Society/Culture Virtue signalling

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Of all the terms to come into the lexicon in the past few years, this is one of the more bizarre.

I havent got Thomas the Tank Engine's most recent definition at hand, but it's the public expression of an opinion to demonstrate one's moral character.

This is usually applied as a pejorative when someone publicly denounces racism/sexism/sexual assault/whatever. And for some reason, that is seen as a bad thing.

Here are other acts of virtue signalling.

The thing is, the act of engaging in meaningful human interaction with a cultural or political purpose can meet the definition of virtue signalling. Waving a flag, attending a dawn service, singing at church.

It's another dumb term has infected political debate.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

What is the point of being such a good person of high moral character if you cannot tell everyone about it and denounce others not on your level of worthiness?

 

[ShanDog]

I think you conflate what the original creation of the phrase was intended to convey with simple acts of cultural participation.

For example, attending an ANZAC Day service for all serving and ex-serving personnel (and families by extension) is a culturally expected and voluntarily entered into. Jumping on Facebook after attending and ranting about soy boys and commies refusing to attend as un-Australian is virtue signalling.

Singing in a church service is an act of cultural participation within the church. Standing at a pulpit and denouncing heathens as immoral rapists and murderers is virtue signalling.

Going to an Australia Day celebration... etc etc.

As best I've understood it, the term virtue signalling was either created (or popularised) as a description of someone who announces or publicly displays their acts/beliefs with the intent of showing a moral superiority over others. The italics creates a very important distinction.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yeah it seems a side effect of social media - need to show everyone how good I am So I get likes

Fortunately for me I am an evil selfish campaigner who doesn't use much social media (Bigfooty excepted and it's really entertainment)

 

[The Edukator]

this is done by the rabid left mostly.

 

[Reynolds Number]

Am I a lesser person because I choose not to post stuff on facebook/twitter/instagram about Anzac Day on Anzac Day?

 

[ShanDog]

Am I a lesser person because I choose not to post stuff on facebook/twitter/instagram about Anzac Day on Anzac Day?

Of course not. If someone says otherwise, they are virtue signalling and should be ridiculed until your throat is hoarse.

 

[SwampCreature]

I would never virtue signal, I’m too much of a good person.

 

[bombersfan4000]

this is done by the rabid left mostly.

Wait for the the usual response
Nazi
Homophobic
Islamaphobe
Bigot

 

[Proud SJW]

I think you conflate what the original creation of the phrase was intended to convey with simple acts of cultural participation.

Spot on.
It's been pointed out to him before.

It's a fairly common issue - the devolution of language goes hand-in-hand with the increased participation from all levels of society the internet makes possible and encourages.

I also think there's a bit more to it, but I've yet to find words.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Like "political correctness" before it, "virtue signalling" has become a catch-all term for things right wingers don't give a s**t about.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I think you conflate what the original creation of the phrase was intended to convey with simple acts of cultural participation.


As best I've understood it, the term virtue signalling was either created (or popularised) as a description of someone who announces or publicly displays their acts/beliefs with the intent of showing a moral superiority over others. The italics creates a very important distinction.

I tend to agree. So why then is it applied to people attending women's marches, or movements against sexual assault, or for movements trying to address racial discrimination? Only the most bizarre portions of society reject these things, and we all participate in these movements in some way.

And the moral superiority thing. This isn't a post-modern society. Most of the human humans believe sexual assault, discrimination and violence against women are wrong. Those positions are morally superior.

 

[ShanDog]

I tend to agree. So why then is it applied to people attending women's marches, or movements against sexual assault, or for movements trying to address racial discrimination? Only the most bizarre portions of society reject these things, and we all participate in these movements in some way.

And the moral superiority thing. This isn't a post-modern society. Most of the human humans believe sexual assault, discrimination and violence against women are wrong. Those positions are morally superior.

I agree too. I think the labelling of those marches as virtue signalling (in that particular example) is done exactly because of what you pointed out - as a whole, we all believe in equality. But the thing that turns people off the displays being put on is their partisan nature against conservatives or those who see our society as largely equal. From the perspective of someone who thinks what the marches are advocating for is already achieved, the perception of them becomes just a form of slapping yourself on the back and shouting from the rooftops (well... Streets) that you are morally virtuous. It's all perspective on the issue.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I think you conflate what the original creation of the phrase was intended to convey with simple acts of cultural participation.

For example, attending an ANZAC Day service for all serving and ex-serving personnel (and families by extension) is a culturally expected and voluntarily entered into. Jumping on Facebook after attending and ranting about soy boys and commies refusing to attend as un-Australian is virtue signalling.

Singing in a church service is an act of cultural participation within the church. Standing at a pulpit and denouncing heathens as immoral rapists and murderers is virtue signalling.

Going to an Australia Day celebration... etc etc.

As best I've understood it, the term virtue signalling was either created (or popularised) as a description of someone who announces or publicly displays their acts/beliefs with the intent of showing a moral superiority over others. The italics creates a very important distinction.

The bit in italics is subjective, however. One person's morals can be very different to anothers, and there are lots of occasions where people's opinions are related to their morals. Indeed, the idea of giving someone a second chance (i.e. acknowledging moral weakness) has undoubtedly been dismissed as 'virtue signalling' ('you think you're morally superior for giving someone a second chance!').

Would you describe it as 'virtue signalling' if an Islamophobe suggested Islam had 'fundamental' elements that make it's proponents unacceptable to the west? Is that not a judgement of their morals, or a suggestion that 'the West' has superior morals? Calling something 'backwards' implies superiority.

The term is rarely used as 'Get off your high horse'. It is used to label and dismiss someone, in the same way the alt-right claims calling someone 'racist' labels and dismisses them. Except the central accusation is 'you are broadcasting your good morals' verses 'you have bad morals'. I'd suggest those criticisms are not equal, unless the former is hypocritical and the 'virtue signaller' actually has bad morals. In which case 'amoral hypocrite' is a more cutting criticism.

But still, if you genuinely worry about how labels can create a kind of censorship, then you shouldn't accept criticising people for broadcasting their ideas and morals about equality, while arguing others should be allowed to broadcast their ideas and morals about races being better off separate. Right?

 

[ShanDog]

bit in italics is subjective, however. One person's morals can be very different to anothers, and there are lots of occasions where people's opinions are related to their morals. Indeed, the idea of giving someone a second chance (i.e. acknowledging moral weakness) has undoubtedly been dismissed as 'virtue signalling' ('you think you're morally superior for giving someone a second chance!').

No doubt. As I posted after, it's all a case of perspective on a given issue.

Would you describe it as 'virtue signalling' if an Islamophobe suggested Islam had 'fundamental' elements that make it's proponents unacceptable to the west? Is that not a judgement of their morals, or a suggestion that 'the West' has superior morals? Calling something 'backwards' implies superiority.

I guess you could say it's virtue signalling, but it doesn't seem to really fit the mould as I understand it. If there's a virtue signalling element, it's more the subtext of that argument I would have thought. It would depend on how the argument is framed I guess. Not as cut and dry as where the term virtue signalling really came to prominence and is used most, so not easy to draw distinctions. We're talking about a fairly loosely defined and culturally tied up phrase.

The term is rarely used as 'Get off your high horse'. It is used to label and dismiss someone, in the same way the alt-right claims calling someone 'racist' labels and dismisses them. Except the central accusation is 'you are broadcasting your good morals' verses 'you have bad morals'. I'd suggest those criticisms are not equal, unless the former is hypocritical and the 'virtue signaller' actually has bad morals. In which case 'amoral hypocrite' is a more cutting criticism.

It's definitely a dismissive term, or at the very least, a pejorative. It is often associated with hypocrisy these days too, particularly with regard to feminist males and those in Holywood as people on the right dig up more cases of those they label virtue signallers being caught doing shady things.

But still, if you genuinely worry about how labels can create a kind of censorship, then you shouldn't accept criticising people for broadcasting their ideas and morals about equality, while arguing others should be allowed to broadcast their ideas and morals about races being better off separate. Right?

This is about freedom of speech as an absolute right or a relative one etc. I don't know the answer to be frank. When you say "you" in that post, are you referring to me, or just in general?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

No doubt. As I posted after, it's all a case of perspective on a given issue.

