dimanche 1 octobre 2017

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

The mods seem to bristle at somewhat off-topic digressions in the Trump and NFL thread, for reasons that are not altogether clear. Now, I am a good and obedient fella, not wanting to make waves, so let me split the discussion I wanted to have with Ziggurat here. It begins with Zig saying that those football players who take a knee during the anthem are merely "virtue signalling". I replied flippantly thus, followed by the rest of the discussion before moderation kicked in (though this discussion was not moved to AAH).

Quote:

Originally Posted by phiwum (Post 12012803)
Virtue signalling: when someone takes a stand I don't like.

To be distinguished from acting on principle, which is taking a stand I like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12012882)
Not at all. When antifa assaults someone for having the wrong views, that's not virtue signalling. They're putting their money where their mouth is. That's real action. I consider it evil action, but it's undoubtedly genuine.

Nice try, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phiwum (Post 12012983)
Standing for the anthem: virtue signalling or simply abiding by social conventions?

Complaining about PC excesses: virtue signalling or expressing an opinion?

NRA stickers on your pickup truck: virtue signalling or expressing political support?

You use the term "virtue signalling" to dismiss others' expressions of political and moral opinions. It is dismissive and utterly biased in the way you use the term. Many folk express opinions without laying their lives or livelihoods on the line (and arguably, some of the kneelers are putting their money where their mouths are) and tain't a damn thing shameful or dubious about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12013136)
Again, this is not so. For example, I don't consider expressing opinions which are unpopular in your social circles to be virtue signaling, for reasons that should be obvious. I also don't consider expressions which contain significant effort and reasoning to be virtue signaling. To be virtue signaling, it must be popular in your social circle (or the circle you aspire to), and it must be cheap and easy to do.



If you want to argue that I'm being too cynical, go ahead. Hell, I even described my own interpretation as being cynical. And you don't have to agree with me. But at least do me the courtesy of not trying any more straw men. It's a futile effort. There are more productive uses of both our time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phiwum (Post 12013156)
I offered no straw men. I seriously asked your opinion on those three activities. You snipped those questions and pretend they are strawmen, but the highlighted gives us enough to determine your answers anyway.[1]

Standing for the anthem: popular, easy to do, hence virtue signalling

Kneeling for the anthem: unpopular in almost every context, hence not virtue signalling. Maybe virtue signalling if one aspires to be a detested liberal protestor.

Complaining about PC gone wild: Popular in conservative circles, easy to do, hence virtue signalling when done in conservative circles (or aspiring to same). Not virtue signalling when done at UC Berkeley or Evergreen State.

NRA stickers: Again, popular in conservative circles, easy to do, so virtue signalling in Tulsa, not in Cambridge.

If my reasoning is mistaken, do let me know. I'm simply trying to apply the criteria you just gave in an unbiased manner. You needn't accuse me of strawmen, since you left the questions unanswered but provided criteria which seem clear enough.

[1] To be fair, you stated these as necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions. Hence, only the negative results (e.g. kneeling is not virtue signalling) can be stated with confidence.

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

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.

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.)


via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2xQB46l

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire