I was aware this was a thing for a very long time, but I didn't know the term for it until now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
QuoteVirtue signalling is a generally pejorative characterization of the expression or promotion of viewpoints that are especially valued within a social group, especially when it is said to be done primarily to enhance the social standing of the speaker.[1][2][3]
The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue, and especially conspicuous piety among the religious faithful.[4] Since 2015, the term has been most conspicuously used by commentators to criticize what they regard as the platitudinous and empty or superficial support of socially progressive views on social media,[2][3] but has also been used to describe analogous behavior in other groups, such as pro-gun-rights grandstanding among the American right.[3]
More or less what we used to call "the fart blanket".
QuoteThe blog LessWrong was another early user of the term, where the idea was first alluded to in February 2009[5] and later squarely expressed in July 2013:
"My upbringing and social circles are moderately left-wing. There's a well-observed failure mode in these circles, not entirely dissimilar to what's discussed in Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate, where participants sabotage cooperation by going out of their way to find things to disagree about, presumably for moral posturing and virtue-signalling reasons."[6]
Or, as was described here at PD, a method of claiming status in a group at the expense of the group's goals. Or, hell, during the post-primary phase of the election, with the left fragmenting into subgroups that all hate each other. And, in a lot of cases, still do.
And look what that got us. :lulz:
Hmm. I'll have to read up on this this evening.
We're awesome at this sort of stuff.
For some reason, when its done on the Right, it doesn't self-destruct as much. I'm not sure why.
The right values conformity more than the left does
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2017, 06:18:34 PM
We're awesome at this sort of stuff.
For some reason, when its done on the Right, it doesn't self-destruct as much. I'm not sure why.
Because of the Reagan Rule and because conservatives don't blush. Example: Mitch McConnell raging that "The Senate will not tolerate a SCOTUS nominee from being appointed." Hypocrisy is their meat & potatoes, so virtue signalling wouldn't have the same effect.
It's worth mentioning that I found this at a right wing board, and this is their new answer to anything having to do with social justice.
They're becoming slightly more agile, and that's worth remembering.
(It's still like sticking your face in Goering's latrine.)
My opinion on the topic is pretty well summed up by these two articles:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/20/virtue-signalling-putdown-passed-sell-by-date
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/stop-saying-virtue-signalling
Adamsmith.org?
I thought I was the horrible libertarian around here. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
The article in the guardian is not using virtue signalling in the same way that Roger uses it in the first post. Roger is defining it as making statements to identify with a group wheras the guardian uses it as making statements to identify as good or virtuous. Roger's definition is more specific and more useful.
The Adam smith article does the same thing.
Quote from: Pergamos on January 05, 2017, 09:55:01 PM
The article in the guardian is not using virtue signalling in the same way that Roger uses it in the first post. Roger is defining it as making statements to identify with a group wheras the guardian uses it as making statements to identify as good or virtuous. Roger's definition is more specific and more useful.
The Adam smith article does the same thing.
Pretty much spot on.
And I think this is one of the main reasons the left is hopelessly fractured and now utterly useless. Instead of reacting to a
real, present outside threat, everyone has doubled-down on self-policing. I absolutely disagree with that RP twat that identity politics should be abandoned, but that is different than crowding under the fart blanket and identifying the unworthy, which is all that is still happening in the majority of the social justice crowd.
The fucking Nazis are going to eat our lunch, and everyone is going to have this stunned look on their faces...Because to too many people, none of what is happening in DC is real. It can't be happening, not
here.
You bet your ass it is. It is already up to steam and starting to roll forward, and we are doomed. Not because we
can't do anything, but because we
won't do anything aside from maybe wearing a safety pin and feeling virtuous. And I'll tell you
this for free: Anyone who stops running from goons to get help from someone wearing one of those safety pins is going to wish they'd kept running.
I suspect that since what appears to be the demographic of those who virtue signal the most, namely those who come from affluent, sheltered backgrounds, this capitalistic enterprise of competition for "virtue" at the least cost in terms of actual action is rational.
I heard someone else refer to it as "oppression poker".
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:48:41 AM
I suspect that since what appears to be the demographic of those who virtue signal the most, namely those who come from affluent, sheltered backgrounds, this capitalistic enterprise of competition for "virtue" at the least cost in terms of actual action is rational.
I heard someone else refer to it as "oppression poker".
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
That was a bunch of ass.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 02:52:14 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:48:41 AM
I suspect that since what appears to be the demographic of those who virtue signal the most, namely those who come from affluent, sheltered backgrounds, this capitalistic enterprise of competition for "virtue" at the least cost in terms of actual action is rational.
I heard someone else refer to it as "oppression poker".
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
That was a bunch of ass.
What's that supposed to mean?
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:53:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 02:52:14 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:48:41 AM
I suspect that since what appears to be the demographic of those who virtue signal the most, namely those who come from affluent, sheltered backgrounds, this capitalistic enterprise of competition for "virtue" at the least cost in terms of actual action is rational.
I heard someone else refer to it as "oppression poker".
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
That was a bunch of ass.
What's that supposed to mean?
First I had to wait longer for anything to happen than I did in
Manos, The Hands of Fate.
Then it was a bad cartoon, like something you'd find on "The Comical Conservative." Then I closed the tab.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 02:56:25 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:53:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 02:52:14 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:48:41 AM
I suspect that since what appears to be the demographic of those who virtue signal the most, namely those who come from affluent, sheltered backgrounds, this capitalistic enterprise of competition for "virtue" at the least cost in terms of actual action is rational.
I heard someone else refer to it as "oppression poker".
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
That was a bunch of ass.
What's that supposed to mean?
First I had to wait longer for anything to happen than I did in Manos, The Hands of Fate.
Then it was a bad cartoon, like something you'd find on "The Comical Conservative." Then I closed the tab.
So you have a bad internet connection, you have an attention span of a flea and like so many these days, you lack an appreciation of spot-on satire.
Good to know.
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:58:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 02:56:25 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:53:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 02:52:14 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:48:41 AM
I suspect that since what appears to be the demographic of those who virtue signal the most, namely those who come from affluent, sheltered backgrounds, this capitalistic enterprise of competition for "virtue" at the least cost in terms of actual action is rational.
I heard someone else refer to it as "oppression poker".
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
That was a bunch of ass.
What's that supposed to mean?
First I had to wait longer for anything to happen than I did in Manos, The Hands of Fate.
Then it was a bad cartoon, like something you'd find on "The Comical Conservative." Then I closed the tab.
So you have a bad internet connection, you have an attention span of a flea and like so many these days, you lack an appreciation of spot-on satire.
Good to know.
Oh, you're RP.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 02:59:49 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:58:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 02:56:25 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:53:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 02:52:14 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 02:48:41 AM
I suspect that since what appears to be the demographic of those who virtue signal the most, namely those who come from affluent, sheltered backgrounds, this capitalistic enterprise of competition for "virtue" at the least cost in terms of actual action is rational.
I heard someone else refer to it as "oppression poker".
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
That was a bunch of ass.
What's that supposed to mean?
First I had to wait longer for anything to happen than I did in Manos, The Hands of Fate.
Then it was a bad cartoon, like something you'd find on "The Comical Conservative." Then I closed the tab.
So you have a bad internet connection, you have an attention span of a flea and like so many these days, you lack an appreciation of spot-on satire.
Good to know.
Oh, you're RP.
What's "RP"?
Done wasting my time on you. Good day.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 03:02:09 AM
Done wasting my time on you. Good day.
Like I suspected. You'd rather waste your time bloviating to sycophants, and I failed the sycophant test.
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 03:04:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 03:02:09 AM
Done wasting my time on you. Good day.
Like I suspected. You'd rather waste your time bloviating to sycophants, and I failed the sycophant test.
Good way to make a first impression.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on January 13, 2017, 03:13:22 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 03:04:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 03:02:09 AM
Done wasting my time on you. Good day.
Like I suspected. You'd rather waste your time bloviating to sycophants, and I failed the sycophant test.
Good way to make a first impression.
They are my people and I am their king.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 03:21:03 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on January 13, 2017, 03:13:22 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 03:04:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 03:02:09 AM
Done wasting my time on you. Good day.
Like I suspected. You'd rather waste your time bloviating to sycophants, and I failed the sycophant test.
Good way to make a first impression.
They are my people and I am their king.
Now I applaud that response. Please tell me that was a real sycophant, and not your left hand in another forum sock-puppet.
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 03:24:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 03:21:03 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on January 13, 2017, 03:13:22 AM
Quote from: xerosaburu on January 13, 2017, 03:04:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2017, 03:02:09 AM
Done wasting my time on you. Good day.
