4 ms·

Aside from the tiring and asinine cliché that is "virtue signalling" (i. e. faulting someone for something universally considered to be "good"), your notion see

Aside from the tiring and asinine cliché that is "virtue signalling" (i. e. faulting someone for something universally considered to be "good"), your notion seems to be self-contradictory? I'd also like to point out that this event itself contradicts your talking point about "it all being virtue signalling", since the person in question was indeed willing to risk quite a bit.

jcims 6y ago
What is your interpretation of "virtue signalling"? To me it is the balance that remains when you take all displays of virtue and subtract each genuinely virtuous act. That it is the domain of posers and try hards, and that there's actually nothing good about it.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  - The accusation tends to be entirely unproven, or even wrong in rather obvious ways. To stay with the example here: despite this particular incident, there are many laudable contributions to social causes that Google has supported over the years. - The idea that professing some sort of belief which one acknowledges as "good" is nonetheless somehow "bad" when not accompanied by action just doesn't make much sense. It is still PR for the good cause. When it's convincing, people will act on it. Example: Apple has been making lots of noise, for years, on issues such as environmentalism or privacy. They have been accused of "virtue signalling", or "greenwashing", etc. I don't think those accusations are valid, but in any case, even if they have been the most cynical liars, their statements will have the effect of setting expectations for them and their industry peers. They will attract talent that believes in these ideas, and, over time, will turn them into reality. - The term "virtue signalling" is used exclusively by the political right. Are we to believe they have any actual interest in, say, increased diversity, and are concerned about "virtue signalling" because it is somehow damaging to their cause? No... that doesn't make much sense, does it? Instead, it's used by these people because their real opinion just cannot be openly stated in polite company any longer. So it's rather convenient to come up with a concept that uses the generally agreed-upon "goodness" of your opponent's stated believes against them.
  - jcims 6y ago
    This would be a good conversation in person, this format just is going to take too long to resolve. I just want to gently suggest one thing: >Instead, it's used by these people because their real opinion just cannot be openly stated in polite company any longer. This accusation (X because Y) also tends to be generally unproven. I do it at times but I think it's a trick we play on ourselves to neatly package a person up into a 'they' who's who's opinion or position is immaterial. Once they are in that box of irrevocably flawed zombies, why bother listening to them at all? None of their positions have any fundamental merit, nothing they say is worth considering and if they are inconvenienced or put out by anything I say or do whatsoever, fuck them truly. They are the inconsiderables.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    To unpack some of this, you must understand what VS is, and why it's bad. The idea is that by signalling virtue for something you don't really care about (or care about less that you imply) you are: misrepresenting your character, and reaping the benefit of untrue positive assumptions, and by extension, building illegitimate trust/reputation. Per the phrase "when a metric becomes a benchmark, it ceases to be a useful metric", if corps or individuals benefit from certain virtuous signal, it ceases to be an useful metric of virtue. > despite this particular incident, there are many laudable contributions to social causes that Google has supported over the years Did Google derive any positive benefit from those contributions aside from the benefit to the cause itself? e.g. positive reputation. It is precisely that which results in accusations of VS: Even immoral corps benefit from social-cause PR, and the difference is in the details. e.g. you judge a person not by how they treat their friends (or boss), but by how they treat their waiter. > The idea that professing some sort of belief which one acknowledges as "good" is nonetheless somehow "bad" This is an oversimplification. Giving to charity is good, even if done for ingenuine reasons, but a corp should not be considered generally virtuous in that case i.e. no virtue beyond that contribution should be assumed. Chemotherapy has a devastating affect on the body, yet utilised to treat cancer; It is "good" because the overall context is considered, having cancer is still bad. The world is more nuanced than everything fitting into two categories, free of context. > It is still PR for the good cause. When it's convincing, people will act on it. I agree, Virtue-signally may still have its benefits. That doesn't change what it is though. I think you need to look at the context to decide whether it matters or not. > even if they have been the most cynical liars, their statements will have the effect of setting expectations for them and their industry peers It might, but it could also lead to the precedent whereby corps make hollow statements that they don't need to live up to. The precedent is that "unlimited" (as in broadband, storage) doesn't actually mean unlimited, so why can't "environmentally-friendly" be expected to mean little? > Are we to believe they have any actual interest in, say, increased diversity But they don't have to, unless they are accusing someone/thing of VS to imply their own virtue. If I don't believe you care about X, I don't need to care about X myself to make that accusation. There are, however, cases where it does matter, but again it depends on context, and why people think it relevant to make that accusation. The opinion I seek to counter, however Is that a persons true motivations are either always, or never relevant; or that they can always be known. > Instead, it's used by these people because their real opinion just cannot be openly stated in polite company any longer I could just as well make the same paranoid argument: "people who complain about the phrase 'virtue-signalling' do so because they are virtue signallers themselves with more sinister motivations that they cannot state upfront, or in 'polite company'" This is just an unsupported bad-faith interpretation of your political opposites. How do you know what the motivations of the "political right" are? There are plenty accusative phrases used mostly by the political left - are those invalid by the same reasoning?
throw_m239339 6y ago
> I'd also like to point out that this event itself contradicts your talking point about "it all being virtue signalling", since the person in question was indeed willing to risk quite a bit. I think the parent is talking about Google, not the person Google fired. For Big corporations like Google, Apple, Disney, AT&T,... "wokeness" is a fad like Grunge, Emo, or Punk and they want to bank on it for good PR.

