call venal sins, minor and forgivable. They simply don't matter, but for some reason people online treat them as the equivalent of virginal purity tests, and cherish them with a zeal that would put a village mullah to shame. The short aphorisms of Marcus Aurelius are invaluable, in my opinion, in considering morality. "Of each thing", he says, "ask what it is in itself". But in our modern world where we've convinced ourselves we're busy as we bustle about with a thousand pointless activities at once, the thoughtful consideration that the old Roman emperor urges seems very far away. And besides, they'd probably accuse him of virtue signalling.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    I wasn't raised Catholic, but the way I heard it, committing a venal sin counting on it being negligible because it was venal is, itself, a mortal sin -- which tickled me at the time. Also, that only the sins since your last confession, or communion, or something, count in any way at all. No idea which if any of the above is true. Or what, exactly, would be meant by a "virginal purity test". But... >> Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony >So complaining about sanctimony is itself sanctimonious? No. You are tying yourself in knots; which is your privilege. Please don't entangle me in them.
    - romaniitedomum 7y ago
      > I wasn't raised Catholic, but the way I heard it, committing a venal sin counting on it being negligible because it was venal is, itself, a mortal sin -- which tickled me at the time. No, a sin is either venal or mortal. The intent of the sinner doesn't enter into it. > Also, that only the sins since your last confession, or communion, or something, count in any way at all. If you confess a sin and ask forgiveness, it's forgiven. Your slate is wiped clean. > Or what, exactly, would be meant by a "virginal purity test". Simply that many in social media demand a level of purity in thought and action from commenters and other writers that rivals in its puritanical zeal the worst excesses of the most ignorant village mullah. > No. You are tying yourself in knots; which is your privilege. Please don't entangle me in them. But if virtue signalling is sanctimony, a point which you have not refuted, and complaining about virtue signalling is sanctimony, then complaining about sanctimony is indeed sanctimonious. Any entanglement is of your own making.

ncmncm 7y ago

Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony. It is inherently hypocritical, besides. Saying, "this is good, so I do it" is fundamentally more meaningful than, "this is good, so you should do it". The latter is sanctimony. We may contrast actual virtue signaling with, e.g., Gwyneth Paltrow scams, which the ill-equipped may confuse with it.

romaniitedomum 7y ago
> Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony So complaining about sanctimony is itself sanctimonious? > It is inherently hypocritical, besides. How so? Hypocrisy is when someone tells others to do something they don't do themselves. > Saying, "this is good, so I do it" is fundamentally more meaningful than, "this is good, so you should do it". The latter is sanctimony. Not really. Sanctimony is the excessive parading of a supposed virtue. Telling someone to do something is not in itself sanctimony. Anyway, my original point was that hypocrisy and sanctimony are irrelevant and a distraction in any consideration of morality. For those of us raised Catholic, they're what we'd call venal sins, minor and forgivable. They simply don't matter, but for some reason people online treat them as the equivalent of virginal purity tests, and cherish them with a zeal that would put a village mullah to shame. The short aphorisms of Marcus Aurelius are invaluable, in my opinion, in considering morality. "Of each thing", he says, "ask what it is in itself". But in our modern world where we've convinced ourselves we're busy as we bustle about with a thousand pointless activities at once, the thoughtful consideration that the old Roman emperor urges seems very far away. And besides, they'd probably accuse him of virtue signalling.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  I wasn't raised Catholic, but the way I heard it, committing a venal sin counting on it being negligible because it was venal is, itself, a mortal sin -- which tickled me at the time. Also, that only the sins since your last confession, or communion, or something, count in any way at all. No idea which if any of the above is true. Or what, exactly, would be meant by a "virginal purity test". But... >> Complaining about virtue signaling is sanctimony >So complaining about sanctimony is itself sanctimonious? No. You are tying yourself in knots; which is your privilege. Please don't entangle me in them.
  - romaniitedomum 7y ago
    > I wasn't raised Catholic, but the way I heard it, committing a venal sin counting on it being negligible because it was venal is, itself, a mortal sin -- which tickled me at the time. No, a sin is either venal or mortal. The intent of the sinner doesn't enter into it. > Also, that only the sins since your last confession, or communion, or something, count in any way at all. If you confess a sin and ask forgiveness, it's forgiven. Your slate is wiped clean. > Or what, exactly, would be meant by a "virginal purity test". Simply that many in social media demand a level of purity in thought and action from commenters and other writers that rivals in its puritanical zeal the worst excesses of the most ignorant village mullah. > No. You are tying yourself in knots; which is your privilege. Please don't entangle me in them. But if virtue signalling is sanctimony, a point which you have not refuted, and complaining about virtue signalling is sanctimony, then complaining about sanctimony is indeed sanctimonious. Any entanglement is of your own making.