Like I suspected. You'd rather waste your time bloviating to sycophants, and I failed the sycophant test.
Good way to make a first impression.
They are my people and I am their king.
Now I applaud that response. Please tell me that was a real sycophant, and not your left hand in another forum sock-puppet.
Chump. I'm the only person here other than you, and I'm not sure about you. RP.
Quote
So you have a bad internet connection, you have an attention span of a flea and like so many these days, you lack an appreciation of spot-on satire.
Good to know.
:lulz:
Semaphores of Spot-on Satire vs. Indications of Overwrought Irony ..... Fight!
Quote from: Pergamos on January 05, 2017, 09:55:01 PM
The article in the guardian is not using virtue signalling in the same way that Roger uses it in the first post. Roger is defining it as making statements to identify with a group wheras the guardian uses it as making statements to identify as good or virtuous. Roger's definition is more specific and more useful.
The Adam smith article does the same thing.
There's a related term which I think applies here, if I get your meaning. Tribal signaling. Undoubtedly, this can occur in the same space as virtue signaling.
Here's Zizek explaining signaling in general and taking it a bit further into signaling with and via commodity and market stuff. <5min
https://vimeo.com/12234297
Coincidentally, zenosaburu is tribal signaling "Right-wing/Republican/Conservative" when he uses the term sheltered and oppression pejoratively. He is simultaneously virtue signaling by implying his holding doctrinal values of the party: rugged individualism, moxy, grit, etc.
The screeching about the word pussy on FB currently unfolding is a good example of this.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 23, 2017, 02:32:44 PM
The screeching about the word pussy on FB currently unfolding is a good example of this.
Yes. I am told that the march was counterproductive and worse than Pol Pot because the pink hats were a symbol of TERF.
The people doing the bitching are of course stupid and probably won't be available for comment inside of 24 months.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2017, 02:57:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 23, 2017, 02:32:44 PM
The screeching about the word pussy on FB currently unfolding is a good example of this.
Yes. I am told that the march was counterproductive and worse than Pol Pot because the pink hats were a symbol of TERF.
The people doing the bitching are of course stupid and probably won't be available for comment inside of 24 months.
I don't really get why some women having vaginas should be so intimidating to women without vaginas, but I suspect this may well be one of those situations where I am about to be schooled, so I am open to learning.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2017, 02:57:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 23, 2017, 02:32:44 PM
The screeching about the word pussy on FB currently unfolding is a good example of this.
Yes. I am told that the march was counterproductive and worse than Pol Pot because the pink hats were a symbol of TERF.
The people doing the bitching are of course stupid and probably won't be available for comment inside of 24 months.
I think that may be some hyperbole.
Some women of color were commenting that they were put off by pink being used to represent pussies. But saying put off is not the same as saying counterproductive and worse than pol pot.
And the people that I heard this from have breathed more than their share of tear-gas, in case there's a tourist question.
I didn't want to speak for others on my FB post, but I'll take a swing here.
NOTE: This is not my opinion, and I'm not going to argue their point. If you have questions, seek out someone who feels this way and talk to them.
There's some frustration and apprehension about a slew of white women (and men) suddenly showing up to protest, with an enormous emphasis in both the rallies and the media around issues that white women (mostly middle-class) have, to the detriment of higher at-risk minorities. There's also a worry that the majority of people who showed up will pat themselves on the back, say, "We did it! We smashed patriarchy!" and go back to their suburbs, abandoning WOC and LGBTQ.
I can see that. But it sure looks like it's going to end up with these groups at each other's throats while rich old white GOP fucks laugh around their stogies.
I can see that. But I decided my best response is to understand why they're upset and try to work with them. And much of that will be actions over words. My first instinct was to say "this is why we can't have nice things", but that doesn't help move things forward.
Quote from: LMNO on January 23, 2017, 07:14:19 PM
I can see that. But I decided my best response is to understand why they're upset and try to work with them. And much of that will be actions over words. My first instinct was to say "this is why we can't have nice things", but that doesn't help move things forward.
Agreed. I will adopt the same stance.
Quote from: LMNO on January 23, 2017, 07:14:19 PM
I can see that. But I decided my best response is to understand why they're upset and try to work with them. And much of that will be actions over words. My first instinct was to say "this is why we can't have nice things", but that doesn't help move things forward.
We've got a sort of tepid version of Antifa going in my neighborhood. A few weeks ago, an accomplice started raising hell about some hippy shop in the neighborhood hosting a class on how to make dream-catchers. I rolled my eyes almost out of my head at that.
Then we had a nasty cold snap in Portland, and the same person who I was accusing of having an ineffective set of priorities pretty much single-handedly threw together a warming shelter and kept it running for several days on about three hours of sleep a night. I put in all of three hours helping in that effort.
I think it would be wise for me to be slower to judge...
This article has a first-person point of view about what we've been talking about: (http://jezebel.com/i-want-to-trust-the-womens-marchers-1791491466?rev=1485198209441&utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
QuoteStill, what was really bothering me? Where was my sense of awe and hope? The next morning realized: I don't trust these people.
I don't trust most of the Women's March participants to show up again. I don't trust the resolve of their concern. I don't trust that all voted for Hillary Clinton or recognized the unprecedented threat of Donald Trump. I don't trust that they understood this was an election to do everything in our power to keep him out of the White House—too important to throw a vote away on Jill Stein or write in your mother's name on the ballot.
In this case, it seems to be coming from a well-earned sense of jaded cynicism. Which, I suppose could be considered ironic.
Quote from: LMNO on January 23, 2017, 08:25:48 PM
This article has a first-person point of view about what we've been talking about: (http://jezebel.com/i-want-to-trust-the-womens-marchers-1791491466?rev=1485198209441&utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
QuoteStill, what was really bothering me? Where was my sense of awe and hope? The next morning realized: I don't trust these people.
I don't trust most of the Women's March participants to show up again. I don't trust the resolve of their concern. I don't trust that all voted for Hillary Clinton or recognized the unprecedented threat of Donald Trump. I don't trust that they understood this was an election to do everything in our power to keep him out of the White House—too important to throw a vote away on Jill Stein or write in your mother's name on the ballot.
In this case, it seems to be coming from a well-earned sense of jaded cynicism. Which, I suppose could be considered ironic.
QuoteOn Saturday I attended the march in Los Angeles and can't say I began the day with much enthusiasm, especially when compared to the downright giddiness I witnessed from other marchers. It was like watching a foreign film without subtitles—I understood what was happening and why, but I didn't quite get the tone or the nuance. The times I've taken to the streets or raised my voice about an issue have been out of anger or as a response to gross injustice. The joviality of the march, the "warmth and love and care" was unfamiliar.
One of my friends posted that she saw people hugging and taking selfies with a cop that tear gassed her the night before.
Quote from: LMNO on January 23, 2017, 08:25:48 PM
This article has a first-person point of view about what we've been talking about: (http://jezebel.com/i-want-to-trust-the-womens-marchers-1791491466?rev=1485198209441&utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
QuoteStill, what was really bothering me? Where was my sense of awe and hope? The next morning realized: I don't trust these people.
I don't trust most of the Women's March participants to show up again. I don't trust the resolve of their concern. I don't trust that all voted for Hillary Clinton or recognized the unprecedented threat of Donald Trump. I don't trust that they understood this was an election to do everything in our power to keep him out of the White House—too important to throw a vote away on Jill Stein or write in your mother's name on the ballot.
In this case, it seems to be coming from a well-earned sense of jaded cynicism. Which, I suppose could be considered ironic.
True, but I bet this person isn't that far off the mark for a lot of people. People tend to have short attentions spans and a relatively short memory. I guess it will depend how bad it gets, sadly.
Some people got the privilege and position to be able to say "Fuck you" to a wanker in a way that they goddamn feel like saying it and a whole nother bunch are saying pretty much the same thing but in a different voice, with different words. Turns out these two bunches got this one thing in common this one day. They want to say "Fuck you" to the same wanker.
There was a chance for these two groups to come together and share a moment of solidarity and gain a bit of perspective on the other side of whatever divide you care to pick. Anything else doesn't really gain anybody any anything, far as I can see. Ergo - is pissing and moaning for fuck all good. It's no surprise. Pissers and moaners have plenty to piss and moan about. Thing is plenty people who don't piss and moan do to. I prefer the latter.
Quote from: Very Thoughtful, Calm, and Rational Post on Tumblr Which Is RelevantI've been seeing discussions on my dash about the use of the words "pussy" and even the color of the pink hats used in the women's march, and I'd like to submit a couple of ideas to you for consideration.
Let me preface by saying: I am not in favor of signage/words that prioritize one set of sexual organs over another because that gets into weird places of associating genitalia with gender, etc.
However, signs that say things like "Pussy Grabs Back" - please consider that this is in context and direct opposition to a man who bragged about assaulting women with vaginas by saying "I grab 'em by the pussy." This is reflecting his language back in the form of protest, and in this case, I think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
[snip]
But even with this context in mind, I want to put out there one more thought: Protect trans women. Protect intersex women. Protect women of color. Protect disabled women. And if any of these people feel uncomfortable or excluded because of the way that [pink shit and female parts] are often associated with cis white women, respect that, and don't force them to interface with it.
https://thebibliosphere.tumblr.com/post/156277394736/finnglas-runicscribbles-finnglas-ive-been for the full thing if you want it.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 23, 2017, 07:09:50 PM
I can see that. But it sure looks like it's going to end up with these groups at each other's throats while rich old white GOP fucks laugh around their stogies.
This is precisely what is going to happen.
Because it's easier to shank your cellmate than take a swing at the guard.
It's the reason exploitation and atrocities have happened over and over again. People won't realise they need each other, until things get really bad, and only then will they look back and realise that they had the opportunity to head this off at the pass.
The intersectionality problem is really getting me bummed out. I'm trying to figure my way through it. I'm sure I've walked down a road hundreds have already been down, but I feel a need to do it.
The tough part is making statements that neither deny or belittle the marginalized, while neither demonizing nor apologizing for the "un-woke".
I'm suspecting I need to use math/E-Prime rules.
I will just continue to listen. I have lots to learn, and I do have opinions, but I don't want to mansplain. I can learn with my mouth shut.
Quote from: Faust on January 24, 2017, 10:59:39 AM
It's the reason exploitation and atrocities have happened over and over again. People won't realise they need each other, until things get really bad, and only then will they look back and realise that they had the opportunity to head this off at the pass.
There are 13 states writing laws to re-illegalize Gay marriage...Anticipating a friendly supreme court, given that Trump's likely nominee is a guy who thinks homosexuality should carry the same criminal penalties as pedophilia.
The left's response: bicker about whether the 3 million woman march was trans-exclusive because they wore pink hats in mockery of something Trump said.
There is no fucking hope.
:| At least the band on the Titanic could agree amongst themselves what song to play.
Quote from: Faust on January 24, 2017, 04:16:31 PM
:| At least the band on the Titanic could agree amongst themselves what song to play.
"But Janet Mock spoke."
"ONLY ONE TRANS-SPEAKER? 3 MILLION SHITLORD MARCH, YOU MEAN!"
Quote from: LMNO on January 24, 2017, 01:07:29 PM
The intersectionality problem is really getting me bummed out. I'm trying to figure my way through it. I'm sure I've walked down a road hundreds have already been down, but I feel a need to do it.
The tough part is making statements that neither deny or belittle the marginalized, while neither demonizing nor apologizing for the "un-woke".
I'm suspecting I need to use math/E-Prime rules.
Yep. It's a bit of a struggle for me when people complain about the how the genitalia symbolism in the women's marches makes them feel excluded, because of course, they symbolize the anatomical differences that have been used as the basis for oppressing female women for millennia. However, I am really striving to keep in mind that
as a member of the majority, in this case a female woman, my job is not to "yes but" or "actually" them, but to listen, acknowledge that I have heard, and ask if there is anything I can do to make them feel included. At most, it is my place to explain why female reproductive organs are an important symbol to many people, but I am also, when doing so, trying to express that they should absolutely bring symbols and expressions of their own femininity to the movement, and that in my opinion, it is important for the movement to embrace them.
Tangentially related side-note; asking fedoras who refer to women as "females" whether they are intentionally being trans-exclusive yields hilarious results.
Like what?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 24, 2017, 09:25:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 24, 2017, 01:07:29 PM
The intersectionality problem is really getting me bummed out. I'm trying to figure my way through it. I'm sure I've walked down a road hundreds have already been down, but I feel a need to do it.
The tough part is making statements that neither deny or belittle the marginalized, while neither demonizing nor apologizing for the "un-woke".
I'm suspecting I need to use math/E-Prime rules.
