virtue signaling is only good as long as it fulfills the function of, for example, a peacock tail (the biological signaling the concept is derived from): if it's costly enough to prove the existence of the virtue. *cheap* virtue signaling is worse than useless
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
the reason i dont accept "virtue signaling" as a real thing is that theres no particular way to distinguish a false signal of virtue from simply being virtuous. when i see people attack "virtue signaling" it is roughly universally meaning "your values are different from mine"
1 reply 2 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @mcclure111
sure there is. if one claims adherence to, for example, the Christian virtue that one should sell all one's belongings and give them to the poor, the person espousing this from their Upper West Side apartment and the person who actually did it have way different tax returns
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @mcclure111
Individual verification would be great, but
#onhere, these kinds of things are almost impossible to prove. And attempting to chase down every single claimant would be similar to trying to disprove every crank assertion by creationists and flat-earthers. This simply doesn't scale.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @helios_daedalus @mcclure111
which would mean that
#onhere all virtue signaling is cheap virtue signaling
that isn't entirely true because you do see people fighting over the amount of time and energy they spend volunteering or protesting or what-have-you, which is virtue signal authentication, but close2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @mcclure111
Not all acts of virtue are material. Supporting the right of LGBT people to exist, is idealistic in nature, by acknowledging their issues/amplifying concerns. Also the idea that there is a price barrier to participate in virtue is pretty opposite to what virtue is supposed to be
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @helios_daedalus @mcclure111
since there aren't any non-material things the attempt to be assigned merit for non-material things is obviously a scam and should be treated as such i'd argue that the idea that you can have virtues that don't cost you anything is opposite to what virtue is supposed to be
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @mcclure111
If you must reduce everything to crude materialism, then everything costs you time and energy, which is an opportunity cost. This means that any act that you take onhere is by default of material value. Also, the issue of virtue being a function of sacrifice is highly debatable.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @helios_daedalus @mcclure111
oh no, crude materialism. we only like assigning attributes & agency to spooky unobservable entities, which is very refined if you're trumpeting a virtue, which you expect to be rewarded since people do reward it, that cost you nothing, you aren't virtuous, you're a rent-seeker
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There are multiple "virtues" I "trumpet" knowing full well that doing so means a lot of shitty conversations with people who think those virtues are bad. I'm not saying this to boost my ego. I'm saying this because I think your second paragraph is based on bad assumptions.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
if you reasonably expect to be significantly punished for promoting what you hold to be virtuous, and do it anyway, congratulations, you're paying a cost that provides meaningful if not conclusive evidence that your convictions are genuine
-
-
My point is that this should be generally assumed for most people willing to take a stand online, not that I am uniquely better than most.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.