3 ms·

> Why do you feel it is inappropriate? Because my understanding is that most Chinese people do not consider the CCP to be virtuous nor do they "identify" with

by ardy42 6y ago

> Why do you feel it is inappropriate? Because my understanding is that most Chinese people do not consider the CCP to be virtuous nor do they "identify" with it. That's not to say they're dissidents, but more semi-deliberately indifferent and have knowledge of and experience with government corruption. Even people who work for the party are often just going through the motions.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Thanks for the reply. > Because my understanding is that most Chinese people do not consider the CCP to be virtuous nor do they "identify" with it. Perhaps its not meant to signal virtue to the majority but instead to the decision makers. Perhaps the majority do not identify as a member but the members do. > Even people who work for the party are often just going through the motions. That would be covered by signaling virtue.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Perhaps its not meant to signal virtue to the majority but instead to the decision makers. Perhaps the majority do not identify as a member but the members do. That's not "virtue signalling." If everyone involved in the interaction is cynical about the organization, no virtue is being signaled. The "decision makers" most of all know the true nature of the party. I think the word you're really looking for is just "signalling" or at least a different kind of signaling than "virtue signalling." You're really torturing that term into meaninglessness here. "Virtue signalling" really only applies to situations where at least some people genuinely think they're signalling virtue or that others would actually perceive it that way. One end or the other can be cynical, but not both.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > That's not "virtue signalling." If everyone involved in the interaction is cynical about the organization, no virtue is being signaled. The "decision makers" most of all know the true nature of the party. Its naive to assume that none of them consider the true nature of the party to be what constitutes "virtuous." > I think the word you're really looking for is just "signalling" or at least a different kind of signaling than "virtue signalling." You're really torturing that term into meaninglessness here. Sure. > "Virtue signalling" really only applies to situations where at least some people genuinely think they're signalling virtue or that others would actually perceive it that way. One end or the other can be cynical, but not both. Value signaling is perhaps a more value-neutral way of expressing the same sentiment.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      Hi, I'm the person who introduced the term "virtue signalling" into this thread. I stand by it. When allegiance to certain political forces is considered virtuous, being a member can be a signal of virtue to other members of the party. Virtue is relative, not objective.

by ardy42 6y ago

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

Thanks for the reply. > Because my understanding is that most Chinese people do not consider the CCP to be virtuous nor do they "identify" with it. Perhaps its not meant to signal virtue to the majority but instead to the decision makers. Perhaps the majority do not identify as a member but the members do. > Even people who work for the party are often just going through the motions. That would be covered by signaling virtue.

ardy42 6y ago
> Perhaps its not meant to signal virtue to the majority but instead to the decision makers. Perhaps the majority do not identify as a member but the members do. That's not "virtue signalling." If everyone involved in the interaction is cynical about the organization, no virtue is being signaled. The "decision makers" most of all know the true nature of the party. I think the word you're really looking for is just "signalling" or at least a different kind of signaling than "virtue signalling." You're really torturing that term into meaninglessness here. "Virtue signalling" really only applies to situations where at least some people genuinely think they're signalling virtue or that others would actually perceive it that way. One end or the other can be cynical, but not both.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > That's not "virtue signalling." If everyone involved in the interaction is cynical about the organization, no virtue is being signaled. The "decision makers" most of all know the true nature of the party. Its naive to assume that none of them consider the true nature of the party to be what constitutes "virtuous." > I think the word you're really looking for is just "signalling" or at least a different kind of signaling than "virtue signalling." You're really torturing that term into meaninglessness here. Sure. > "Virtue signalling" really only applies to situations where at least some people genuinely think they're signalling virtue or that others would actually perceive it that way. One end or the other can be cynical, but not both. Value signaling is perhaps a more value-neutral way of expressing the same sentiment.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    Hi, I'm the person who introduced the term "virtue signalling" into this thread. I stand by it. When allegiance to certain political forces is considered virtuous, being a member can be a signal of virtue to other members of the party. Virtue is relative, not objective.