3 ms·

Regardless of whether or not either interlocutor understands the term, using the term virtue signaling itself is self-defeating for both parties for different r

Regardless of whether or not either interlocutor understands the term, using the term virtue signaling itself is self-defeating for both parties for different reasons. For the one hearing it, it’s a red herring, and for the one saying it, it’s a dog whistle. For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche.

exe34 2y ago
> For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche. if one's thought is so easily terminated, maybe there wasn't as much thought as one might think to begin with.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  If good faith weren't a prerequisite for reasoned debate, perhaps.
  - exe34 2y ago
    remember, we're talking about somebody getting triggered by the words "virtue-signalling", so I think good faith left the conversation a few stops back.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      This is part of why it’s a bad term - its meaning is almost impossible to understand even in context because it means different things to different people and people read a lot into it. It’s kind of overloaded and seems like flamebait to me, I guess. Some interesting bits here as well (italics added for emphasis): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling > However, some argue that these expressions of outrage or moral alignment may reflect genuine concern, and that accusing others of virtue signalling can itself be a form of signalling. This has led to the coining of a related concept, vice signalling, which refers to the public promotion of negative or controversial views to appear tough, pragmatic, or rebellious, often for political or social capital. I would add on and argue that using the term virtue signaling is itself an example of virtue signaling.

exe34 2y ago

> For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche. if one's thought is so easily terminated, maybe there wasn't as much thought as one might think to begin with.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aspenmayer 2y ago
If good faith weren't a prerequisite for reasoned debate, perhaps.
- exe34 2y ago
  remember, we're talking about somebody getting triggered by the words "virtue-signalling", so I think good faith left the conversation a few stops back.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    This is part of why it’s a bad term - its meaning is almost impossible to understand even in context because it means different things to different people and people read a lot into it. It’s kind of overloaded and seems like flamebait to me, I guess. Some interesting bits here as well (italics added for emphasis): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling > However, some argue that these expressions of outrage or moral alignment may reflect genuine concern, and that accusing others of virtue signalling can itself be a form of signalling. This has led to the coining of a related concept, vice signalling, which refers to the public promotion of negative or controversial views to appear tough, pragmatic, or rebellious, often for political or social capital. I would add on and argue that using the term virtue signaling is itself an example of virtue signaling.