Virtue signalling, as the term is used in this forum.

[theprestige]

Not at all! Strictly speaking, if we take Zig at his word, he has given necessary but not sufficient conditions for how he uses the term. I asked for clarification, by asking whether a few other situations counted as "virtue signaling". He has, I'm sorry to say, been mostly silent aside from a comment regarding strawmen which suggests that I didn't understand his meaning.

And I'm sorry to say this all looks like a DOK attack to me.

 

[phiwum]

Does it matter when someone boasts of their accomplishments? Is it significant when someone flaunts their tokens of membership in some arbitrary in-group? Gestures are just that: gestures. Their relevance, if any, depends entirely on their context, and on their intended audience.

It doesn't matter one way or the other why someone draws attention to an issue. It is the issue itself that ought to be evaluated.

That said, Kaepernick (sp?) brought attention to a matter that arguably deserves attention. Others have followed suit, though less dramatically since the first guy gets more attention. Whether or not black folk get killed by cops more often than they ought, let's talk about it and let's not pretend that the presumed fact that it was raised only for recognition matters at all.

In short, let's talk about the issues and let's leave our presumptions about why this or that person raised these issues bloody well out of it. In fact, we have a name for dragging these presumptions into the conversation. It is an ad hominem.

 

[phiwum]

And I'm sorry to say this all looks like a DOK attack to me.

Please pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what a DOK attack is.

Thanks.

 

[Cain]

I remember the first time I encountered the term "virtue-signaling" on this forum. I am generally interested in how people signal social status, so I was interested in a discussion about human behavior. In other words, I was completely naive. It turned out the OPer of that thread was using it as a political slur rather than offering any insight. Anyway, now I'm just going to say the n-word a bunch of times.

******
******
******

 

[phiwum]

I remember the first time I encountered the term "virtue-signaling" on this forum. I am generally interested in how people signal social status, so I was interested in a discussion about human behavior. In other words, I was completely naive. It turned out the OPer of that thread was using it as a political slur rather than offering any insight. Anyway, now I'm just going to say the n-word a bunch of times.

******
******
******

I confess that I'm not sure what you mean to convey here.

I really feel bad about my ignorance, since this post contains more words than you've written in a month, even ignoring the asterisks.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You make it sound like people are idiots, but they're not. Most usage variances are easily decoded in context, without any trouble. Sometimes, you have to ask a person for clarification. And then you have to keep track of their usage while you're talking to them. People arguing in good faith can easily clear up such minor misunderstandings as phiwum presents here, and then continue with their fruitful debate. All I'm saying is that it looked to me like Ziggurat was holding up his end of that bargain, but for whatever reason phiwum refused to cooperate. And now you're trying to say that such cooperation is impossible.

You suggested phiwum accept Ziggurat's loosey goosey criteria for what HE meant by virtue signalling. This discussion is about the use of the term. Your view, extrapolated, would mean that I then have to accept your definition if I'm discussing it with you and Argumemnon's when I'm discussing with him. Or that someone, bless his heart for trying, accept applecorped's. Will you accept bob the coward's? How about logger's? And then we can work on accepting caveman17's definition of some other term and Jabba's... and Kumar's.... and pretty soon it's Professor Irwin Corey meets the Three Stooges. You're going to erect a virtual Tower of Babel.

The dictionary comment was meant to be facetious but accurate. Words have meanings. Newer words/expressions have meanings that are in flux. This is actually a good discussion because the term arises often enough and is used as a dodge often enough that it'd be nice to know various interpretations.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Please pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what a DOK attack is.

Thanks.

"Denial of Knowledge." A form of faux-obtuseness where you pretend you don't understand what someone is saying and/or ask for clarification over and over to no end.

Not saying you are doing it, but it has become an annoyingly common argumentative delay tactic, especially here on the board.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again I think we're overcomplicating this.

Plenty of terms carry with them the explicit conceit that they talking about personal opinions about various actions. This makes them neither concrete nor meaningless.

I mean how do you "define" being selfish, or being a jerk, or being... well any motivation or emotion based action? Of course they exist, but they aren't concrete concepts because they are describing personal opinions about other people's motivations.

I think the "I consider your actions to be Virtue Signaling" to be implied in the phrase "You're virtue signaling" same way as it is implied in someone labeling someone's else actions with any emotional context, subtext, or similar concepts.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You make it sound like people are idiots, but they're not.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Your assumption is without merit.

 

[d4m10n]

FWIW, when I use the phrase "virtue signaling" I am (usually) talking about a relatively cheap way to broadcast moral superiority without making an actual sacrifice. For example, when Congressman Tim Murphy speaks out against abortion, that is virtue signaling. Had he begged his mistress NOT to get an abortion, that would have been actual virtue.

 

[Foolmewunz]

FWIW, when I use the phrase "virtue signaling" I am talking about a relatively cheap way to broadcast moral superiority without making an actual sacrifice. For example, when Congressman Tim Murphy speaks out against abortion, that is virtue signaling. Had he begged his mistress NOT to get an abortion, that would have been actual virtue.

"Virtue Signalling" would be sort of a minimum complaint against Murphy. Sorta like busting John Gotti for jaywalking en route to his sentencing hearing for multiple murders.

I wouldn't bother with virtue signalling for Murphy. He voted that way for a few years. "Hypocrisy" comes to mind. Ditto Ron Paul and his playing to the choir on earmarks when he appended them to legislation all the time. More hypocrisy.

Now, Donnie and Ivanka being the friends of the LGBT community? That's virtue signqalling, particularly when your hand-picked UN Ambassador then votes, on principle... some OTHER principle... to not condemn countries for imposing the death penalty for the crime of being LGBT. It was virtue signalling at the convention; to appeal to the in-group who support LGBT rights. It's promoted to hypocrisy, today, however.

 

[Belz...]

Please pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what a DOK attack is.

Thanks.

That one's on me, sorry. I coined the "denial of knowledge" term to refer to some posters who question the most basic concepts in order to avoid discussing the meat of the issue. Unfortunately the term quickly became corrupted as all new memes on the internet do, and now is thrown at anyone seeking to dig deeper into an issue.

It's like "strawman", which is often used as a catch-all "I don't agree with that" response.

 

[d4m10n]

I wouldn't bother with virtue signalling for Murphy. He voted that way for a few years. "Hypocrisy" comes to mind.

I never meant to imply that "virtue signaling" (as I use the term) was necessarily true signaling, providing Bayesian evidence of actual virtue. Indeed, it is often quite the opposite, as when outspoken male feminists are busted for serial misconduct.

EDIT: When we see someone giving up their time/money to help the victims of tragedy, that is a true signal of their virtue, but for whatever reason we don't generally label it as mere virtue signaling.

 

[theprestige]

You suggested phiwum accept Ziggurat's loosey goosey criteria for what HE meant by virtue signalling.

Once you know how a term is being defined in a conversation, accepting that definition is usually the quickest and cleanest way to continue the conversation. My suggestion assumes that continuing the conversation is a goal. This is not always the case.

This discussion is about the use of the term.

In lieu of accepting the usage in context and continuing the original conversation.

Your view, extrapolated, would mean that I then have to accept your definition if I'm discussing it with you and Argumemnon's when I'm discussing with him. Or that someone, bless his heart for trying, accept applecorped's.

With any luck you'll stumble across the general case pretty soon.

Will you accept bob the coward's? How about logger's?

If I want to have a conversation with them about their ideas, yes. It's a very simple process: First, find out how a person is using a term. Second, adopt that usage in order to communicate more clearly with them.

And then we can work on accepting caveman17's definition of some other term and Jabba's... and Kumar's.... and pretty soon it's Professor Irwin Corey meets the Three Stooges. You're going to erect a virtual Tower of Babel.

Or I'm going to adopt a temporary usage in order to advance a conversation about ideas instead of getting bogged down in a slap fight over definitions. It's not actually that hard, and you don't have to keep track of all of them forever. You can always just ask if you forget, or it's not clear from context.

The dictionary comment was meant to be facetious but accurate. Words have meanings. Newer words/expressions have meanings that are in flux. This is actually a good discussion because the term arises often enough and is used as a dodge often enough that it'd be nice to know various interpretations.

I agree that it'd be nice to know various interpretations. But doesn't this just bring you right back to your Tower of Babel problem? Most terms, in most conversations, are easily understood from a combination of shared linguistic experience and context. The terms that aren't, you can simply ask what the other person means, adopt the usage provisionally, and move the conversation forward.

Or you can slam the conversation to a halt, in order to argue about proper usage. Speaking of things that are used as a dodge often enough.

 

[theprestige]

Your assumption is without merit.

Appeal to Hollywood conspiracy theory tropes?

Besides, that's a reference to people collectively, the so-called "herd" or "mob". I'm obviously referring to people as a synonym for individuals, plural. Which should have been obvious from context. I mean, that's some Thought Curvature-tier word association you've got there.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

<preface material>

I invite anyone to give me a clear means for determining the difference between "virtue signalling" and expressing one's opinion without significant sacrifice.

We may have some dissimilar terminology.

Virtue Signalling: Attempting to gain social capital through conspicuous association with with an idea or position.

I'd say "expressing one's opinion without significant sacrifice" is the definition of "paying lip service" instead.

Or that could be just so much hair-splitting.

Notice that, epistemologically speaking, even the popularity condition is meaningless, since one could always assert that the speaker is trying to appeal to those who agree with the speaker's opinion, a group in which the speaker's opinion is undeniably popular. Hence, unless we can determine which "social circles" are relevant prior to applying the definition, that clause of Zig's necessary conditions is nigh meaningless.

Now, I do not consider NFL players to be engaging in "virtue signalling" by my proposed definitions. They have massive social capital being NFL players. They are, in fact, placing that capital at risk (voiding the "lip service" definition) in order to influence the opinions of others (not simply to make their own opinion "known" or "signalled"). One is self-serving, the other is akin to philanthropy, spending money on a social cause.

If a billionaire implores others to pay heed to a cause and they've put none of their own assets to the task, that's lip service and likely virtue signalling. If they offer a matching grant to spearhead a funding drive that inspires others to give, that's another thing entirely.

These players are offering a matching grant, with the social capital equivalent of "deep pockets" to draw on.

Thus, my question: in this forum, does the term "virtue signalling" really mean anything other than "expressing a position I don't like without making much sacrifice to do so"? (Related: do NFL players make a sacrifice to take a knee? That's probably more relevant in the other thread.)

The base issue at play is a question of authenticity. So it can either be a serious consideration of potential motives or it can just be a bludgeon to create FUD (since none of us are mind readers). How it is used depends on the wielder, and...well, their authenticity.

Around and around it goes.

 

[phiwum]

We may have some dissimilar terminology.

Virtue Signalling: Attempting to gain social capital through conspicuous association with with an idea or position.

I'd say "expressing one's opinion without significant sacrifice" is the definition of "paying lip service" instead.

Or that could be just so much hair-splitting.



Now, I do not consider NFL players to be engaging in "virtue signalling" by my proposed definitions. They have massive social capital being NFL players. They are, in fact, placing that capital at risk (voiding the "lip service" definition) in order to influence the opinions of others (not simply to make their own opinion "known" or "signalled"). One is self-serving, the other is akin to philanthropy, spending money on a social cause.

If a billionaire implores others to pay heed to a cause and they've put none of their own assets to the task, that's lip service and likely virtue signalling. If they offer a matching grant to spearhead a funding drive that inspires others to give, that's another thing entirely.

These players are offering a matching grant, with the social capital equivalent of "deep pockets" to draw on.



The base issue at play is a question of authenticity. So it can either be a serious consideration of potential motives or it can just be a bludgeon to create FUD (since none of us are mind readers). How it is used depends on the wielder, and...well, their authenticity.

Around and around it goes.

First, of course there is likely to be some disagreement over the meaning of a new term (a term which apparently was coined by that paragon of intellectual clarity, "Less than Wrong").

I have to say that even if a billionaire doesn't put his skin in the game, but he expresses support for this or that issue, I'm reluctant to decide that his support is mere posturing. It might be, but how could I tell? I might object that he has resources to spend and refuses to do so, and I honestly think that might be evidence of the shallowness of his commitment, but I can't be too certain, can I?

I agree with your analysis of NFL kneelers. They're putting their money where their mouths are.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Appeal to Hollywood conspiracy theory tropes?

Besides, that's a reference to people collectively, the so-called "herd" or "mob". I'm obviously referring to people as a synonym for individuals, plural. Which should have been obvious from context. I mean, that's some Thought Curvature-tier word association you've got there.

That's some sense of humor you got there! (Did you really think I was seriously quoting Agent K?)

 

[Belz...]

(Did you really think I was seriously quoting Agent K?)

Be fair, FMW. These days you can never know.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Amen.

Seconded