How does vice-signalling differ from a genuine attempt to understand an opposing perspective, without misrepresenting it?
But if this is the case, then the labelling of pieces such as the NYT article about young Nazis as vice-signalling is erroneous. That article is not one-sided at all; it is a non-judgemental and fly-on-the-wall take, which is what objective journalism should be.
-
-
On the contrary: it's something which superficially appears to be that, but is actually very one-sided. Look through the articles (there are several) and see who's speaking: it's the voice of the Nazis that gets to speak, but no other voices.
-
And the external descriptives provided by the authors are guardedly "neutral" - meaning they portray everything as highly normal. The net result is an article that conveys "look, Nazis are just ordinary people, here's what they do" in the same tone as you might use about farmers.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.