What's so bad about virtue signaling?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Oh, no argument - which is why my comment and the quote both had an emphasis on actions. But words have meaning and value as well, as shown (in a not so random example) of our ongoing debates about misogyny and transgender issues. Again, if you are signaling by using a trans individuals preferred gender, even if you disagree with trans issues, you are doing better than someone who proudly mis-genders an individual while being proud of their ‘honest’.

Ideally, we could all be good people without the need for the adulation of others or fear of social shunning, but we aren’t yet there.

22

We are social and cooperative creatures, concern for our reputation is perfectly natural and appropriate. Plus, of course, one could argue that demonstrating lack of concern for one’s reputation is really just a more sophisticated attempt to elevate that reputation: in acting modestly rather than ostentatiously, we secretly hope that perhaps a few important people will take note of our virtuous modesty!

23

It’s unfortunate that the term has been co-opted to mean anyone who does anything good and then talks about it, because that’s not really virtue signalling. Sure, you might be doing it to get approval, but you’re doing it, so who cares? Approval is a natural human need. And, actually, talking about it often does encourage other people to do the same.

Celebrities are often lauded for doing charitable deeds without talking about it publicly. But, actually, sometimes it would have been better if they’d been public about it (without any major self-aggrandising fanfare), because it would have publicised the cause.

When I first heard the term used it was like msmith537 said - doing something to “show” alliance with some cause, but not actually doing anything to help, or even acting against that cause.

Like the British govt encouraging people to “clap for the NHS” during the pandemic, and then giving nurses a below-inflation payrise.

The term is still useful in those contexts even though arseholes use it to describe anyone doing anything good and not being secretive about it.

Very good point.

24

Sometimes yes, but not nearly alawys.

I mean, some people can pretend to get all excited over something, just to make them look good to others.

However, Woke had a legit origin: wiki- *

This usage was popularized by soul singer Erykah Badu’s 2008 song “Master Teacher”,[4][20] via the song’s refrain, “I stay woke”.[22][25] Merriam-Webster.com defines the expression “stay woke” in Badu’s song as meaning, “self-aware, questioning the dominant paradigm and striving for something better”; and, although, within the context of the song it did not yet have a specific connection to justice issues, Merriam-Webster credits the phrase’s use in the song with its later connection to these issues.[4][7]*

Yes, certainly but not always.

If they really pick up the trash, then that’s Ok. If they just pick up enough for the photo op, that is being fake.

25

Right. Once upon a time a found a bank envelope with $540 in cash. Included was a withdrawal slip. I asked my work buddy to walk with me to the bank before we had lunch. I was telling her I was going to return this to the bank, who by virtue of the withdrawal slip, could ID the owner.

She said that was very noble of me, and then teasing- “But wouldn’t it be more noble to just return it, and not advertise the fact you are doing such a good deed?”- and I said yes, but my nobility had it’s limits.

In other words, I was willing to give up $540 in untraceable cash to do the Right Thing, but I wanted people to know I did it. A flawed white knight. :grinning:

26

And, of course, if if was really $54 in the envelope, we have an example of virtue signalling.:slight_smile:

27

I hate this term for two reasons

Firstly it’s an excuse to hate ppl who are doing nothing to you. You can just look at someone, invent a motive in your mind, and decide they’re a jerk for doing the right thing

Secondly this is one that even the left has bought into. Like I have seen some left wing commentators concede that wearing a mask outside is now virtue signaling.
FFS if someone wants to wear a mask, that’s their business, and you have no idea their motives for doing so (and arguably trying to absolutely minimize risk is a far more plausible guess).

28

I suppose you could just strive to BE virtuous, ans let the signalling fall where it may.

29

How can you tell the difference between setting an example and the non-snarl version of virtue signaling? If some famous influencer, let’s say a Kardashian, decided to put solar panels on one of her houses (let’s say the smallest and least used one), that may still influence her millions of followers to do the same. Or, she made a big show about marching in one parade for some social cause – still might get her followers to pay attention to that cause.

30

I definitely have thoughts on this term. I’ll try to focus on the ones that have not been shared in this thread so far.

First off, the term as it is used now was in fact coined by a right winger, who was saying it about the left. At no point was the term not a political potshot. It’s not one of those words that used to have a legitimate meaning. No, I think it just always tried to have a veneer of respectability.

It seems to me that it’s common for words that are usually used as snarl words to often have some definition that gives it some veneer of respectability. That seems to be the case for virtue signaling, political correctness, white knighting, social justice warrior, etc.

Despite the above, the term virtue signaling as a whole does predate the right wing coinage, however. But, in that context, it was used to mean signaling one’s morals (or purported morals) by using certain terms that would identify you. For example, Someone using the term “lame stream media” has just very quickly communicated their political and moral beliefs, and thus would be virtue signaling. It would not matter whether or not they actually thought it was true.

But the current version always carries with it the idea that that the person is lying. And that is why it works as a snarl word. That seems to be one of the most effective tactics against those who have the moral high ground–insist that they don’t really believe it themselves. We all tend to see hypocrisy as the ultimate evil.

I do in fact think the modern version has no reason to exist. Any legitimate meaning it has can be handled with other words, rather than legitimizing the word. Using the word your opponent coined to attack you to attack others (other than in an ironic fashion to attack your accusers) has the huge risk of legitimizing the term in all uses.

That is why I avoid the term. When the “respectable” definition would be useful, I can describe it in other ways, like “performative altruism”—a term unlikely to be appropriated. I can say something like “Clapping for healthcare workers is just for show if you don’t do anything else.” Or even “that company is a hypocrite, saying they support the environment when they don’t.”

And yeah, if the company or person actually does the right thing, I don’t care a lot about the reason. It’s a good thing when a company who only wants to make money thinks it will make more money doing what we consider to be the right thing. It means that a lot of people agree it is the right thing.

31

I live in a very woke area. I was a member of a Facebook group for the area because it was a useful resource about anything happening hereabouts.

I left the group for a couple of reasons but one was the eye rolling level of virtue signalling. Otherwise useful discussions would descend into trainwrecks because no matter how kind and woke people were being, there was always at least one person ready to argue it wasn’t enough.

These things are a matter of judgment and I accept that perhaps those involved genuinely thought what was being discussed wasn’t good enough. But in my judgment it too often reached the point where I could no longer believe people were sincere. Instead they appeared to me to be trying to show how much “holier than thou” they were and it was counterproductive.

I don’t doubt that “virtue signalling” has been appropriated by the right as a basis for mockery. But as with many of the best lies, IME it has a nugget of truth in it.

32

Virtue signaling is different than just indicating you’re part of a group. It’s more than that; it’s the conspicuous demonstration of some “virtuous” behavior with the express intent of having that display witnessed in an attempt to curry social favor through that display. In other words, it’s about being seen doing something because you want people to know you do something, vs just doing it and going about your business.

So wearing a mask wouldn’t necessarily be virtue signaling, but putting dozens of selfies of you wearing masks would be. Similarly, among the right-wing set concealed carry or the open carry of a small inconspicuous handgun isn’t virtue signaling, while showing up to a protest with an AR-15 or a monster pistol strapped to your hip in a conspicuous holster most definitely is virtue signaling.

Basically people don’t like it because it’s obnoxious, just like anything done with the intent of being seen like that (huge pickups, flashy cars, expensive jeweled watches, etc…)

33

Same. Except I’m thinking of Nextdoor.

Yes.

It’s kind of handy for getting factual answers, or answering questions in a factual way. Otherwise, I stay out of the discussions.

34

Ironically, often “not wearing masks” is also virtue signalling. Especially when the “virtue” is “being a free thinker who doesn’t do what he’s told and isn’t afraid of no virus”.

“Tough guy bullshit” is just a name for a different kind of virtue signalling.

