Then what would be a good term? We all know what it means by now, maybe there is a better one?
Lol. Sorry but what you’re quoting there sounds like hysterical hand-wringing. One guy got fired from one job for running off at the mouth about his views on women. Also I’m pretty sure, based on Damore’s behavior since that incident, that he’s a whiny alt-right asshat.
Sort of. Virtue signalling is basically going out of your way to tell all and sundry what a virtuous and “woke” person you are.
A good example is people loudly proclaiming “My fiancee and I have decided we’re not going to get married until same-sex marriage is legalised so our gay friends can get married as well!”
Now, I think we can all agree same-sex marriage is absolutely something that should be legal - but going around telling people that you’re so “right on” as to not participate in an optional thing because some of your friends can’t have it too is far less about standing up for injustice and far, far more about telling everyone what a good person you are with the approved opinions and BTW if they could all share and like by way of validation that would be great too.
IMO if you’re a good person you don’t need go out of your way to draw attention to that fact, for the most part.
Virtue signaling is the action of the hypocrites, who love to be seen by others.
Biblical paraphrasing aside, a lot of virtue signaling is just slacktivism.
Virtue-signaling is a real but way overused concept which might as well be called ‘‘tribal signaling’’ and is more or less how humans navigate the world. The problem I have with many critics of virtue-signaling is that you assume the worst of the reactionary’s motives. (I’m calling these people reactionaries from now on.) As someone who has spent a large amount of time among radical leftists, I assure you, they sincerely believe they are making the world a better place (and many of them are, in their real-world work.) I think part of the underlying philosophy is that positive social pressure will change our society or at least drive the haters deeper underground. As it stands, virtue-signaling has been applied to everything from those bloggers who got that taco stand lady fired (a fair application of the term in my opinion, as it seemed to me an utterly useless crusade) to people trying to stand up for those who are oppressed (a wholly laudable activity.) When that asshat redpiller wanted permission to punch a protester in the face, he claimed that those of us pointing out that he wanted to commit assault were virtue-signaling. As such I think it’s become a completely meaningless term.
I think you are absolutely right that it is a kind of slacktivism. I have a good friend who has spent the last three days arguing on Facebook with her loved ones who support Trump in light of all the Charlottesville stuff, and she is emotionally exhausted but feels ethically obligated to keep fighting. Except, she’s not really accomplishing much, probably. It’s a lot harder to host a letter-writing campaign or found an anti-racism group than argue with some people on the internet for a couple of days. (I’ve been arguing with plenty of people here, but I don’t think I’m deluding myself that it changes minds… the benefit is entirely to myself, gaining deeper understanding into other perspectives and solidifying my own.) For some reason social media in particular gives people the same feeling as standing on the lawn of the Capitol and screaming through a bullhorn. The halo effect absolves them of responsibility for doing anything else.
I am signaling no virtue myself on this point. I left Facebook in part because I was disgusted by my own slacktivism. One of the many reasons I went into social work is that I knew I wouldn’t do a damned thing when I’m not punching the clock. And I don’t. But at least at the end of the work day I can feel that I did something directly beneficial to society, and actually be correct.
I think there’s more to virtue signalling than just slacktivism.
To my mind, slacktivism is clicking “Like” or sharing an Outrage Du Jour story; virtue signalling involves going out of your way (even online) to show everyone how you’re totally on board with whatever the “Approved” bandwagon is right now.
Good that you are here. I have a hard time telling the real thing from the bogus. I’ll just sit here at your feet and take notes.
The term ‘Virtue Signalling’ is used by scumbags as a pejorative, because “You think you’re better than me?!?!” doesn’t really work anymore. It is part and parcel of the usual thinking that other people are just as bad as you are, they’re just not willing to say the things you’re “brave” enough to say. Or that they’re bowing to peer pressure not to say such things.
When someone rails about virtue signalling, I know that person is a scumbag who thinks everyone else is too.
“What were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone’s as ugly as you?! You’re alone!”
If that is your example of virtue signalling, then I 'm not sure that anyone who has ever said anything progressive about anything in the history of the earth is not virtue signalling. In fact, that’s kinda the opposite of what I thought you were describing, of people making incredibly small gestures in an effort to seem as though they are on board with social progress.
In your example, you have people making a sacrifice and creating social pressure and momentum to push for marriage equality. This is an example of someone putting themselves into more than just slight inconvenience for the sake of others.
Is there any example of anyone ever looking out for the interests of a marginalized group that is not virtue signalling to you?
Don’t you get it? It’s ok to be for social change, as long as you keep it to yourself and don’t talk about it. That’s called doing the real work.
No dummies, there is extremely weak evidence that the sex bias in computer science graduates is a result of inherent biological differences (other than how our society treats people who look female versus male). There is very strong evidence supporting the notion the sex bias (as well as many other occupational sex biases in both the past and present) is the result of cultural influences, including sexism and the patriarchy. If somebody is “certain” of the latter, their political opinion is based on the weight of the scientific evidence. If somebody is “certain” of the former their political opinion is based on something other than the weight of the scientific evidence. Decision-making utilizing replicable scientific evidence is the hallmark of the vast majority of modern society’s successes in government and business policy decisions. It is, I hope, completely understandable to you two that it is justifiable to base a strong opinion on strong scientific evidence.
My comment is based on the assumption that the evidence is inconclusive either way. As I’ve stated before, I am way more well-versed in the social-psych side of gender bias than the biology of sex. I’m not comfortable, based on my limited knowledge of the evidence supporting the opposing position, staking a certainty one way or another.
Honestly, I think certainty is anathema to science. But if someone has genuinely reviewed the evidence on both sides and feels comfortable making a claim based on strong evidence, it’s no skin off my nose.
These are political opinions, not a college essay. It’s completely irrelevant if their justifiable political opinion is the result of a genuine review of the scientific evidence. This is particularly true in this case, considering even the most basic understanding of historical trends in women’s representation in all types of jobs shows a trend toward parity.
Jesus agrees.
Really? Is there a trend towards parity in nursing? How about public education?
Over 60% of new college graduates are women. If women are under-represented in physics and engineering, they must be over-represented in other fields, no? So is it just as big a problem that the majority of new psychologists are women than that the majority of new engineers are men?
And on my last job, the majority of IT management were women.
Yes it is a problem.
It is pure sexism that men are not pushed more into nursing and teaching. It’s pure sexism that there aren’t programs set up to try to get more men into nursing and teaching.
For that matter, shouldn’t colleges be striving for a 50/50 mix of male and female graduates? Perhaps we need to have a quota system that preferences males in college admissions until we get back to 50/50. For ‘fairness’.
Also, here in Alberta the highest paying jobs are working on oil rigs in the north, yet hardly any women do that. It doesn’t seem fair. I think we should push more women towards working outside in -40 winds on slippery decks full of moving machinery. Because women must want to do it just as much as men do, and are just as capable as men, so clearly only sexism is keeping them off the rigs.
Just as big? No, in the sense that job prospects and potential earnings in psychology, teaching, and nursing suck compared to computer science and engineering, but yes in the sense the social forces that keep men out of these careers keep women away from programming.
On editing, I saw your last post and realized you’re an idiot.