The Wikipedia link shows that the term has always been a pejorative. I don’t know what you are reading, but I have never heard “virtue signaling” to be anything but an insult.
To me, that phrase carries a connotation of insincerity about the behavior being called “virtue signaling”, implying it’s only being done to garner approval and not from any more sincere motive.
Might want to read more closely.
According to The Guardian , the term has been used since at least 2004,[7] appearing for example in religious academic works in 2010[8] and 2012.[9]
British journalist James Bartholomew claims to have originated the modern usage of the term “virtue signalling,” in a 2015 Spectator article.[10][11] His 2015 formulation described virtue signaling as empty boasting (directly or otherwise):[10]
It dates from before the “modern usage”, i.e. that was not it’s origin, but instead a reframing.
Never underestimate the Dope’s ability to let pedantry derail a discussion.
If you can find me a single example of the term “virtue signalling” being used in a positive light about people sincerely signalling support, I will be very impressed.s
The term means what the term means. Not what you want it to mean.
“Supporters” works, but it’s not dismissive so I can see why it might not fit when someone intends to be dismissive.
You might want to try reading for comprehension yourself. Bartholomew was wrong if he suggested that “virtue signalling” only came into use in 2015, but there is nothing to suggest (in Mark Peters’ article or anywhere else) that earlier usage from circa 2004 was ever anything other than the insulting meaning that it still carries today. It isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive with sincerity of belief (though it often is) but rather, is a disparaging statement about the display of virtue as performance art (somewhat analogous to “humblebrag”).
You used the phrase incorrectly, period.
So, @Omniscient is not the Red Queen?
I believe you mean Humpty Dumpty “There’s glory for you!”
Yes, I will take you contradicting Wikipedia at face value…cause you’re the authority on said topic. Sorry for the bother.
You seem to be the only one who seems to think that Wikipedia – or anything else you have cited – supports your incorrect usage. No one else does. It’s as if you’re reading entirely different articles from the rest of us.
Also, may I say as the OP that this whole argument is a stupid digression that has nothing to do with the facts I wanted to cover in this thread. Arguing against your incorrect usage of the term doesn’t interest me nor does it further the intent of the thread.
I agree with that, but it’s the Dope. People are gonna nitpick (and be condescending as they do). It’s pretty obvious from the context of my original post that I wasn’t intending to debate virtue signaling, just making the case that the attacker probably wasn’t Russian. Which stands as a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Moderating:
Let’s move on from the discussion about the precise meaning and connotation of “virtue signaling” and return to discussing actual signalling of support or lack thereof for Ukraine, and what the fallout of doing that might be.
Thanks.
My Ukrainian car flags have finally arrived, complete with window mounts. I have one on the car now. It’s a pretty flag and looks really sharp. Proud to fly it. 