all 11 comments

[–]Hel 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Say what you want to say, and don’t worry about if you’re virtue signaling.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nothing wrong with say you agree with people so long as you don't gang up on people who disagree.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You could practice extreme virtue signaling as a sign of satirical disapproval.

Approach a virtue signaling hoobajoob and tell them that you're impressed by their virtue signaling sincerity.

Indicate that your own virtue signaling efforts are pale by comparison.

Then tell them that they totally look exactly like a <whatever it is they're going for>.
And that they should ignore what everyone else is saying.

[–]LarrySwinger2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreeing with someone isn't the same thing as virtue signaling.

[–]yelgy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

why are you concerned with what these nibbas think about you brocel

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Tension 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    You're very well-adjusted.

    [–]HongKongPhooey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Really interesting question FYM

    I think we both know intuitively there is a difference between finding common ground and virtue signaling, but it does seem to be subtle and hard to quantify in precise language off the type of my head, but I'll throw out some thoughts and maybe others can help refine these ideas.

    When I think about virtue signaling, there are some qualities I see that are common to most instances of it. When someone is virtue signaling they often use bad faith arguments and cheap slogans that lack substance, and they do this when they already know their audience agrees with them, because they know nobody will challenge their rhetoric. When someone puts a BLM flag in their yard, or a LGBT sticker on their car, they are pandering. They are saying 'look at me, I practice right-think' and pat themselves on the back.

    This seems like the opposite of finding common ground. Common ground finding is when we do not already fully agree with the people we are signaling to about some issue or another - i.e. me and you have different ideas about how to solve a problem and are arguing - yet perhaps we agree on the diagnosis of the underlying problem that needs solving, and can come to some mutual agreement that we both can live with

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    The use of symbols that detach the person from the group, such as a flag in the window or a bumper sticker almost seems more of an act of self defence. By displaying the symbol of the current thing, they avoid having to involve themselves with the crowd or be seen as opposition even if they do not strictly hold the views of the group in question. There is destinction between the virtue signaller and the mere appeasers who just need to get by in life without unwanted hassle. Although this too does not help in finding common ground.

    [–]HongKongPhooey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Well said UmbrellaCorp, it does seem like this symbolism is often used in a defensive fashion, and I think you are right that there are distinct categories of virtue signalers. These don't seem like the actions of someone trying to find common ground to me either, although I am hard pressed to come up with a concise one liner to distinguish between these things

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Could we agree that anyone who voices support in conversation, debate or discussion in good faith without determent to the argument could be seen as not being a virtue signaller?

    Therefore knowingly and/or willingly voicing what is typically bias arguments to disrupt a topic in bad faith, potentially in unprovoked self defence, with the only benefit being to be seen to voice said argument and irrationally so in favour of a single group with no regard for another's views, would be on the side of virtue signalling?

    [–]IndianaJones 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Idk man I asked myself a similar thing not too long ago. I just try to be a less loving person in general. Because if you're less loving, nothing you say would look like virtue signalling. Probably not the best approach tbh but it works for me.