So, @Meaningness has been posting recently on the general theme that (to heavily abbreviate...) "virtue signalling" should not be condemned because it may not be separable from virtue itself. I even participated with a comment intended to say virtue signalling may be inevitable.
-
-
One of my pet theories is that one mechanism to increase the odds of a "dishonest" signal to be accepted is for the signaler to vehemently believe what they are saying and to be non-introspective to their behavior/signal inconsistencies.
-
So some people have a distinct internal narrative and separate, deliberate affect while others don't have as much separation between affect and experience (and the causal arrow might even point in the other direction).
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Even the question of dishonesty being bad, is something that we may or may not wish to signal as part of our carefully-crafted signalled positions. Signals all the way down, as I think someone else on your thread said. But I agree, smugness is very likely to antagonize.
-
The torture: "Pointing out smugness means . . . _I'm_ virtue signalling about my own humility!" Perhaps this is why humility and honesty appear at the top of any moral system worth a damn. Arrogance and deceitfulness are two of Lucifer's main attributes, after all.
End of conversation
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.