5 ms·

It's not unreasonable to want to protect your hard-earned money. Inflation forces people to invest in assets. We have reached a point where everything is overpr

It's not unreasonable to want to protect your hard-earned money. Inflation forces people to invest in assets. We have reached a point where everything is overpriced (stocks, homes, etc.) and inflation is rampant. So unless you want to have less purchasing power than you did last year, you invest in what you think gives the best return. Placing the burden on the individual to "do the right thing" is scapegoating in the same way that it's common to ask people to use less energy to fight global warming. Individuals going about their life are not the problem.

ejb999 5y ago
But this is the comment I was responding to: " I think it would be fine if my taxes were helping others to start out. " so that poster was saying having his taxes jacked up to help someone out is 'ok with them', and yet he has the power to help others out already - without the law forcing him/her to do it - he obviously thinks he can afford it, and is in favor of it - but he is not going to do it without the law requiring him to - i.e. he is virtue signaling. as usual, "someone should do something", once again really means "someone else should do something"
- creato 5y ago
  No, it means everyone should do something, including himself. But not himself alone.
  - ejb999 5y ago
    why? only helping a few people is not good enough? I can't help everyone, so I will just help myself? I bet lots of multi-billionaires use the same twisted logic to justify their selfish behaviors.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  No, this is a classic group-action pre-commit. "I'd like to play a game of football if we're all up for it, otherwise let's go to the pub" "Why don't you just go play a game of football yourself, dude?".
  - ejb999 5y ago
    not even close to the same thing. Playing a game a football requires many players - helping out someone less fortunate than yourself requires zero involvement of others. Claiming "if only other people would join in I would do the right thing', is worse than virtue signaling, it.s disgusting.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Let's not get carried away here with emotional language. Perhaps you could see it as a giant rock lying on someone's leg and this guy is saying "If others will help, I will lend my strength to lift the rock". He just doesn't want to push the rock by himself alone because it won't work. Rock's too big. It's not an outlandish sentiment so I don't think it needs all this "disgusting" and "virtue signaling" and "right thing" stuff. It's just "I believe we need group action to have outcomes. I am willing to contribute in such a group". There are loads of such examples: - Indiegogo - Aforementioned Rock - Kickstarter There's some minimum activation energy necessary for rock to get off leg and if we cannot accumulate that, it is possible for energy to be spent elsewhere more productively.
- rybosworld 5y ago
  Because as I alluded to, that person would fall behind in terms of purchasing power. Allowing your money to erode away is not going to affect the greater good. The incentives (taxes) need to be changed. Suggesting a change that you think is positive but not acting on it in the meantime is not virtue signaling.
  - ejb999 5y ago
    >>Suggesting a change that you think is positive but not acting on it in the meantime is not virtue signaling. Actually, it is the very definition of virtue signaling.
    - rybosworld 5y ago
      No, it isn't. Virtue signaling requires that you say these things only for attention or praise. Your definition is equating a suggestion of change with virtue signaling. Having an opinion != virtue signaling.

ejb999 5y ago

But this is the comment I was responding to: " I think it would be fine if my taxes were helping others to start out. " so that poster was saying having his taxes jacked up to help someone out is 'ok with them', and yet he has the power to help others out already - without the law forcing him/her to do it - he obviously thinks he can afford it, and is in favor of it - but he is not going to do it without the law requiring him to - i.e. he is virtue signaling. as usual, "someone should do something", once again really means "someone else should do something"

creato 5y ago
No, it means everyone should do something, including himself. But not himself alone.
- ejb999 5y ago
  why? only helping a few people is not good enough? I can't help everyone, so I will just help myself? I bet lots of multi-billionaires use the same twisted logic to justify their selfish behaviors.
renewiltord 5y ago
No, this is a classic group-action pre-commit. "I'd like to play a game of football if we're all up for it, otherwise let's go to the pub" "Why don't you just go play a game of football yourself, dude?".
- ejb999 5y ago
  not even close to the same thing. Playing a game a football requires many players - helping out someone less fortunate than yourself requires zero involvement of others. Claiming "if only other people would join in I would do the right thing', is worse than virtue signaling, it.s disgusting.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Let's not get carried away here with emotional language. Perhaps you could see it as a giant rock lying on someone's leg and this guy is saying "If others will help, I will lend my strength to lift the rock". He just doesn't want to push the rock by himself alone because it won't work. Rock's too big. It's not an outlandish sentiment so I don't think it needs all this "disgusting" and "virtue signaling" and "right thing" stuff. It's just "I believe we need group action to have outcomes. I am willing to contribute in such a group". There are loads of such examples: - Indiegogo - Aforementioned Rock - Kickstarter There's some minimum activation energy necessary for rock to get off leg and if we cannot accumulate that, it is possible for energy to be spent elsewhere more productively.
rybosworld 5y ago
Because as I alluded to, that person would fall behind in terms of purchasing power. Allowing your money to erode away is not going to affect the greater good. The incentives (taxes) need to be changed. Suggesting a change that you think is positive but not acting on it in the meantime is not virtue signaling.
- ejb999 5y ago
  >>Suggesting a change that you think is positive but not acting on it in the meantime is not virtue signaling. Actually, it is the very definition of virtue signaling.
  - rybosworld 5y ago
    No, it isn't. Virtue signaling requires that you say these things only for attention or praise. Your definition is equating a suggestion of change with virtue signaling. Having an opinion != virtue signaling.