I agree, speaking of the right lazily changing the meaning of word and phrases, more than once I noticed that many who used “woke” are discouraging their use now because of what the right is doing with the word.
When the right (and ignorant centrists) continue to use the word as a slur, they also ignore the part where many of the progressives are already aware of the way the right wing media and sources changed the meaning for the worse.
Turning it now into a nice shibboleth word that is telling more knowledgeable readers that the ones using it as a slur against progressives are either ignorant or double right wing ignorants that should have their arguments dismissed for being so shallow and willfully ignoring that most progressives are already discouraging their use even on times when it would be proper to use it, just for starters.
One problem is that if you’re doing something virtuous primarily to look good, you’re likely going to do the easiest thing, or the thing that best signals group membership, rather than the most useful thing. In some cases the supposedly virtuous act may not benefit the intended targets at all, or even be counterproductive.
That’s funny! Glad to read it, NF has sunk ever lower into pretentious tacky land with their numerous collabs putting Gucci logos on puffy jackets/ shirts and bucket hats.
I think this is an excellent point that doesn’t get enough attention. There are two forms of disagreement: Disagreement between enemies, and disagreement between allies. And very often, people can’t tell the difference.
By analogy, Packers fans can (and should) agree that they don’t like the Bears. So, Bears fans would rightfully be in the “enemy group.” Packers fans can also disagree among themselves as to which player ought to be Green Bay’s starting quarterback. Problem is, some Packers fans may get so zealous on behalf of Player A (whom they think deserves to be quarterback) that they get to the point where they consider any Packer fan who feels that Player B should be the quarterback to not be a Packers fan and in fact be on the side of the enemy.
Manners would be something like, “Don’t call black people the N-word.”
What happened in that Gawker email chain was very different. Saying that “it’s wrong to call a hat and hat and it should be called a soft porous bowl instead” is absurd speech-policing.
You do realize that comment was satire, right? It was mocking the idea that you shouldn’t call it a boy’s hat by questioning whether you could call it a hat at all.
OK, so I think I see. Wearing a mask during a pandemic is virtue, and posing for a photo while holding a Bible upside down after your thugs gassed some protestors is virtue signaling.
It’s also virtue signalling if you go into topics about BLM matters and post how much you openly support it, then in other topics talk about how slavery actually wasn’t that bad, then when you call them out others on the board are openly afraid of calling them out too because how much clout they achieved posting for the past 20 years based on the former statements.
There is nothing inherently wrong with virtue signaling, but it does lead to some odd choices.
See the Cal paper - Conspicuous Conservation: The Prius Effect and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Bona Fides
If we’re talking about Trump, there’s an even better example. Trump used to show up at publicity events for charities and announce he was pledging large amounts of money to the charity. His presence and his announcement would then appear in the media. But Trump would fail to follow through with the actual pledge.
Honestly that email chain was a lot tamer than expected. Mostly just people politely falling all over themselves to demonstrate that they are gender critical.
I’m trying to think of what issue would really result in a throw down among sanctimonious liberals.
Here’s one. In my Star Trek Shitposting Facebook group which is weirdly the most inclusive space ever, they are currently going bonkers over Pride Month. Someone posted a meme showing 7 of 9 making a face at the idea of sex (think the Drake meme) and instead choosing cake. This is of course meant to celebrate sex - repulsed asexuality.
Naturally some queer-identified person was offended that someone could make a mockery of something they had worked so hard to be positive about, because their mother was an asexual who shamed them for being sexual, or something.
This is where sensitivity crosses the line into absurdity.
But in retrospect, it’s not really virtue signaling. In order to be virtue signaling I think it would have to be someone speaking up for a group they were not a part of. So if it were like, “Hi, I’m cishet but I think this was really insensitive to self-identified queer folk…” THAT would be virtue signaling.
But another thing you need to understand about that is that leftists are told all the time that they need to use their privilege to speak up for others. There is a lot of pressure to do that and if you don’t do it, you are a bad person. So it’s not even that the virtue signaler doesn’t care - they care deeply and sincerely - it’s that we are taught we don’t really care unless we do X, and of course we care, so we do X.
My take on conservatives accusations of Virtue signalling is that it really comes from the converse of this quote
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
By claiming that virtuous acts are somehow immoral, they can justify the morality of not enaging in them.
That explains a lot of what appears to be virtue signalling: “Hi, I’m not part of group, but I feel entitled to speak for all members of group anyway.”
Maybe you can explain another thing that seems like virtue signalling to me: the people who insist on calling anyone who disagrees with them a bigot, and on using slogans and approaches that are popular within the movement but that they know are unpopular and/or widely misunderstood outside it. If you suggest trying a different approach, they react with the same kind of horror as if you had suggested they abandon their goals entirely.
I don’t agree that standing up for a group you are not a part of is virtue signalling. If someone is making racist or sexist jokes, is asking them to stop somehow wrong, even if you are not the target of those jokes?
It depends on what you disagree on. If you disagree on whether strawberries or blueberries are better, then it wouldn’t make sense to call the person with an opposing view a bigot. If the disagreement is whether certain groups should be discriminated against, then the person advocating for the discrimination may very well be one.
The interesting thing about the internet is that the lines between these groups is a bit blurred, and what is said to the members of a movement are heard by those outside of it, who then take the opportunity to misunderstand what they hear.
As I said, with the internet, the lines are a bit blurred, where what is thought of as a conversation within a group is sometimes interrupted by outsiders who demand that the group conform to the way that they want things discussed.
I get what you’re saying. I’m thinking of those who insist on using the slogan “all lives matter,” and say that anyone who uses the slogan (for example) “black lives matter” must mean that only black lives matter and is therefore a racist.