Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Virtue Signalling: So why are we using such anthropological words in a snide way?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signallingWikipedia
Read in another languageDownload PDFWatchEdit
Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values.[1] Academically, the phrase relates to signalling theory and describes a subset of social behaviors that could be used to signal virtue—especially piety among the religious.[2] In recent years, the term has been more commonly used within groups to criticize those who are seen to value the expression of virtue over action.
......
"Virtue-signalling" is also used as a pejorative term, denouncing empty acts of public commitment to unexceptional good causes such as changing Facebook profile pictures to support a cause, participating in the Ice Bucket Challenge, offering thoughts and prayers after a tragedy, celebrity speeches during award shows, and politicians pandering to constituents on ideological issues.[6]
The term was popularised by James Bartholomew in an article in The Spectator on 18 April 2015 to mean "public, empty gestures intended to convey socially approved attitudes without any associated risk or sacrifice".[7]
......
CriticismEdit
Adam Smith Institute Executive Director Sam Bowman opined that the meaning of the term popularised by James Bartholomew misuses the concept of signalling and encourages lazy thinking.[5]In The Guardian, Zoe Williams suggested the phrase was the "sequel insult to champagne socialist"[12]while fellow Guardian writer David Shariatmadari says that while the term serves a purpose, its overuse as an ad hominem attack during political debate has rendered it a meaningless political buzzword.[11]
....SNIP"
I once had a psychopath try and isolate me from my friends. One of them he got to start using the term 'bonding,' somehow in regards to our conversations and relationsjip in a really pejorative way. I knew then it was over if she was making fun of our friendship. Of course we were bonding. That is what friendship is about. Anthropologizing normal behaviour is a way to dehumanize and undo the bonds we share with each other. Do we think our side of the debate is virtuous? Of course. Do we communicate that? Yes. Is that normal or something to be memed into something nasty...changing the way we connect with each other? And oh look who invented and spread the words. Are some people less authentic in how they communicate their beliefs? I suppose so. Has that always be the case? I suppose so. Are these people on a journey of sorts and 'faking it till they make it'? In some instances. We always talk about walking the walk. Should we all stop the way we naturally communicate with each other because some neoliberal and a writer at the Spectator want us to change our behaviour so they invented a couple of words to take the humanity out of humanity? I think not. I don't see the right calm down the pro-life fires which is how they virtue bond as a party or question the authenticity of their own politicians on the issue of abortion (because it is such a productive political instrument). Why should we question each other and stop trusting each other on the left? What separates us and psychopaths is regular people know the emotional value of words and we bond on that. Don't let the right undo our connective tissue with their games.
