The phrase Virtue Signalling has had its day. While it's meant to convey hypocrisy, in the manner in which it's most often used it's nothing more than an aggressive attempt to stigmatise empathy, usually by those having a lack of empathy with the cause they wish to stigmatise.
It's not unusual for people to say something that makes them look good - we all do it at some time or other. It's a natural part of social interaction - you certainly don't want to make yourself look bad. Even purposely not saying something can be a form of 'virtue signalling' in order to be accepted by a group. Even saying something which, in polite society, would be considered totally derogatory about yourself can be a valid tactic to ingratiate yourself with specific groups, such as terrorists or racists.
The cv is a veritable treasure trove of virtue signalling.
VS, as I shall now term it, is seen by accusers as a vanity project and that it tells others how morally superior the signaller is, but it's - allegedly - a fake superiority. The accusation of being a VS, however, does not detract from the argument about the virtue of the action or cause in question, whether it be combating climate change or any other moral imperative. There have been many instances of people agreeing a certain course of action is morally correct, like eliminating child poverty, but there being no will to change things at government level, where the ability actually sits and where the calls are most frequently heard.
VS, as I shall now term it, is seen by accusers as a vanity project and that it tells others how morally superior the signaller is, but it's - allegedly - a fake superiority. The accusation of being a VS, however, does not detract from the argument about the virtue of the action or cause in question, whether it be combating climate change or any other moral imperative. There have been many instances of people agreeing a certain course of action is morally correct, like eliminating child poverty, but there being no will to change things at government level, where the ability actually sits and where the calls are most frequently heard.
A favourite target for accusations of VS is those calling on the government to house refugees or asylum seekers, with comments such as; "Well, how many refugees do you have in your home?" To many people it’s obvious that letting Syrian refugees in to Britain is a bad idea, because if even a few of them are terrorists then we’re endangering our own people's lives. Thus people who maintain this view are themselves engaged in VS about how much how much more they care about British lives and what good citizens they are.
The problem is that the vast majority of people with such beliefs would avoid having to pay more taxes to support the very fellow Brits they seem enamoured with. The sum total of their interest in British culture, which they're always banging on about, can be best summarised as Wetherspoons, football, protecting statues of people they've never heard of and killing wild animals.
Greta Thunberg - always a favourite for the accusation of VS. Those who refuse to engage with the fact that the planet is on the verge of cooking itself to death are desperate to identify some tiny chink in her armour and will not be happy unless she's living in a cave - and likely not even then. They whine about not wanting to be lectured to by VS hypocrites, when what they actually want is not to be reminded of their own Vice Signalling. Like All Lives Matter, accusing someone of VS is a disingenuous and cack-handed attempt to shut down debate over a genuine issue and deflect criticism of the accuser.
As well as being rude and stupid, accusing someone of VS encourages you to not interrogate your own beliefs and gives you a mental shortcut to dogmatism. What some see as VS is merely others having empathy and compassion. All great religious figures of the past are open to accusations of VS - Jesus was a superb exponent of VS in the eyes of those who bandy the term about.
The problem is that the vast majority of people with such beliefs would avoid having to pay more taxes to support the very fellow Brits they seem enamoured with. The sum total of their interest in British culture, which they're always banging on about, can be best summarised as Wetherspoons, football, protecting statues of people they've never heard of and killing wild animals.
Greta Thunberg - always a favourite for the accusation of VS. Those who refuse to engage with the fact that the planet is on the verge of cooking itself to death are desperate to identify some tiny chink in her armour and will not be happy unless she's living in a cave - and likely not even then. They whine about not wanting to be lectured to by VS hypocrites, when what they actually want is not to be reminded of their own Vice Signalling. Like All Lives Matter, accusing someone of VS is a disingenuous and cack-handed attempt to shut down debate over a genuine issue and deflect criticism of the accuser.
As well as being rude and stupid, accusing someone of VS encourages you to not interrogate your own beliefs and gives you a mental shortcut to dogmatism. What some see as VS is merely others having empathy and compassion. All great religious figures of the past are open to accusations of VS - Jesus was a superb exponent of VS in the eyes of those who bandy the term about.
1 comment:
Not sure I completely agree with your conclusion Chairman. If someone makes a claim, i.e. "I care about X" then they should also provide evidence for that claim, ideally actions or evidence of sincerity. If you don't provide evidence and/or cannot bring past evidence to bear then I think it's fair for people to suspect VS. For example the celebrity who has never shown any interest, opinion or action on a subject who suddenly tweets about it (because the topic is trending?), in that case, raising the question of VS is neither rude nor stupid but quite reasonable. Especially if that person is choosing to be, i.e. making money from being in the public eye. Anther problem is that the definition of "virtue" isn't fixed, so what might seem virtuous to me might not seem virtuous to you, and it changes over time. For example, many people see "faith" as a virtue whereas I don't, so it's not a level playing field etc..
Post a Comment