Yep. It's a bit of a struggle for me when people complain about the how the genitalia symbolism in the women's marches makes them feel excluded, because of course, they symbolize the anatomical differences that have been used as the basis for oppressing female women for millennia. However, I am really striving to keep in mind that as a member of the majority, in this case a female woman, my job is not to "yes but" or "actually" them, but to listen, acknowledge that I have heard, and ask if there is anything I can do to make them feel included. At most, it is my place to explain why female reproductive organs are an important symbol to many people, but I am also, when doing so, trying to express that they should absolutely bring symbols and expressions of their own femininity to the movement, and that in my opinion, it is important for the movement to embrace them.
I'm trying to be good and trying very hard to remember I am speaking to people who are very genuinely marginalized by a good chunk of society, but some make it very tough to not go straight to trolling. The discussion gets very Tumblr, very fast.
I got accused of mansplaining this morning... I dunno, maybe I was. I genuinely didn't mean to, and don't really think I was. But, people never think they are, so. I'll assume I was. But it makes conversation difficult when that accusation can be tossed at me at any point. That was when I decided to try listening more and talking less... although online it's hard to tell when someone is listening, unless they respond. I'm trying.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 06, 2017, 12:24:40 AM
Anyone who stops running from goons to get help from someone wearing one of those safety pins is going to wish they'd kept running.
Hello again! Epic truth. Thank you. I wonder why it is so, but it seems to be the case: people whose virtue signalling include a hot stream of the original liberal values (tolerance, conviviality, compassion, solidarity, freedom of thought) are in fact not all that big on helping people in actual need.
Quote from: MithridatesXXIII on January 22, 2017, 03:55:10 PM
There's a related term which I think applies here, if I get your meaning. Tribal signaling. Undoubtedly, this can occur in the same space as virtue signaling.
They are essentially the same, no? Given that people in a tribe tend to agree on what constitutes virtue... of course with the recent developments in much more complicated social arrangements, it goes all fractal and multilevel and feedback loops.... maan.
(Zizek videos are a definite virtue signal with me.)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2017, 03:37:37 PM
There is no fucking hope.
I beg to differ. There isn't much hope, but there is some.
That's an excellent thread. Gimme another shot, I been changed. Short thrift and everything, but pls.
So are the middle classes virtue signalling more simply because they signal more in general (they have disproportionate access to, and leisure to use, the media and the Internet), or is their higher level of signalling their virtuousness also a symptom of some deep, perhaps unconscious but still present unease that seeps through the solid denial of privilege and complicity in maintaining the status quo?
Tribal signaling and virtue signaling fulfill a variety of psychological needs. It's not clear that any given class exhibits it more than any other. What is certain is that there are more channels and venues for it to occur in. What is less certain is viewing it through the lense of privilege, which seems to be a stretch. Matters of privilege claiming or denying, rather make more sense through the lense of signaling.
As for them being the same, I'd say no. One is a better means to declare affiliation, status, class attributes. One is a better means to describe a system of values and principles, mode of thought, ethos, etc. This becomes blurry, but each has their value.
I'm going to have to go with no hope, as the situation stands. We have no reliable and ethical means to correct stupidity, lack of empathy, lack of theory of mind/understanding of personhood of others, to name a few. Humankind is set for doom until at least this is dealt with.
Okay, I can see the difference. Then I thought maybe virtue signalling is a subset of group-affiliation signalling - but thinking some more I note that virtue signalling is used to indicate disaffiliation just as much as affiliation - the underlying message is often "I'm not one of those people who...", as well as "I'm one of those who...". I'm not sure I get what you mean by "viewing through the lense" (please clarify), but it seems to me that privileged groups do more virtue-signalling than deprived groups. Now this could be a perceptual artifact caused by my own position (rather more privileged than deprived). But if it is correct, the question does arise: is it the case because they have better access to signalling tools and more leisure-time to indulge their urge to virtue signal, or whether there is some underlying motive.
As for hope: stupidity, while a major destructive force now, is still partially self-correcting, and anyway, the not-so-stupid have always had to live with it, consider it part of their adaptive landscape. The lack of empathy thing and the ridiculously simple theory of mind/understanding of personhood that late capitalism foists on its children is worrying, but this is still a very permissive society (I mean my country in particular, and affluent west in general) - as long as you know how to shut up and display conformity at the right moments and pay your bills (give to Ceasar), you can afford to be quite weird in the head without major risk of ostracism. Hence the hope. Not much, but some.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 24, 2017, 09:27:13 PM
Tangentially related side-note; asking fedoras who refer to women as "females" whether they are intentionally being trans-exclusive yields hilarious results.
OMG
I suck at trolling, but I
so want to do this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_folks
This fallacious appeal is adjacent to claiming non-privileged status, however apt. There are benefits to claiming it, be it membership in a class unjustly persecuted, freedom fighter, the list goes on.
As far as the phrase 'through the lense of' I mean using a system of reference, jargon, principles, and/or ideology to characterize, define, explore, or explain a situation, environment or phenomenon. For example, literary analysis. There are a variety of lenses through which a given piece can be evaluated i.e. Marxist, Feminist, Discordian, Christian, Freudian and so on.
So my point about evaluating signaling in terms of privilege was to say the value of that type of evaluation is somewhat limited. Not to say valueless or meaningless, just limited. There'll have to be a lot more robust dialogue and understanding and theory regarding privilege.
Quote from: MithridatesXXIII on January 25, 2017, 01:18:02 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_folks
This fallacious appeal is adjacent to claiming non-privileged status, however apt. There are benefits to claiming it, be it membership in a class unjustly persecuted, freedom fighter, the list goes on.
As far as the phrase 'through the lense of' I mean using a system of reference, jargon, principles, and/or ideology to characterize, define, explore, or explain a situation, environment or phenomenon. For example, literary analysis. There are a variety of lenses through which a given piece can be evaluated i.e. Marxist, Feminist, Discordian, Christian, Freudian and so on.
So my point about evaluating signaling in terms of privilege was to say the value of that type of evaluation is somewhat limited. Not to say valueless or meaningless, just limited. There'll have to be a lot more robust dialogue and understanding and theory regarding privilege.
Could you re-state that in Hemmingway or Vonnegut English? There's a lot of meandering up there, and for the most part it sounds like you're saying, "seeing signaling in terms of privilege has little value."
Which, you know, is something someone with privilege would say.
Correct and Correct/but besides the point. I'm not attempting to undermine the value of that mode of thought. It needs more development.
You're trying to undermine the concept of looking at signaling from a perspective of privilege?
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16143329_10154942209471823_4405166624811537335_n.jpg?oh=d36c22fd8c5eaeec2476960b8ef8df6d&oe=58FE2001)
Hahaha :)
No. I'm saying go ahead and do it, but at least be mindful of the problems signaling illuminates about privilege before you then use privilege to analyze signaling.
Quote from: MithridatesXXIII on January 25, 2017, 01:18:02 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_folks
This fallacious appeal is adjacent to claiming non-privileged status, however apt. There are benefits to claiming it, be it membership in a class unjustly persecuted, freedom fighter, the list goes on.
As far as the phrase 'through the lense of' I mean using a system of reference, jargon, principles, and/or ideology to characterize, define, explore, or explain a situation, environment or phenomenon. For example, literary analysis. There are a variety of lenses through which a given piece can be evaluated i.e. Marxist, Feminist, Discordian, Christian, Freudian and so on.
So my point about evaluating signaling in terms of privilege was to say the value of that type of evaluation is somewhat limited. Not to say valueless or meaningless, just limited. There'll have to be a lot more robust dialogue and understanding and theory regarding privilege.
So would I be correct in interpreting this as the point that privilege and signalling are in a dialectical relationship, and hence neither is fully sufficient to explain the other? I could go with that. You could say that the ability and the capacity to signal ('having a voice', or 'being literate', 'being educated', 'having free time not occupied by producing the bare essentials') is a major, essential form of privilege in itself.
Quote from: Dildo Argentino on January 25, 2017, 02:04:30 PM
You could say that the ability and the capacity to signal ('having a voice', or 'being literate', 'being educated', 'having free time not occupied by producing the bare essentials') is a major, essential form of privilege in itself.
I agree about the privilege and I think that's why it might give the appearance of more signaling taking place by the middle class, but I think that is also a kind of sampling bias. The only thing I'd really like to add is that signaling is ubiquitous across humanity.
Quote
So would I be correct in interpreting this as the point that privilege and signalling are in a dialectical relationship, and hence neither is fully sufficient to explain the other? I could go with that.
