Virtue-signalling Into Tyranny

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It is objectively more beneficial to society than any selfish preening you wish to take part in.

Measured in units of Misanthrope's 'feels'? lol

So you're fine with virtue signalling - just has to be your version of it D:

So this Boston March - the one after Charlottesville tainted by nazis with tiki torches and some crazy racist dude mowing people down in the road - that's the one where Augustus Invictus was meant to speak? The guy who was ousted from the American Guard for his 'poisonous ideas'? A bit of racist white supremacist, supposedly.

The American Guard which was at Charlottesville, and was formed in 2016 by the creator of the Vinlanders Social Club in 2003, Brien james. The Vinlanders Social Club, which was a racist skinhead group. The American guard, who were at Charlottesville, apparently provided 'security' at Boston.

Sorry, that was obvious 'virtue signalling' - not a fan racist neo nazis, sadly. Been watching Richard Spencer in some recent debates - he's also a bit of a nazi edgelord.

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It is objectively more beneficial to society than any selfish preening you wish to take part in.

Measured in units of Misanthrope's 'feels'? lol

So you're fine with virtue signalling - just has to be your version of it D:

So this Boston March - the one after Charlottesville tainted by nazis with tiki torches and some crazy racist dude mowing people down in the road - that's the one where Augustus Invictus was meant to speak? The guy who was ousted from the American Guard for his 'poisonous ideas'? A bit of racist white supremacist, supposedly.

The American Guard which was at Charlottesville, and was formed in 2016 by the creator of the Vinlanders Social Club in 2003, Brien james. The Vinlanders Social Club, which was a racist skinhead group. The American guard, who were at Charlottesville, apparently provided 'security' at Boston.

Sorry, that was obvious 'virtue signalling' - not a fan racist neo nazis, sadly. Been watching Richard Spencer in some recent debates - he's also a bit of a nazi edgelord.

Merely looking at history suffices.

No, virtue signalling is to display virtues one could never earn otherwise. One can still speak of virtues and be virtuous. Engaging in virtue-signalling while at the same time engaging in tyranny is vastly different.

It was a free speech rally, full stop.

I’m not a fan of nasism either, but I’m not going to deny their human rights while pretending I’m not doing what the Nazis did.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Engaging in virtue-signalling while at the same time engaging in tyranny is vastly different.

Sounds a bit like nazis to me. Working for the glory of the 'fatherland' and clearing out the (cultural) marxists blah blah.

The problem is this is your subjective interpretation. I've listened to those on the alt-right - they are mainly repackaged modern nazism. Even down to the racial realism, scientific racism, and white/aryan ethnostate paraphilia.

They can hide their toxic ideology behind a veneer of freedom marching, but doesn't take much to see the Aryan Wizards behind the curtain if you pay enough attention.

Not my problem, anyway. We generally laugh at neo-nazis over here D:

Found what I was looking for. Nice study...

J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017 Sep;113(3):413-429. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000095. Epub 2017 Apr 17.
Freedom of racist speech: Ego and expressive threats.
White MH1, Crandall CS1.
Author information
Abstract
Do claims of "free speech" provide cover for prejudice? We investigate whether this defense of racist or hate speech serves as a justification for prejudice. In a series of 8 studies (N = 1,624), we found that explicit racial prejudice is a reliable predictor of the "free speech defense" of racist expression. Participants endorsed free speech values for singing racists songs or posting racist comments on social media; people high in prejudice endorsed free speech more than people low in prejudice (meta-analytic r = .43). This endorsement was not principled-high levels of prejudice did not predict endorsement of free speech values when identical speech was directed at coworkers or the police. Participants low in explicit racial prejudice actively avoided endorsing free speech values in racialized conditions compared to nonracial conditions, but participants high in racial prejudice increased their endorsement of free speech values in racialized conditions. Three experiments failed to find evidence that defense of racist speech by the highly prejudiced was based in self-relevant or self-protective motives. Two experiments found evidence that the free speech argument protected participants' own freedom to express their attitudes; the defense of other's racist speech seems motivated more by threats to autonomy than threats to self-regard. These studies serve as an elaboration of the Justification-Suppression Model (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) of prejudice expression. The justification of racist speech by endorsing fundamental political values can serve to buffer racial and hate speech from normative disapproval.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Some amount of virtue signalling is normal, and to be expected in the normal course of discourse among strangers, or simple acquaintences. For example, both of the above posters made it a point to let it be known they don't like Nazi's. The second of whom did so obviously to make sure that the point being made immediately thereafter was not misconstrued.

Virtue signalling, in its most normal form, is just how we ensure that people who may misconstrue us, do not. Its meant to clarify communication.

