4 ms·

On the other side, being told what is "bad", what is "good", "right" and wrong", what is "dark" and what is "bright", what I should do and think and why I don't

• prmoustache 2y ago
  People have been doing that since the dawn of humanity.
• Lendal 2y ago
  Don't worry about it. It's an opinion. Agree or disagree with it. But to feel morally inferior because of someone else's opinion isn't an argument. It's revealing that you have issues with self esteem. If you want to put forth an argument about why he's wrong, or crossing a line, or making an unrealistic proposition that everyone everywhere should stop using a word or phrase, that's absolutely a valid response. But people making the claim of "virtue signalling" are not making an argument. They're making a baseless ad hominem attack.
  • scoutt 2y ago
    I did ctrl+f searching for "opinion", "I believe", "I think", etc. I can't find any reference to "opinions". I read the post as the author decribing facts and imparting instructions of what we should do ("It's time to do X", "The cargo cult metaphor should be avoided") because they believe their knowledge/opinions/morals/beliefs are better than mine, and somehow they can dictate what to do; how should I feel, what should I think. Otherwise I am oppressing, contributing to oppress, perpetuating something, [insert other accusations]. As in the past 15 years. It's enough already. The real question is why the author is doing this? Is it ego? Money? Clicks? Pure and true altruism? And here "virtue signalling" comes as a possible valid answer too.
    • daveguy 2y ago
      Psst. An opinion does not need to be premised with "don't worry, sensitive reader, this is an opinion" for it to be an opinion.
      • scoutt 2y ago
        Of course it doesn't. But it sounds like ... the thing I describe in the next paragraph.
    • Lendal 2y ago
      The context is a personal blog. You don't have to say the word "opinion" explicitly. If it's on your blog, it's your opinion. The problem with saying it's virtue signaling is that when you resort to ad hominem attacks, you're conceding the argument. Attacking character concedes the argument being made. Well I don't concede. I have a good argument against it. My argument is that nobody cares about the etymology or morality of a word. They care about its meaning and context. People don't learn language by reading etymologies. Nobody cares one way or the other about the morality of the first person who said it or popularized it especially if it happened a hundred years ago. We don't need to look up the etymology of every word or phrase before using it, and asking people to do that is unrealistic and unreasonable. Is it virtue signaling? I don't know, and I don't care. His character doesn't matter to me. It doesn't affect whether or not his idea is a good one. It's a bad idea, and leave it there.
      • scoutt 2y ago
        See? You know how to express an opinion. Which is what I don't see in the blog post. And doesn't matter if it was written in a blog.
• Gerardo1 2y ago
  People should be advocating for their own values and morals. To be an ethical person is to understand your values and do the work to apply them in your everyday life.
  • scoutt 2y ago
    Pablo Escobar could have said what you wrote as well.
    • Gerardo1 2y ago
      That is in no way a counter-point, rebuttal, or useful comment.
      • scoutt 2y ago
        Sorry but I read you answer as if mine was super clever counter-point you can't counter.
        • Gerardo1 2y ago
          If you can expand on why Pablo Escobar expressing a similar sentiment is a useful comment, I'll write an actual response with some substance.
          • scoutt 2y ago
            "People should be advocating for their own values and morals. To be an ethical person is to understand your values and do the work to apply them in your everyday life." Pablo Escobar could say that he understand his values (whatever they were; maybe money and power over all other values?) and that he works to apply them every day. He advocated for his own values and morals (ruthlessly). This doesn't make him an Ethical person.
            • Gerardo1 2y ago
              A conversation about subjective morality is tangential to your original comment and the conversation we're having, but its odd to bring it up as if you are aware of the concept of subjective morality you kind of run head-first into why advocating and applying your values is important. And more to the point, you're not believable. Are you really going to say that because Pablo Escobar may have had a set of values and acted on those values, we have to throw away that whole idea? Hitler was really fond of his pet dog, does having a pet dog make someone evil? In any case, here's what I dislike about your original comment, and what it seems to express. Instead of engaging with the ideas and values presented in the article, you feel back on attacking the very idea of expressing ideas and values. You know that's a ridiculous position, I know you do, but it's easier to do that than it is to actually engage.