jcims 6y ago

What is your interpretation of "virtue signalling"? To me it is the balance that remains when you take all displays of virtue and subtract each genuinely virtuous act. That it is the domain of posers and try hards, and that there's actually nothing good about it.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
- The accusation tends to be entirely unproven, or even wrong in rather obvious ways. To stay with the example here: despite this particular incident, there are many laudable contributions to social causes that Google has supported over the years. - The idea that professing some sort of belief which one acknowledges as "good" is nonetheless somehow "bad" when not accompanied by action just doesn't make much sense. It is still PR for the good cause. When it's convincing, people will act on it. Example: Apple has been making lots of noise, for years, on issues such as environmentalism or privacy. They have been accused of "virtue signalling", or "greenwashing", etc. I don't think those accusations are valid, but in any case, even if they have been the most cynical liars, their statements will have the effect of setting expectations for them and their industry peers. They will attract talent that believes in these ideas, and, over time, will turn them into reality. - The term "virtue signalling" is used exclusively by the political right. Are we to believe they have any actual interest in, say, increased diversity, and are concerned about "virtue signalling" because it is somehow damaging to their cause? No... that doesn't make much sense, does it? Instead, it's used by these people because their real opinion just cannot be openly stated in polite company any longer. So it's rather convenient to come up with a concept that uses the generally agreed-upon "goodness" of your opponent's stated believes against them.
- jcims 6y ago
  This would be a good conversation in person, this format just is going to take too long to resolve. I just want to gently suggest one thing: >Instead, it's used by these people because their real opinion just cannot be openly stated in polite company any longer. This accusation (X because Y) also tends to be generally unproven. I do it at times but I think it's a trick we play on ourselves to neatly package a person up into a 'they' who's who's opinion or position is immaterial. Once they are in that box of irrevocably flawed zombies, why bother listening to them at all? None of their positions have any fundamental merit, nothing they say is worth considering and if they are inconvenienced or put out by anything I say or do whatsoever, fuck them truly. They are the inconsiderables.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  To unpack some of this, you must understand what VS is, and why it's bad. The idea is that by signalling virtue for something you don't really care about (or care about less that you imply) you are: misrepresenting your character, and reaping the benefit of untrue positive assumptions, and by extension, building illegitimate trust/reputation. Per the phrase "when a metric becomes a benchmark, it ceases to be a useful metric", if corps or individuals benefit from certain virtuous signal, it ceases to be an useful metric of virtue. > despite this particular incident, there are many laudable contributions to social causes that Google has supported over the years Did Google derive any positive benefit from those contributions aside from the benefit to the cause itself? e.g. positive reputation. It is precisely that which results in accusations of VS: Even immoral corps benefit from social-cause PR, and the difference is in the details. e.g. you judge a person not by how they treat their friends (or boss), but by how they treat their waiter. > The idea that professing some sort of belief which one acknowledges as "good" is nonetheless somehow "bad" This is an oversimplification. Giving to charity is good, even if done for ingenuine reasons, but a corp should not be considered generally virtuous in that case i.e. no virtue beyond that contribution should be assumed. Chemotherapy has a devastating affect on the body, yet utilised to treat cancer; It is "good" because the overall context is considered, having cancer is still bad. The world is more nuanced than everything fitting into two categories, free of context. > It is still PR for the good cause. When it's convincing, people will act on it. I agree, Virtue-signally may still have its benefits. That doesn't change what it is though. I think you need to look at the context to decide whether it matters or not. > even if they have been the most cynical liars, their statements will have the effect of setting expectations for them and their industry peers It might, but it could also lead to the precedent whereby corps make hollow statements that they don't need to live up to. The precedent is that "unlimited" (as in broadband, storage) doesn't actually mean unlimited, so why can't "environmentally-friendly" be expected to mean little? > Are we to believe they have any actual interest in, say, increased diversity But they don't have to, unless they are accusing someone/thing of VS to imply their own virtue. If I don't believe you care about X, I don't need to care about X myself to make that accusation. There are, however, cases where it does matter, but again it depends on context, and why people think it relevant to make that accusation. The opinion I seek to counter, however Is that a persons true motivations are either always, or never relevant; or that they can always be known. > Instead, it's used by these people because their real opinion just cannot be openly stated in polite company any longer I could just as well make the same paranoid argument: "people who complain about the phrase 'virtue-signalling' do so because they are virtue signallers themselves with more sinister motivations that they cannot state upfront, or in 'polite company'" This is just an unsupported bad-faith interpretation of your political opposites. How do you know what the motivations of the "political right" are? There are plenty accusative phrases used mostly by the political left - are those invalid by the same reasoning?

throw_m239339 6y ago

> I'd also like to point out that this event itself contradicts your talking point about "it all being virtue signalling", since the person in question was indeed willing to risk quite a bit. I think the parent is talking about Google, not the person Google fired. For Big corporations like Google, Apple, Disney, AT&T,... "wokeness" is a fad like Grunge, Emo, or Punk and they want to bank on it for good PR.