In my experience, people who use the term "virtue signalling" don't understand the problems that the supposed virtue signalers are trying to solve and simply use the term as a cheap dismissal of their policies. If the policies are bad, explain why they're bad. Don't just say that people putting the 10 Commandments in schools are virtue signalling.

▲

exe34 7 months ago | parent [-]

Or indeed, it's possible that neither you nor the virtue signallers understand why they're doing it.

▲

lern_too_spel 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

I understand that they're trying to fix a perceived problem. In the case of the people pushing the 10 Commandments in schools, they earnestly believe they're going to solve teen pregnancy, drug usage, etc. Saying that they're virtue signalling ignores the problem and strawmans the reason for their proposal. Saying why their policy won't work and another will addresses the problem.

▲

aspenmayer 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Regardless of whether or not either interlocutor understands the term, using the term virtue signaling itself is self-defeating for both parties for different reasons.

For the one hearing it, it’s a red herring, and for the one saying it, it’s a dog whistle. For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche.

▲

exe34 7 months ago | parent [-]

> For the third party person reading the interaction without or with lesser context, it’s a thought-terminating cliche.

if one's thought is so easily terminated, maybe there wasn't as much thought as one might think to begin with.

▲

aspenmayer 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

If good faith weren't a prerequisite for reasoned debate, perhaps.

▲

exe34 7 months ago | parent [-]

remember, we're talking about somebody getting triggered by the words "virtue-signalling", so I think good faith left the conversation a few stops back.

	▲	aspenmayer 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		This is part of why it’s a bad term - its meaning is almost impossible to understand even in context because it means different things to different people and people read a lot into it. It’s kind of overloaded and seems like flamebait to me, I guess. Some interesting bits here as well (italics added for emphasis): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling > However, some argue that these expressions of outrage or moral alignment may reflect genuine concern, and that accusing others of virtue signalling can itself be a form of signalling. This has led to the coining of a related concept, vice signalling, which refers to the public promotion of negative or controversial views to appear tough, pragmatic, or rebellious, often for political or social capital. I would add on and argue that using the term virtue signaling is itself an example of virtue signaling.

▲

7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]