35

This sounds like item #3 from here:

I’ve never been around an activist group that didn’t turn into an endless series of petty purity tests. I was raised in a church where everyone was looking for more and more inconsequential things to judge each other by. R-rated movies were of course forbidden, but which prime-time network TV shows were permissible? Any of them? Of course rock music was of the devil, but what about country? Aren’t those songs about faith, kind of? The natural evolution is toward tighter and tighter criteria for what behavior gets you shunned from the group. The end result is that the central cause, the group’s JWD, can be as pure as the driven snow, and yet the tone will get more and more toxic over time, the members becoming less and less charitable with each other.

36

It all stems from insecurity. If you don’t feel like a good enough person, you constantly seek external validation. When that validation doesn’t come, you must take it upon yourself to police others, to be a paragon of virtue. That way you can look in the mirror each day and say, “I’m a good person. I’m doing enough.”

I’ve fallen into that mental trap before as an activist, so it’s a phenomenon I understand well. When you work on an issue for a prolonged period of time, the problem becomes so overwhelming that you don’t feel like you are doing enough. You see it everywhere, and the world at large becomes the enemy that must be combatted. Once you’re in the cycle, it’s very hard to turn that part of your brain off.

The self-appointed moderators are, generally, decent people in over their heads. Chances are good their behavior is driven by some kind of trauma. For me it was, “I must fix this because I can’t let what happened to me happen to someone else.”

It’s like a whole thing to unlearn that overwhelming sense of responsibility.

I’m not excusing the behavior of the worst of them. I think it makes some people feel powerful when they have spent so much of their lives feeling powerless, but we all know how power corrupts.

That said, “virtue signaling” is used most often by conservatives who can’t fathom what it’s like to genuinely care about something other than themselves.

37

Well, if the person doing the action is a liberal, they’re probably virtue signaling, doncha know.

Folks who are ready to go on the attack to protect us from virtue signalers are more bothered by the people doing the “virtuous” thing for the wrong reason than they are about the person who just doesn’t so the virtuous thing at all.

If they were the pragmatic, conservatives they like to think of themselves as, they would embrace virtue signalers as a vital component in shifting public expectations around issues like racial justice, environmental conservation, economic injustice, and more . . . assuming, that is, that they believe those are noble and virtuous goals in the first place.

Whether or not “Virtue signaling” can have a specific and useful meaning in an academic sense, its common use is as a nonsense term that conservatives use to ridicule any action that challenges the status quo, or otherwise is championed by Democrats in America.

38

And, to clarify, I do think that folks who can’t get out of their own way, and who need to ridicule any progress that isn’t 110% of whatever their personal and unexamined definition of “right” is can be annoying, problematic, and obstructionary in groups where people are trying to get things done. However, most of the usage of the term is from the outside of those groups, by people eager to shit on any forward movement toward the supposed virtuous goals that doesn’t happen exactly as they would like.

39

It seems to me that the term “virtual signaling” is being stretched in meaning in order to say it’s still a valid concept.

I don’t see how a purity test is virtue signaling. You have to be a true believer to believe any variation is harmful. I also don’t see how seeing the world as a bad place that needs to be fixed is virtue signaling, either. The people who get caught up in a echo chamber or circle jerk are almost always true believers, as well.

Virtue signaling (the current version) is supposed to be when someone is saying something for the purpose of looking good, and doesn’t actually care about the virtue being expressed. It’s performative moralizing.

Someone who really cares can’t be virtue signaling, which is exactly why I hate the term. It is primarily used about people who really care as a way to refute them.

I genuinely think making this language popular helps the right spread their ideas without actually having to prove them true. And I think we on the left or even in the center should do a better job of trying to stop that. We shouldn’t be embracing their terms.

We can still address these other problems, but I see no value in labeling them “virtue signaling.”

40

I’m starting to wonder if refusal to concede that virtue signalling is ever a valid concept is seen as some kind of… erm… indicator of moral rectitude.:slight_smile: