I was under the impression that Virtue Signaling was code for “words and actions that make me feel like I have something to be ashamed of and I don’t want to feel that way, so instead I get really sneery”.
Long ago a friend of mine (who was an expert in this) advised me that if you can’t think of a way to insult someone, just repeat back what they said in a mocking voice.
How did you come to be under this impression, if I may ask? Is it something that you were told, or something that you made up yourself?
I’m not sure what your point is. Is there someone that you can’t think of a way to insult, so instead you are just repeating back what they said in a mocking voice?
Yes, this is my own personal conclusion. I’m going to ignore your condescending tone.
Since only a somewhat in-depth investigation, possibly by God on the Last Day, is going to reveal whether doing or saying a virtuous thing is truly hypocritical or simply weakly virtuous, it seems to me that it is merely a concerted effort by the unreconstructedly non-virtuous to try to denigrate those who try for virtue, even if they fail.
Much like my friend’s advice to just mock what you can’t figure out another way to attack. See the connection now?
I’m having trouble parsing this and your previous post.
Are you saying that Virtue Signalling is “words and actions that make me feel like I have something to be ashamed of and I don’t want to feel that way, so instead I get really sneery”, or accusations of hypocrisy of virtue signalling are that?
Your previous post made is sound like the one doing the “Virtue Signalling” is the one being sneering, but maybe you are talking about the sneering being done by those who are mocking those who are doing the “Virtue Signalling”?
Is so, I think we are in agreement, but you certainly could have phrased that better.
I think the root of this is that the right just can’t believe that people would do virtuous things just because they are the right thing to do. It tells you a lot about that mindset that being woke, or to be a better person when it comes to social values, is considered an insult.
Whenever I hear or read “cancel culture”, I think “consequence culture”.
No it happens all the time on podcasts, that’s a legit example. Completely unnecessary conversations that people tolerate for some reason.
What’s a legit example?
All you have done is made a vague and unsupported claim, not provided an example.
And who are we talking about here? Are we talking about some podcast DnD home game with 6 followers that was nutpicked by someone scouring the interwebs to find something to be offended by? I listen to quite a number of podcasts, and I’ve never heard whatever it is that you are talking about.
People have all kinds of side conversations, you are the one who chose to listen to them. I’ve listened to podcasts tangent off into completely unrelated subjects quite often, as people are just talking extemporaneously. Most of them are unnecessary, hell podcasts about and of DnD are unnecessary.
And yet, I’ve never heard what you claim to have heard, in your vague and unsupported accusation.
Is it the fact that the side conversation is unnecessary that upsets you so much or is it what the conversation is about?
Isn’t the podcast conversation directed by the podcaster? How can this even happen there??
No idea what kind of podcast he’s talking about.
Some podcasts are a tightly run, with a podcaster doing an interview, and some are just a couple few people shooting the breeze.
With as vague as the accusation was, and with no citation whatsoever, it’s hard to tell what kind of podcast this was, whether the podcaster was making or condoning the remarks, whether it was a guest, or just someone talking about their favorite restaurant.
The one thing that I do know is that these accusations very rarely hold up to even the slightest scrutiny, relying on vagueness and innuendo in order to imply nefarious intent.
I think it’s more like “words and actions that are supposed to make me feel like I have something to be ashamed of even though I didn’t do anything wrong.”
This. It’s the loss of nuance and context. Usually by people on both sides who tend to distill things down to “us” or “them”.
Like can I be pro-LGBTQ and enjoy eating Chik-Fil-A?
Sure! I consider myself an Ally, but occasionally go there.
Not if there’s a Popeye’s nearby. YMMV. 
Has anyone said you can’t?
There are people who definitely shop by political affiliation, yes. So much as to ask Etsy vendors which party they support. So they don’t buy from the wrong people.
Why do you care what other people do?
Are they preventing you from doing what you want to do?
That’s not the question I asked, though. Sure, there’s people who don’t eat at Chik-Fil-A because of their politics. I’m one of them. The scenario I was asking about is if anyone’s been giving other people shit for eating at Chik-Fil-A. Which, granted, there’s probably someone out there who does - there’s always someone out there who earnestly believes any stupid idea you care to name. But outside of nutpicking from Twitter accounts, nobody’s seriously getting pushback for choosing to eat there.
If the person has nothing to feel guilty about, then the emotion is more usually perplexity, not defensive anger.
One of my high school / Facebook friends made some comments when I posted about how awesome the sandwiches were a year or so ago. I had never eaten there before and didn’t really know anything about any anti-gay stuff.
This is a helpful example. Thanks.