3 ms·

>Not saying you're one of those, but if you can't recognize your point in history and are quitting your job over "BLM fanfare", then you also know the answer to

by totony 5y ago

>Not saying you're one of those, but if you can't recognize your point in history and are quitting your job over "BLM fanfare", then you also know the answer to the question of what you would have done during the civil rights movements of past. Nothing. That's not true. Being harassed to virtue-signal and not wanting to deal with those people has nothing to do with how likely you are to have your own beliefs and act upon them. >But if you have the luxury to quit jobs (PLURAL!) over being asked to take a stand, then you're not apolitical. No that just means that he has enough choice not to want to bother with people requiring you to take their stand. I deplore people who do not have that luxury and have to deal with people radical enough to require others to mirror them.

deanCommie 5y ago
> Being harassed to virtue-signal You tell on yourself when you use language that suggests that the people who participate in these discussions and contributions are disingenuous [1]. People are not being harassed to virtue signal. People are being harassed to be explicit about the contents of their character. Those that refuse or think that the others are being disingenuous are also communicating something. [1] Virtue signalling is a pejorative neologism for the expression of a disingenuous moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character.
- totony 5y ago
  You mean that a compelled expression of a view is not disingenuous? Forcing someone to express their support is the definition of disingenuous, because they do not do it out of their own volition. I think virtue-signal is perfectly suitable here. >People are not being harassed to virtue signal. People are being harassed to be explicit about the contents of their character. Whatever way you frame it, it is still harassment and IMO shouldn't be tolerated.
- anon7725 5y ago
  > People are being harassed to be explicit about the contents of their character. Cut the maudlin allusion to Dr. King. Your character is revealed by your actions, not by whether your Instagram profile is set to a black square.

by totony 5y ago

deanCommie 5y ago

> Being harassed to virtue-signal You tell on yourself when you use language that suggests that the people who participate in these discussions and contributions are disingenuous [1]. People are not being harassed to virtue signal. People are being harassed to be explicit about the contents of their character. Those that refuse or think that the others are being disingenuous are also communicating something. [1] Virtue signalling is a pejorative neologism for the expression of a disingenuous moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character.

totony 5y ago
You mean that a compelled expression of a view is not disingenuous? Forcing someone to express their support is the definition of disingenuous, because they do not do it out of their own volition. I think virtue-signal is perfectly suitable here. >People are not being harassed to virtue signal. People are being harassed to be explicit about the contents of their character. Whatever way you frame it, it is still harassment and IMO shouldn't be tolerated.
anon7725 5y ago
> People are being harassed to be explicit about the contents of their character. Cut the maudlin allusion to Dr. King. Your character is revealed by your actions, not by whether your Instagram profile is set to a black square.