So here’s a question: when does “virtue signaling” become virtue? For the right wing, as far as I can tell, it never does.
The point I’m trying to make here is that for those who invented the phrase, everything white people do in solidarity with oppressed minorities is virtue signaling. Because there can be no imaginable reason to cast your lot with those less privileged unless you are just trying to make yourself look good.
That is the difference between ordinary hypocrisy and this new coinage.
The term does not necessarily indicate hypocrisy or insincerity. It’s principally about egotism. Your comment is like saying “why is it a bad thing to be generous?”. It’s not, and you may genuinely be generous - but it’s still a bad thing if you constantly brag about your generosity and insinuate that other people are stingy.
A recent example of virtue signalling on the SDMB: the defenders of Huey Freeman in his long thread. By around post 1000 I had got sick of his divisive nastiness, and posted something critical of his bigotry. And I recall one poster saying “well, it’s important for those with privilege to listen…”. Which is certainly a valid point in general terms. But after 25 pages of listening, we are allowed to engage our brains and form an opinion. A few people in that thread were so concerned about being seen as the woke ally of an oppressed black man that they were apparently prepared to overlook any level of egregious assholery from this particular man.
Well, this of course truly exists and we will be seeing more it. But I don’t see it used that way on the right, or rather, I see it used for that and everything else liberals do.
And I enjoy how you are signalling that you’re even more virtuous that those criticizing virtue signalling, because you’re above such criticism, right?
Of course I agree that (like the term SJW) it’s widely used by conservatives as an ad hominem to try undermine any decent moral position held by social progressives.
Examples include:
Using slogans
Political posters in the yard
Wearing particular pins
Flag rituals
Social media posts
Displaying [XYZ] “in support of” [ABC]
Telling everyone how you went to a march or rally
Its about telling people (not necessarily with words) that you are aligned with a position you and your group see as virtuous. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Especially if it is coupled with actual action. And it’s certainly not only something liberals do. A MAGA hat fits even if I personally don’t associate any virtue there.
I’m not sure I agree with you. In my view there are many levels of support, with a spectrum that includes:
Intangible support
Tangible support
Displaying support via symbols
Advocacy
Bombastic advocacy
Exclusionary advocacy
Bombastic exclusionary advocacy
Take breast cancer research. I think 95% of people are intangible supporters of breast cancer research and think it’s a cause worthy of support. However, there’s a smaller percentage of people who donate to breast cancer charities or work to support them. I think someone who wears a pink ribbon, but doesn’t contribute donations or effort to the cause is a virtual signaller. However, if someone chooses to donate monthly and wear the pink ribbon, I don’t think that’s virtual signalling; I just think it’s showing their support. Although if the person starts bragging about going to breast cancer fundraisers all over the country or posting about breast cancer on Facebook 20 times a day, I’m going to question their motives. It’s not that I don’t believe they’re passionate about the cause. It’s that I’m wondering how much of their activity is for the cause, and how much is for their own ego and desire to brag. If they start writing about how breast cancer charities are so much better than other cancer charities, or stating that I’m uncaring if I choose to support other charities instead, then I’m absolutely questioning their motives. And if that (fictitious) person is doing both, then I’m certain their priorities are more about themselves than the cause that they’re supporting. It makes whatever they want to say meaningless, because whatever the virtue of their message, it’s worthless because of my disdain for the messenger. The point where I decide that the content being delivered is about the messenger and not the message is when I decide that someone is a virtue signaller. It doesn’t really matter whether I agree with their cause or not.
On a separate note, I also automatically label celebrities who are obvious hypocrites as virtual signallers. Save the planet, go vegan – just ignore the fact that I’m a Formula One driver. Or Save the Earth, use fewer resources – just ignore the flights I take on private jets; after all I bought a Prius.
If you’re talking about individuals you’ve got considerable personal experience with, it’s very likely true that in at least some cases, maybe most, you can tell the difference.
But that’s not how I generally see the term used.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen it used this way either. That is, I’ve certainly seen it used for any of the specific perfectly reasonable behaviors you list as examples (with the possible exception of “telling everyone”, presuming you don’t mean that as ‘telling some people, and/or making public announcements, in relevant contexts’.)[ETA: I don’t mean I haven’t seen the term used for that, but that some meanings of “telling everyone” are IMO perfectly reasonable and others aren’t.] But I’ve never seen it used as “not necessarily a bad thing.” Whenever I’ve seen it used, it’s always been as a criticism.
So in fact it’s often used to criticise people for doing something entirely proper and reasonable; either on the supposed grounds that the people doing it are only doing it in order to get credit for themselves, or occasionally on the supposed grounds that making one’s views publicly known never accomplishes anything at all. Which, especially if enough people do it, isn’t true.
Lewis Hamilton, or any Formula One driver, is hardly the example of someone destroying the planet. He busted his ass working his way up through the ranks to be where he is today, and the constant innovation and experimentation in Formula One designs ultimately yields discoveries that will be beneficial to aerodynamics and engineering in the long term. I see absolutely no hypocrisy in Hamilton being a vegan. Commercial manufacturing, shipping, and fishing industries are taking a much heavier toll on the planet than Formula One which is a pipsqueak in comparison to resources depleted.
I don’t think anyone considers someone to be “virtue signaling” if they are genuinely sincere about it. It’s meant to imply people who do not really care but want to look good on social media or elsewhere.
Out of curiosity, and at the risk of turning this into a hijack, can you identify a specific technology discovered by a Formula One engineer that’s resulted in an environmental improvement? Formula One engineers do highly specialised research in refining known engineering concepts into specific improvements to their cars. Some of their techniques may eventually migrate back to mainstream automotive engineering, but I’m sceptical they’ve ever resulted in a new concept that could be labelled a mainstream automotive innovation, much less an environmentally beneficial one. Compare that to the environmental costs of flying large teams and mechanic shops around the globe and I expect the environmental benefit/cost ratio, if there even is one, is minuscule.
This isn’t a diatribe against Formula One racing. There may well be an argument that the economic and entertainment (a form of personal fulfilment) aspects of the Formula One industry justify the environmental costs. However, that same justification is almost certainly there for the manufacturing, shipping, and fishing industries which provide orders more economic benefits and personal fulfilment.
What’s more, Lewis Hamilton isn’t the one providing the supposed engineering benefit. He’s a terrific driver and I appreciate the diversity he brings to the sport. But he contributed nothing to Formula One engineering improvements, much less any supposed environmentally improvements. I’ve nothing against his personal choice to go vegan. But to claim that his diet choice is benefiting the world while his career and non-diet lifestyle choices are incredibly consumptive of resources is absolutely hypocritical and an example of virtual signalling exemplifying that the person delivering the message cares more about his projected personal image than a thoughtful analysis of the message he hoped to deliver.
I’m repeating myself, but in my opinion virtual signallers aren’t insincere about their belief in their message (although there are exceptions to this statement). The issue I have is that they care more about the presentation of themselves in delivering the message than the actual message. Whether or not I agree with their message, I find the way they attempt to deliver it counter-productive if it strikes me that they care more about themselves than the concept they’re trying to advocate.
While virtue signaling is real and can apply to both left and right-wingers, it’s sort of besides the point when used to attack politicians. They’re constantly espousing positions for personal/political gain and doubtfully out of real conviction, but so what? If they’re doing the right thing (or what we woke people (to use yet another overused buzzword) know is the right thing :)), then motivation can be ignored.
That’s not virtue signaling, it’s the shill gambit, which as the link notes (with misspellings) is a form of ad hominem and well-poisoning. Anyone who defends vaccines, genetic modification technology or any form of science/medicine that also benefits an industry can expect to get whacked with that one.
What I said was that accusations of virtue signaling and that sort of anti-science rhetoric both use the same rhetorical tactic of “let’s change the subject from the merits of your actual argument to accusations that you have ulterior motives for insincerely making that argument”.
Right. The underlying common feature is that an accusation of insincerity is being used to distract from the actual merits of the argument.
:dubious: ISTM that nobody but you was at all confused by my comparison (not conflation) of those two related but distinct rhetorical tactics. In any case, the thread seems to have been getting along just fine completely ignoring that tangential comparison for nearly fifty posts until you brought it back up.