Beyond this, we have what the OP actually refers to: self aggrandizement. In this, or another, thread he made mention that its all about promoting the social media persona. *** Side note: lets be honest....to most folks, their social media accounts are purely a persona. See above reference to self aggrandizement. And honestly, it all boils down to a Digital Ego (a great man once spoke of this in relation to ATS, which we see played out in tit for tat on these pages daily). Only the most "together", and the hottest messes, portray an accurate picture of themselves in social media. The rest try to groom what they put out to portray an image of themselves that, often times, is nothing close to real. ***

The majority of the virtue signalling that you see is in support of various digital ego's that the user may have.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

The majority of the virtue signalling that you see is in support of various digital ego's that the user may have.

Nice post (:

Essentially it goes across the board - I assume the people attending both Boston and Charlottesville attended for their own reasons - some would see those reasons as having virtue etc etc. Same for those who attended as protesting the marches.

See the same on twitter - either left/right, liberal/conservative etc etc. Really simple heuristics. Take Kesuko's point - true, many people waffle and makie pretty speeches online - but I'm sure many also do act in the real world in some way. We can't really know who does and doesn't from simple words in the internet :/

Even marching and protesting - might seem to matter, but oftentimes can be pretty meaningless in the grand scheme...

Even the term virtue signalling is a form of virtue signalling D:

a reply to: melatonin

Everyone engages the world while staring through the lens of their own biases, experiences, etc.

When I make a decision, its made leveraging the whole of who I am. It is likely that my political beliefs bleed into my daily life, but its most likely that this is more due to the roots causes of my belief causing me to behave in specific ways, think in specific ways, etc. For example, i have strong libertarian ideals. And I am also a very independant, "pull yourself up by the bootstraps", no excuses kind of person. These 2 traits likely derive from the same source inside of me, inside my personality.

In any event, im sure that everyone allows their politics to impact the daily world. Thing is, in most polite interactions im part of, and witness to, little in the way of politics is overtly involved. So when someone does something you don't like, only the most dense retorts with "They're probably a Hillary voting snowflake", or some such. There isn't any social validation from it...its mostly unwelcome.

Always thought this was a weird phrase. Never heard of it until last year. Only Conservatives use it that I've heard of? But I would think that any human regardless of philosophy could use that term, yes? For those behind the times as I am...

vir·tue sig·nal·ing
noun
the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

Seems legit, but how do we know that someone isn't just expressing an opinion? I would think it would be easy to accuse anyone of virtue signaling. Let's put out a few examples.

Going to church. Are you really going to church to pray and worship or are they virtue signaling?

Attending a political rally...meaning in support of your candidate. You can more ably support your candidate with your vote, but by attending a rally you're virtue signaling.

Posting on ATS. We're all anonymous here so every post is virtue signaling. "Hey look at me and my cool opinion" Yes?

Working out at the gym. Most workouts can be done without the Gym unless you don't have a bench or squatrack, but you can workout to a you tube video, run down the street, do pushups and crunches on your kitchen floor. You're virtue signalling if you go to the gym.

Everything we do in public whether we are athiests, christians, repubicans, scientoligists, liberals, libertarians, buddists, gym rats, etc is virtue signaling so as to make that phrase nearly obsolete as to be meaningless? Of course this post is virtue signalling as was the OP and every post on this thread because were not just expressing our opinions we want everyone to know what our opinions are and how cool our opinions are. LOL

Thoughts?

Editing to add....confirmation bias. If we all have confirmation bias on every issue and every opinion how can we even use that term in a conversation directed at each other. "You just can see it because of your confirmation bias" makes no sense since both parties in the conversation have confirmation bias.

a reply to: melatonin

No, it’s a series of arguments and I included evidence. You happen to find one person who didn’t even speak there as evidence enough to paint the whole rally as racist, while suppressing counter evidence, yet dismiss my arguments as subjective.

Yes you generally laugh at neo-Nazis over there. You also criminalize tweets and jokes over there as well. But luckily for you it wasn’t just the Nazis that engaged in that kind of censorship and thought-policing.

a reply to: amazing

It’s not that complicated. For instance Harvey Weinstein marched in the women’s march and started a foundation with the goal of helping women in the industry. He was also a vicious rapist. Often enough, pretending to be virtuous is a disguise for either self-seeking, even malicious reasons.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

It’s not that complicated. For instance Harvey Weinstein marched in the women’s march and started a foundation with the goal of helping women in the industry. He was also a viscous rapist. Often enough, pretending to be virtuous is a disguise for either self-seeking, even malicious reasons.

And that I can see, but that's not what we're talking about here. We generally use that term to insult someone who's opinion we don't agree with. Like I said. We all virtue signal in virtually every thing we say or type.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

It’s not that complicated. For instance Harvey Weinstein marched in the women’s march and started a foundation with the goal of helping women in the industry. He was also a viscous rapist. Often enough, pretending to be virtuous is a disguise for either self-seeking, even malicious reasons.

And that I can see, but that's not what we're talking about here. We generally use that term to insult someone who's opinion we don't agree with. Like I said. We all virtue signal in virtually every thing we say or type.

Yes it can be used wrongly, or as a term of insult, but it also accurately describes the phenomenon.

a reply to: amazing

Actions speak louder than words.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Those phrases strike right to the heart of the matter we're discussing here, and because half of the equation in relation to anyone speaking in this thread can never be known, not in the way it would need to be to really prove who is or is not a person of virtue in the way that would be needed, then we're only going to have half the conversation.

I'll refer you back to my post in this thread about #BringBackOurGirls. It was started after all those Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram. It was billed as such a wonderful way to express our virtue and raise awareness and I believe it trended on Twitter, but what exactly did it actually do for those Nigerian schoolgirls?

Hashtag movements like that one are the height of empty virtue. All you have to do is make a meaningless Tweet. All it does is make you feel good and let you show all your friends how aware you are and how much you care about that hashtag and its attached issue, but there is no actual work or donation or anything else involved with it.

Contrast that with the guy who went to med school and then went into something like doctors without borders and volunteers to go into hard, dangerous, dirty, even openly plague ridden situations, and never talks about it anywhere. He just does it because it needs doing, not because there's money or anything else in it. Or people who volunteer to work in any capacity of service similar.

Who has more virtue?

But to come into this discussion and talk about it the second person I mentioned whoever that person could be would lose some of that virtue just by posting about it. Yes, to talk about it would be a form of virtue signalling. Virtue is what you do, not what you say, but the only way people here will ever know what any of us does is through what we say, and that's a catch-22.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

It’s not that complicated. For instance Harvey Weinstein marched in the women’s march and started a foundation with the goal of helping women in the industry. He was also a viscous rapist. Often enough, pretending to be virtuous is a disguise for either self-seeking, even malicious reasons.

And that I can see, but that's not what we're talking about here. We generally use that term to insult someone who's opinion we don't agree with. Like I said. We all virtue signal in virtually every thing we say or type.

Yes it can be used wrongly, or as a term of insult, but it also accurately describes the phenomenon.

As did I. Apparently we're virtue signalling our confirmation bias on this issue. We just have two different opinions about it.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

It’s not that complicated. For instance Harvey Weinstein marched in the women’s march and started a foundation with the goal of helping women in the industry. He was also a viscous rapist. Often enough, pretending to be virtuous is a disguise for either self-seeking, even malicious reasons.

And that I can see, but that's not what we're talking about here. We generally use that term to insult someone who's opinion we don't agree with. Like I said. We all virtue signal in virtually every thing we say or type.

Yes it can be used wrongly, or as a term of insult, but it also accurately describes the phenomenon.

As did I. Apparently we're virtue signalling our confirmation bias on this issue. We just have two different opinions about it.

No, sharing opinions is not virtue signalling. Unless you’re promoting yourself by pretending to be virtuous, you’re not virtue signalling.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Actions speak louder than words.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Those phrases strike right to the heart of the matter we're discussing here, and because half of the equation in relation to anyone speaking in this thread can never be known, not in the way it would need to be to really prove who is or is not a person of virtue in the way that would be needed, then we're only going to have half the conversation.

I'll refer you back to my post in this thread about #BringBackOurGirls. It was started after all those Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram. It was billed as such a wonderful way to express our virtue and raise awareness and I believe it trended on Twitter, but what exactly did it actually do for those Nigerian schoolgirls?

Hashtag movements like that one are the height of empty virtue. All you have to do is make a meaningless Tweet. All it does is make you feel good and let you show all your friends how aware you are and how much you care about that hashtag and its attached issue, but there is no actual work or donation or anything else involved with it.

Contrast that with the guy who went to med school and then went into something like doctors without borders and volunteers to go into hard, dangerous, dirty, even openly plague ridden situations, and never talks about it anywhere. He just does it because it needs doing, not because there's money or anything else in it. Or people who volunteer to work in any capacity of service similar.

Who has more virtue?

But to come into this discussion and talk about it the second person I mentioned whoever that person could be would lose some of that virtue just by posting about it. Yes, to talk about it would be a form of virtue signalling. Virtue is what you do, not what you say, but the only way people here will ever know what any of us does is through what we say, and that's a catch-22.

You make some valid points and you said it about bringbackourgirls. Same thing as the 22 pushup challenge and the ice bucket challenge. They all bring awareness and keep those issues fresh in our minds, so that's a good thing but they are all virtue signalling as well. We can't get away from it. Everything we do is virtue signalling except the real gritty stuff, like boots on the ground, voting, donating real money and time and materials etc.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

It’s not that complicated. For instance Harvey Weinstein marched in the women’s march and started a foundation with the goal of helping women in the industry. He was also a viscous rapist. Often enough, pretending to be virtuous is a disguise for either self-seeking, even malicious reasons.

And that I can see, but that's not what we're talking about here. We generally use that term to insult someone who's opinion we don't agree with. Like I said. We all virtue signal in virtually every thing we say or type.

Yes it can be used wrongly, or as a term of insult, but it also accurately describes the phenomenon.

As did I. Apparently we're virtue signalling our confirmation bias on this issue. We just have two different opinions about it.

No, sharing opinions is not virtue signalling. Unless you’re promoting yourself by pretending to be virtuous, you’re not virtue signalling.

But as you've said on other threads, if words really don't cause any harm, why would you feel the need to bring up virtue signalling, by words?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

It’s not that complicated. For instance Harvey Weinstein marched in the women’s march and started a foundation with the goal of helping women in the industry. He was also a viscous rapist. Often enough, pretending to be virtuous is a disguise for either self-seeking, even malicious reasons.

And that I can see, but that's not what we're talking about here. We generally use that term to insult someone who's opinion we don't agree with. Like I said. We all virtue signal in virtually every thing we say or type.

Yes it can be used wrongly, or as a term of insult, but it also accurately describes the phenomenon.

As did I. Apparently we're virtue signalling our confirmation bias on this issue. We just have two different opinions about it.

No, sharing opinions is not virtue signalling. Unless you’re promoting yourself by pretending to be virtuous, you’re not virtue signalling.

But as you've said on other threads, if words really don't cause any harm, why would you feel the need to bring up virtue signalling, by words?

I don’t understand.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

It’s not that complicated. For instance Harvey Weinstein marched in the women’s march and started a foundation with the goal of helping women in the industry. He was also a viscous rapist. Often enough, pretending to be virtuous is a disguise for either self-seeking, even malicious reasons.

And that I can see, but that's not what we're talking about here. We generally use that term to insult someone who's opinion we don't agree with. Like I said. We all virtue signal in virtually every thing we say or type.

Yup.

And the term 'virtue signalling' is often found closely located to calls for 'free speech', some supposed form of 'freedom' (usually to insult and express hate speech), railing against the ephemeral 'cultural marxism' and 'social justice warrior', labelling people 'cucks' or 'snowflakes', casual racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, and even anti-semitism.

It is a term I see as a form of virtue signalling - the people using it are generally signalling, just as readily as anyone using the term 'intersectionlity', their own sociopolitical virtues and values. It has recently let me know in a simple heuristic the sort of person I'm probably dealing with. Not always, as it is simple rule of thumb like any heuristic, but works as a quick stereotypical label and most often is on the ball.

A somewhat comparable term used by people considered 'liberal' or on the left of the political spectrum is the term 'dogwhistle'. So it works as a dogwhistle in the current climate in that they may also be associated with the alt-right style of calls for freedom, free speech etc etc - values and virtues they seem to hold dear to their hearts - although, at heart, this often merely involves freedom to wield guns and express prejudice and hate to minorities and vulnerable social groups. Whereas someone waffling about 'intersectionality' is producing a comparable signal about their social justice warrior credentials and virtues D:

Another term that has been used in the social science literature is 'symbolic racism' - where the background sociopolitical attitudes and values (can be applied more widely than racism) are hidden and coded by less obvious symbolic language.

The term 'virtue signalling' is effectively a vacuous alt-right buzzword used to denigrate 'social justice warriors' and people who attempt to bring attention towards wider social issues by those who prefer attention on their own favoured social issues. Almost could be considered a symbolic and coercive attempt to denigrate potential prosociality, silence voices, and shape behaviour...

The OPs thesis hangs on this tentative thread - the rally/march was just about free speech 'it was a free speech rally, full stop'! It was nothing like the Charlottesville neo-nazi tiki-wielding murderous hate 'free speech' rally fiasco, look at the (squirrel!!) 'violent' virtue signalling social justice warriors - they are driving us to tyranny... narf!

I suppose if you don't look behind the curtain the OPs thesis may well hold together with some duct tape and a quick whitewash (;

Take care all. Happy new year as well (:

a reply to: melatonin

After reading through this, about all im taking away is that you paint with a broad brush based on the vernacular.

That seems beyond absurd.

a reply to: amazing

I picked the term up from Hefficide. Who is anything but conservative