I guess you could say it's virtue signalling, but it doesn't seem to really fit the mould as I understand it. If there's a virtue signalling element, it's more the subtext of that argument I would have thought. It would depend on how the argument is framed I guess. Not as cut and dry as where the term virtue signalling really came to prominence and is used most, so not easy to draw distinctions. We're talking about a fairly loosely defined and culturally tied up phrase.


It's definitely a dismissive term, or at the very least, a pejorative. It is often associated with hypocrisy these days too, particularly with regard to feminist males and those in Holywood as people on the right dig up more cases of those they label virtue signallers being caught doing shady things.


This is about freedom of speech as an absolute right or a relative one etc. I don't know the answer to be frank. When you say "you" in that post, are you referring to me, or just in general?

Generally. But it's a very obvious contradiction for the right because they constantly use labels to dismiss people, while complaining that their movement is currently motivated by how often "leftists" use labels to dismiss people.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if the right saw the success of terms like 'clicktavism' (a criticism from the left as much as about the left), but wanted to think of something similar that could be used for any political action, not just online action. By having a general term, that could conflate the meaning with anything left-wing to help with their propaganda.

It's also a term used as if symbolism isn't important. e.g. Labor got rid of discrimination against homosexual couples, but the symbolic one - 'marriage' remained. Support for that change, especially prior to the postal survey, could've been dismissed as 'virtue signalling'. But all that support eventually led to a change in policy. 'Signalling' is often not a bad thing.

Now when it comes to someone making up a story, like what happened in the lead up to that #I'llridewithyou thing. That's different and is worth highlighting. But of course right-wingers make up stories too (especially about how bad Muslims or immigrants are). Does it need a special label? Probably not.

 

[King Brown]

It's a synonym for being sanctimonious.

 

[Dixie Normous]

Up there with 'selfie', 'foodie', 'pop-up', 'my bad' and 'meh' as the most idiotic enraging terms invented. Sounds like some catchcry some dork made up when he was desperately trying to hashtag for attention.

 

[YEWNIT]

This thread could only of been started by the Mangina Knight himself.

Virtue signalling is a very real thing I’m afraid.

The ‘alt right’ may of named it, but it’s the w***ers of the post modernist left that created it.

Justin Trudeau has turned it into an art form.

 

[awaremind]

It's about displaying your self-righteousness, and thus obnoxious. Even Jesus said do not let your even your right hand know of the good deeds of your left.

 

[HairyO]

I always thought it was what the perpetually outraged do on Twitter. In the game of one upmanship where you prove you are more upset over an issue than anyone else and how everyone must pay for their misdeeds.

Like apparently Jennifer Lawrence wore a dress when it was cold. FOR SHAME !!

 

[Snake_Baker]

Zizek sums it up well. It's narcissism.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

This thread could only of been started by the Mangina Knight himself

You called him the bully, remember.

I see virtue signalling as when people disingenuously take a position to appear good, as opposed to those who take positions because they mean it.

Recent examples are Hillary Clinton ostensibly caring about women speaking out against sexual crimes or Joyce and family values.

There's something about those things that inherently angers me. Similar to when someone you know doesn't care about football at all, yet suddenly pretends to love it to impress someone.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I see virtue signalling as when people disingenuously take a position to appear good.........

Do you mean.......people like this?

 

[Thats Wright]

Of all the terms to come into the lexicon in the past few years, this is one of the more bizarre.

I havent got Thomas the Tank Engine's most recent definition at hand, but it's the public expression of an opinion to demonstrate one's moral character.

This is usually applied as a pejorative when someone publicly denounces racism/sexism/sexual assault/whatever. And for some reason, that is seen as a bad thing.

Here are other acts of virtue signalling.

The thing is, the act of engaging in meaningful human interaction with a cultural or political purpose can meet the definition of virtue signalling. Waving a flag, attending a dawn service, singing at church.

It's another dumb term has infected political debate.

Unfortunately there's a minority of social media that are trapped in the written context of their existence.

They don't really get the real world application of their 'cry for help'.

Breaking out in pink eye after seeing their own flag sort of makes you wonder if this person just missed out on 'being told' while growing up or needs a different perspective. Suckling on the little picture just means you probably need a reality check.