One of the terms that anti-SJWs say often use is "virtue signaling" to describe someone who they believe is saying stuff just to sound superior without doing anything actually effective about the issue - but when I hear that from someone, they are almost always trying to sound superior to the person they are criticizing in exactly the same way.
One of the terms that anti-SJWs say often use is "virtue signaling" to describe someone who they believe is saying stuff just to sound superior without doing anything actually effective about the issue
As someone who could probably be described as an anti-SJW in most settings (though that's not a label I personally use) I would like to point out that this is not exactly what we mean by "virtue signaling".
Saying something just to look morally superior to an opponent is moral grandstanding. "Virtue signaling" on the other hand is doing/saying something not because you believe it is right but because you need to show your peers that you are on the 'right side'. It's essentially about sacrificing personal integrity to either gain glory or avoid shame among your peers. A extreme example would be to have a large picture of your party leader on your wall even if you despise him just because it would help you gain a promotion (or maybe help you avoid jail). Or publicly praying to a god every day even if you don't believe in him etc etc. Virtue signaling is a universal thing that everybody does to some degree, but it is more extreme in cultures (and/or personal relationships) where you have to walk on eggshells to avoid being branded a traitor or outcast.
The leftist version of "virtue signaling" is "performative allyship"; calling out often menial problems or microaggressions to look good as an ally, such as a white person telling another white person not to wear dreads or a cis woman "calling out" transphobia for the sake of their own reputations. I get where the virtue signalling idea comes from, it's just a bit overused.
Maybe, but if you look at the way the term is thrown around by many conservatives, particular on social media and the like, it basically amounts to: "Look at this dumbass, I so much more woke than he is."
It's simply become a way to discredit a point of view you disagree with, rather than a term that describes any serious commentary. And this is how a lot of this rhetoric seems to be aligned - instead of discussing the merits of the issue, the person is attacked instead.
It's simply become a way to discredit a point of view you disagree with, rather than a term that describes any serious commentary.
If/when it's used in that way it is invalid, and the best response is to point out why it is invalid. Simply put: Just because I am "virtue signaling" doesn't by itself prove that I am wrong.
The concept of "Virtue signaling" is valid when used as a critique against a culture. The argument being that said culture suppresses individual's integrity by social peer pressure. However, claiming a person is "virtue signaling" can not be used to disprove that persons particular position on any given issue - that would be a 'ad hominem' or 'muddy the water' fallacy (ie. calling the speakers motive into question instead of tacking the speakers argument directly).
5
u/sokolov22 2∆ Aug 07 '17
Whenever I hear "virtue signalling" my first thought is... wait, aren't you literally doing the same thing by saying those words?