I don't know. I think signaling has more explanatory power, but that's not the end-all-be-all. Karl Popper, a philosopher who had a lot to say regarding epistemology, says that Falsifiability is the demarcation between science and non-science. Evolutionary psychology is pretty notorious for being able to explain away a lot of behavior in a seemingly ad hoc manner, and that's a huge pitfall of signaling; the lack of Falsifiability.
Signalling is ubiquitous, but I think its character and function (and frequency and intensity) changes quite radically when people move from the tribal life, spent mostly in the company of primary group members, to the modern way of conducting various transactions with strangers and slight acquaintances whose background is largely unknown. You can see the penny drop in any reasonably intelligent and alert child when they start attending an institution.
I think Zizek would probably claim that the particular contortions of identity-display that the western (or, increasingly, global) middle class engages in is driven by their deep-seated denial of the increasingly obvious fact that there is something downright wrong with the system, something that will not be made to go away by cosmetic action or "programs".
As for the relationship between the two concepts, signalling was clearly in place a long time before anything like privilege could really take off (except for the fairly simple power structure of the extended family-horde), probably since the time the first monkey learned to lie. We even taught dogs to lie. But certain characteristics of the type of the somewhat bizarre signalling that gets done these days may have their origin in the fundamentally fucked up power relationships of people on Earth.
This thread has become recursive. :lulz:
I mean, I'm a Circuit III kind of guy, but jeeze.
Quote from: Dildo Argentino on January 25, 2017, 03:32:25 PM
Signalling is ubiquitous, but I think its character and function (and frequency and intensity) changes quite radically when people move from the tribal life, spent mostly in the company of primary group members, to the modern way of conducting various transactions with strangers and slight acquaintances whose background is largely unknown. You can see the penny drop in any reasonably intelligent and alert child when they start attending an institution.
I think Zizek would probably claim that the particular contortions of identity-display that the western (or, increasingly, global) middle class engages in is driven by their deep-seated denial of the increasingly obvious fact that there is something downright wrong with the system, something that will not be made to go away by cosmetic action or "programs".
Yes. I'd say because the risk of signaling the wrong affiliation at the wrong time has been virtually eliminated as we have moved away from tribal and feudal systems to what we have now.
There was a poster here that got banned a while ago who stated that he would use violence to institute fascism and I had a physical and mental reaction so primal and novel to me it took a while for me to deal with. The kind of implications with gravity people take acid or shrooms to reveal.
As far as Zizek goes I think that is very in line with the things he's been trying to emphasize about a desperately necessary shake up
Quote from: LMNO on January 25, 2017, 12:54:48 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 24, 2017, 09:27:13 PM
Tangentially related side-note; asking fedoras who refer to women as "females" whether they are intentionally being trans-exclusive yields hilarious results.
OMG
I suck at trolling, but I so want to do this.
It's VERY gratifying.
Quote from: LMNO on January 25, 2017, 03:35:58 PM
I mean, I'm a Circuit III kind of guy, but jeeze.
One day I got stuck in a horrible and traumatizing feedback loop between circuits 3 and 6, if you're referencing the 8 circuit model. It has been going for a few years now and I am just recently able to return safely to public life. The process continues, but it no longer consumes everything
Quote from: MithridatesXXIII on January 25, 2017, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 25, 2017, 03:35:58 PM
I mean, I'm a Circuit III kind of guy, but jeeze.
One day I got stuck in a horrible and traumatizing feedback loop between circuits 3 and 6, if you're referencing the 8 circuit model. It has been going for a few years now and I am just recently able to return safely to public life. The process continues, but it no longer consumes everything
I call bullshit.
I'm not saying I unlocked telepathic communication, so I'm not strictly adhering to the model, but if 6 is where the immune system is, 3 is the only way to deal with it.
This thread has now reached its ultimate potential. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2017, 03:37:37 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 24, 2017, 10:59:39 AM
It's the reason exploitation and atrocities have happened over and over again. People won't realise they need each other, until things get really bad, and only then will they look back and realise that they had the opportunity to head this off at the pass.
There are 13 states writing laws to re-illegalize Gay marriage...Anticipating a friendly supreme court, given that Trump's likely nominee is a guy who thinks homosexuality should carry the same criminal penalties as pedophilia.
The left's response: bicker about whether the 3 million woman march was trans-exclusive because they wore pink hats in mockery of something Trump said.
There is no fucking hope.
:mittens: