For sure, “real” virtue signaling can refer to any issue or part of the political spectrum. But it’s true, it has largely been taken over as a lazy ad hominem by the “snowflake” slinging folks. And it gets muddled with some behaviors of call out culture and slacktivism. Maybe it’s time for new terminology and a broader taxonomy…
Yep, in practice, there is a lot of that about. I see it a lot on YouTube (and have been accused of it more than once).
Whilst Virtue Signalling in the true sense (of espousing a position primarily for kudos) is a real thing, I am going to say that the false accusation of virtue signalling seems like it might be a more common thing.
There are some really decent people on the Internet who just want to use their influence to do something nice - Like Mark Rober for example - who shared his own inner conflict about meat consumption and production in the west - and who dropped his regular content pattern to create and present lesson style science education episodes for kids who are suddenly being homeschooled during lockdown.
I want people like him to show us virtue - because nothing exists in a vacuum. Sure, pray in private, but if you do good things that can inspire others to also do good things, do them openly so we can see, and be inspired.
Gonna sound like a boomer now, Back in my day… we just used to call it ‘setting a good example’
With “showing” being the key verb there; they are engaging in “a conspicuous expression of moral values.”
Do you believe that virtue signalling is a set of activities that is a subset of the group of actions that involves showing loyalty to a team, organisation, or brand? Or do you believe it has a pejorative connotation of either an expression of false loyalty, or a situation where a person’s devotion to their ego is greater than their devotion to the cause they’re promoting?
I definitely see it as a negative on the same level as tokenism. It reminds me of the XKCD comic about asbestos:
Accusing someone of virtue signaling as a debate or argument tactic is a lazy and low tactic, not too dissimilar to calling someone a liar or an accusation of gaslighting. All avoid dealing with the debate by making claims about the other’s motivations.
And of course many virtue signal, especially in social media. Heck, it is almost the reason social media exists.
If all you do is proclaim on social media that you support some issue, but you don’t actually do anything besides that, then that is “virtue signaling”. Anyone can post a meme or wear a T-shirt.
Nope. Those were people who genuinely think that it’s okay for black people to say hateful things about white people due to the racism they’ve experienced. They think that it’s more important for us to listen to their grievances than get upset. We white people don’t have to experience systemic racism, so we should be able to take it, in the interest of bridging the gap. They genuinely think it helps resolve racism.
Do I agree with them? Nope. I pointed out Huey’s racism from the first thread he posted in. Sure, I was kind about it, making sure not to come off as racist myself, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t intentionally trying rile people up. I got full on mad at people making excuses for the guy’s racism.
Yet I do not in anyway believe they were doing it all for show. The idea doesn’t make sense–who the fuck were they going to show? Nothing about their beliefs, once explained, was actually contradictory. Nothing suggested trying to get anyone to like them. They just genuinely disagree with us.
And this is exactly what I mean by the term “virtue signaling.” You used it exactly as I described–to denigrate those on the left you disagree with, while avoiding addressing their actual point.
I believe that it is a conspicuous expression of moral values.
Right, that isn’t virtue signalling. But it’s the same fallacy–ad hominem and well-poisoning. You accuse the other person of only pretending to care, and thus all future arguments are only an attempt to further that ruse. As such, the person and all their future arguments can be dismissed.
Furthermore, the idea of “virtue signaling” is that you’re only saying something because you’ll get something out of it–it’ll make people think you’re a moral person. And that’s the same reason that shilling is considered wrong–they’re only saying it to get something–money.
All of the reasons to avoid one apply to the other. The only way it could ever be relevant is if you could catch them arguing the opposite in the past. And that is just as rare in both cases.
To me, it isn’t what the white liberals are doing to and for themselves, it’s shaming others into doing it too (even when they have no clue whether the other person does something or not)
In todays charged society, EVERYTHING is divisive, this is just another of a laundry list of things that separate.
“Virtue signaling” is a concept invented by assholes convinced that everyone else thinks like they do, deep down, but only they have the guts to really tell it like it is.
Example:
Asshole Guy: “LOL, women are dumb.”
Non-Asshole Guy: “No, they aren’t.”
Asshole Guy: “Quit your virtue signaling! You know I’m right!”
Clearly we are using the term in slightly different ways.
I don’t think anyone’s in disagreement that it’s often used as a false allegation, an ad hominem most often used by conservatives against social progressives. But what seems to be in dispute is whether it’s sometimes also a real phenomenon, and if so what exactly does it mean?
To me, when it’s used among those on the left to describe a real phenomenon, it doesn’t principally mean hypocrisy or insincerity. It’s about an excessive concern with looking good to others on the left by rigidly parroting standard woke dogma, while implying that anyone who doesn’t align precisely with that dogma is less virtuous.
That’s why the Huey Freeman saga was an archetypal example to me. It’s virtuous to be seen as an ally of an oppressed black man - so for the virtue signaller that’s the position however awful this particular black man might be; and anyone who criticizes him is less virtuous.
If you’re looking for something on the right, how about those “WWJD” wristlets? I think those would be a prime example.
Accusations of virtue signalling need not be so serious. It is a regular feature of the endless sparring and badinage I have with my SO. We race to beat each other to the summit of moral authority on whatever is the topic of the day.
We were discussing this recently as I was filling my biodegradable multiuse cup with fairtrade coffee and a pondering on which gluten free sandwich had the most sustainably sourced vegan filling. Sad to say, I find the relentless pursuit of things to virtue signal does little to impress my tastebuds. You win some, you lose some.
I hold conflicting positions on virtue signaling.
-
Virtue signaling, as defined by me, is any behavior that serves mainly to signal group solidarity via shared virtues (or opposition to virtues shared by others).
-
Conservatives and liberals both do virtue signaling.
-
Conservatives are quick to perceive virtue signaling because it’s second nature for them (religious signaling is the O.G. of virtue signaling).
-
The conservative lazy debate tradition is that if you spot lib’rul hypocrisy, you win. Thus conservatives swarmed all over the term “virtue signaling” as soon as they learned it was a thing.
-
Despite the fact that the term “virtue signaling” is almost always deployed as a bad-faith debate tactic, liberals definitely do have a virtue-signaling problem that they cannot admit. In their minds, talking the talk is as good as walking the walk.
-
I think conservatives do understand that much of their position is virtue-signaling, and this is why they transition so fluently between a position of moral superiority and moral nihilism. i.e. of course I’m more moral than you, and if you get close to proving otherwise, you’re over-serious and nothing really matters.
It’s certainly not a new phenomenon:
I feel like “virtue signaling” is something I see in corporate environments and on places like LinkedIn where people and companies are trying to generate positive “brands”. Like posting shit about their “diversity initiatives” with #woke hashtags and “United Colors of Megacorp” stock photos.
I heard some lefty radio program discussing “the commoditization of wokeness”, along these lines.
Virtue Signaling and Political Correctness are purely leftist attributes.
Not saying rightist don’t do the same thing, we just don’t call it that.
Politcal orthodoxy, on the left is political correctness. Political orthodoxy on the right is called…I don’t know if there a catchy name for it.
While I might skew to right of many dopers, I do have some liberal views.
Virtue signaling to me also has a passive aggressive annoying I’m better than you connotation.
“Oh you bought a new Chevy Tahoe, that’s great its so roomy, I’d love to sit up that high in traffic, oh but I couldn’t do that to the planet or environment, I’ll just keep driving my Prius”