6 ms·

The linked article suggestions would work on a holiness-neutral topic like emacs vs vi, but I don't think the suggested tactics would work against holy virtue s

by VLM 6y ago

The linked article suggestions would work on a holiness-neutral topic like emacs vs vi, but I don't think the suggested tactics would work against holy virtue signalling.

mcguire 6y ago
Can we ditch the "virtue signalling" meme? It comes across as a simple dismissal, which doesn't improve any situation.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The term can be overused. But we need a way to describe the very real underlying phenomenon, of expectations that everyone ought to endorse and actively promote promote a particular moral stance. Trying to talk about modern activism without the term "virtue signaling" would be like trying to talk about churches without the term "religion".
  - Intermernet 6y ago
    The term "virtue signalling" is a derogatory term for something that every person does in pretty much every form of communication. You can perceive it in everything from scientific papers, to song lyrics, to professional conferences, to children's conversations. The use of the term is purely to denigrate the person by vaguely deriding the values that they've presented as the basis for their argument. If you use the term you've chosen to argue against the character of the person, and not against the content of their statements.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I don't agree. The way I normally see it used, "virtue signaling" refers to a pretty specific phenomenon where you go out of your way to make sure people know you hold the correct moral views. It can occur in pretty much every form of communication, but it's far from universal.
      - yesenadam 6y ago
        I thought the GP's comment was the best I'd read in a while on HN, but you're right that it refers to a more specific phenomenon. The GP nailed it, though, with > The use of the term is purely to denigrate the person by vaguely deriding the values that they've presented as the basis for their argument. – which is the way it normally seems to me used on here. Someone says X, then someone else who doesn't share the feeling that made them say X, accuses them of virtue signalling. It's a bad faith, hostile thing to say - you wouldn't talk to your friends like that. It seems similar somehow to a term we have in Australia, a bleeding heart, applied by someone on the political right to someone on the political left who expresses, for example, sympathy with poor people or mentally-ill people. To someone without those sympathies, it will sound like the person is faking that emotion, being "politically correct", just saying what they think they should, morally, and not sincerely expressing how they feel, since the person on the right doesn't share that emotion. Such people are called bleeding hearts. (...I just looked at your comments and see you're in Oz too. Hi!) Actually, we (you, me, GP) are talking about two different things - one is the alleged signalling itself, which your definition describes. The other is the act of labelling something as virtue signalling, which the GP describes in the part I quoted. And like 'hater', 'whining', etc, people may be haters, may whine, but saying that to their face is an unfriendly, bad faith move. No-one feels they are a hater, or whining, or virtue signalling. They feel they're doing something else, and you're presenting your guess that they're wrong about that as a certain diagnosis. You claim to see clearly what they can't see at all. Seems to me, the use of the term "virtue signalling" as a weapon in a fight/debate is itself a pungent form of virtue signalling, and is the main one that bothers me! It attempts to signal that one is above virtue signalling, and like "You can trust me!" or "I'm not racist", raises its own doubts about that, for me at least. I don't like the term, avoid using it, and don't think it does any good. Which brings me to my so-called Arsehole Theory of the World - that those who spend their lives calling others arseholes, are themselves arseholes. Those who often call other people idiots, are idiots etc. It's not easy to be human and not a hypocrite. Easier to tell the other guy he's one. "A man should be very sure that he himself is not what he has always in his mouth." – Hazlitt, On Nicknames
        Chris2048 6y ago
    - cousin_it 6y ago
      > The term "virtue signalling" is a derogatory term for something that every person does in pretty much every form of communication. There are different virtues though. A lot of online debate is between those who want to signal intelligence and those who want to signal morality. I'm on the former side, as intelligence signaling gave us civilization, while morality signaling is mostly about painting targets on people.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        Just as "virtue signalling" is not the same as virtue, "intelligence signalling" is not the same as intelligence. Some would say it's the latter that "gave us civilization".
        cousin_it 6y ago
        Sure, though signaling high intelligence could actually be the main use of intelligence, if it's a Fisherian runaway. And it's plausible that such use led to civilization: figuring out a beautiful theory feels purposeful in the same way as building a beautiful nest.
      - Chris2048 6y ago
        Join a MENSA community and you'll soon see the vice of "intelligence signalling".
      - Intermernet 6y ago
        In many ways, morality is an emergent phenomenon of intelligence. It takes intelligence to come up with nuclear / chemical / biological weapons, but it takes morality to avoid their use. You could say that this particular morality is based on game theory, but you could also say that people, in general, don't want to hurt other people. The reality is going to be some mish-mash of states between those two theories. Virtue signalling as a concept may be about advertising morality, but that morality is probably going to be informed by intelligence. Let's assume that in any given debate interaction each side starts with n points. If you "virtue signal" you gain zero points, if you make a fact based / logical argument you gain 2 points. If you make a non-fact based/ illogical argument, you lose 2 points, and if you make and ad-hominem / derogatory comment you lose 1 point. You can win this debate by a combination of insults and facts, but you'll win it faster without the insults. Conversely, you'll lose the debate really quickly by not presenting any facts / logic, and only resorting to insults.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      Who decides if something is a "derogatory" term? Are the following also derogatory?: * Nazi * racist * mansplain * TERF * alt-right etc. My own metric for an "derogatory" would be "does this person apply this (negative?) label to themselves, or does some (antagonistic) other apply it?". That's not to say all labels a person doesn't apply to themselves is inaccurate, just that applying it is antagonistic so there should probably be a higher standard of definition, evidence and relevance in using it. Quite a few of the above terms invoke what is often called "identity politics" which fits the description "argue against the character of the person, and not against the content of their statements" - although less "character" and more "demographic". That said, "virtue signal" more accurately attacks a persons motivation, not just their character; Ad-homs aren't necessarily bad, if a persons motivations are relevant. In summary, I disagree VS should never to be used; it is a derogatory term, but if accurate, and relevant, there's no reason not to use it. This differs from terms that are pure insults which generally lack enough meaningful information to be relevant, e.g. bitch, jerk, etc which don't really mean anything other than a pure expression of disapproval/negativity; of course, what level of accuracy meets the condition "relevant" depends on the nature/resolution of the conversation, and the context in which the word is used - in much the same way that "light-years" is a relevant unit for space travel, but not for land travel.
      - Intermernet 6y ago
        micro-societies decide if something is a derogatory term, and there is no uniform micro-society. Some people will wear the labels of "Nazi", "racist" or "alt-right" with pride. The terms aren't to do with "identity politics", they're to do with objective damage to the over-all society in which they live. Can you provide any evidence of the over-all positive effects of Nazism, racism or the alt-right? If so, then we can debate those. (Sorry, I'm avoiding "mansplain" and "TERF" as I'm a male and can't really add anything of authoritative substance to those debates, but can only listen and learn.) > Ad-homs aren't necessarily bad, if a persons motivations are relevant Ad-homs are a zero signal. They amount to nothing except to lower the likelihood of the person you're talking to responding to you. If you're of the belief that you win the argument because you had the last say, then that can be a satisfactory strategy, but it's not really helping anyone in the long run.
- commander_k33n 6y ago
  So what's the online-SJW approved newspeak equivalent then? I'm sure you would also refrain from using the term "dog-whistle" for equal measure as it comes across as a "simple dismissal" too.

by VLM 6y ago

The linked article suggestions would work on a holiness-neutral topic like emacs vs vi, but I don't think the suggested tactics would work against holy virtue signalling.

mcguire 6y ago

Can we ditch the "virtue signalling" meme? It comes across as a simple dismissal, which doesn't improve any situation.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The term can be overused. But we need a way to describe the very real underlying phenomenon, of expectations that everyone ought to endorse and actively promote promote a particular moral stance. Trying to talk about modern activism without the term "virtue signaling" would be like trying to talk about churches without the term "religion".
- Intermernet 6y ago
  The term "virtue signalling" is a derogatory term for something that every person does in pretty much every form of communication. You can perceive it in everything from scientific papers, to song lyrics, to professional conferences, to children's conversations. The use of the term is purely to denigrate the person by vaguely deriding the values that they've presented as the basis for their argument. If you use the term you've chosen to argue against the character of the person, and not against the content of their statements.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I don't agree. The way I normally see it used, "virtue signaling" refers to a pretty specific phenomenon where you go out of your way to make sure people know you hold the correct moral views. It can occur in pretty much every form of communication, but it's far from universal.
    - yesenadam 6y ago
      I thought the GP's comment was the best I'd read in a while on HN, but you're right that it refers to a more specific phenomenon. The GP nailed it, though, with > The use of the term is purely to denigrate the person by vaguely deriding the values that they've presented as the basis for their argument. – which is the way it normally seems to me used on here. Someone says X, then someone else who doesn't share the feeling that made them say X, accuses them of virtue signalling. It's a bad faith, hostile thing to say - you wouldn't talk to your friends like that. It seems similar somehow to a term we have in Australia, a bleeding heart, applied by someone on the political right to someone on the political left who expresses, for example, sympathy with poor people or mentally-ill people. To someone without those sympathies, it will sound like the person is faking that emotion, being "politically correct", just saying what they think they should, morally, and not sincerely expressing how they feel, since the person on the right doesn't share that emotion. Such people are called bleeding hearts. (...I just looked at your comments and see you're in Oz too. Hi!) Actually, we (you, me, GP) are talking about two different things - one is the alleged signalling itself, which your definition describes. The other is the act of labelling something as virtue signalling, which the GP describes in the part I quoted. And like 'hater', 'whining', etc, people may be haters, may whine, but saying that to their face is an unfriendly, bad faith move. No-one feels they are a hater, or whining, or virtue signalling. They feel they're doing something else, and you're presenting your guess that they're wrong about that as a certain diagnosis. You claim to see clearly what they can't see at all. Seems to me, the use of the term "virtue signalling" as a weapon in a fight/debate is itself a pungent form of virtue signalling, and is the main one that bothers me! It attempts to signal that one is above virtue signalling, and like "You can trust me!" or "I'm not racist", raises its own doubts about that, for me at least. I don't like the term, avoid using it, and don't think it does any good. Which brings me to my so-called Arsehole Theory of the World - that those who spend their lives calling others arseholes, are themselves arseholes. Those who often call other people idiots, are idiots etc. It's not easy to be human and not a hypocrite. Easier to tell the other guy he's one. "A man should be very sure that he himself is not what he has always in his mouth." – Hazlitt, On Nicknames
      - Chris2048 6y ago
  - cousin_it 6y ago
    > The term "virtue signalling" is a derogatory term for something that every person does in pretty much every form of communication. There are different virtues though. A lot of online debate is between those who want to signal intelligence and those who want to signal morality. I'm on the former side, as intelligence signaling gave us civilization, while morality signaling is mostly about painting targets on people.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Just as "virtue signalling" is not the same as virtue, "intelligence signalling" is not the same as intelligence. Some would say it's the latter that "gave us civilization".
      - cousin_it 6y ago
        Sure, though signaling high intelligence could actually be the main use of intelligence, if it's a Fisherian runaway. And it's plausible that such use led to civilization: figuring out a beautiful theory feels purposeful in the same way as building a beautiful nest.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      Join a MENSA community and you'll soon see the vice of "intelligence signalling".
    - Intermernet 6y ago
      In many ways, morality is an emergent phenomenon of intelligence. It takes intelligence to come up with nuclear / chemical / biological weapons, but it takes morality to avoid their use. You could say that this particular morality is based on game theory, but you could also say that people, in general, don't want to hurt other people. The reality is going to be some mish-mash of states between those two theories. Virtue signalling as a concept may be about advertising morality, but that morality is probably going to be informed by intelligence. Let's assume that in any given debate interaction each side starts with n points. If you "virtue signal" you gain zero points, if you make a fact based / logical argument you gain 2 points. If you make a non-fact based/ illogical argument, you lose 2 points, and if you make and ad-hominem / derogatory comment you lose 1 point. You can win this debate by a combination of insults and facts, but you'll win it faster without the insults. Conversely, you'll lose the debate really quickly by not presenting any facts / logic, and only resorting to insults.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    Who decides if something is a "derogatory" term? Are the following also derogatory?: * Nazi * racist * mansplain * TERF * alt-right etc. My own metric for an "derogatory" would be "does this person apply this (negative?) label to themselves, or does some (antagonistic) other apply it?". That's not to say all labels a person doesn't apply to themselves is inaccurate, just that applying it is antagonistic so there should probably be a higher standard of definition, evidence and relevance in using it. Quite a few of the above terms invoke what is often called "identity politics" which fits the description "argue against the character of the person, and not against the content of their statements" - although less "character" and more "demographic". That said, "virtue signal" more accurately attacks a persons motivation, not just their character; Ad-homs aren't necessarily bad, if a persons motivations are relevant. In summary, I disagree VS should never to be used; it is a derogatory term, but if accurate, and relevant, there's no reason not to use it. This differs from terms that are pure insults which generally lack enough meaningful information to be relevant, e.g. bitch, jerk, etc which don't really mean anything other than a pure expression of disapproval/negativity; of course, what level of accuracy meets the condition "relevant" depends on the nature/resolution of the conversation, and the context in which the word is used - in much the same way that "light-years" is a relevant unit for space travel, but not for land travel.
    - Intermernet 6y ago
      micro-societies decide if something is a derogatory term, and there is no uniform micro-society. Some people will wear the labels of "Nazi", "racist" or "alt-right" with pride. The terms aren't to do with "identity politics", they're to do with objective damage to the over-all society in which they live. Can you provide any evidence of the over-all positive effects of Nazism, racism or the alt-right? If so, then we can debate those. (Sorry, I'm avoiding "mansplain" and "TERF" as I'm a male and can't really add anything of authoritative substance to those debates, but can only listen and learn.) > Ad-homs aren't necessarily bad, if a persons motivations are relevant Ad-homs are a zero signal. They amount to nothing except to lower the likelihood of the person you're talking to responding to you. If you're of the belief that you win the argument because you had the last say, then that can be a satisfactory strategy, but it's not really helping anyone in the long run.
commander_k33n 6y ago
So what's the online-SJW approved newspeak equivalent then? I'm sure you would also refrain from using the term "dog-whistle" for equal measure as it comes across as a "simple dismissal" too.