Is "virtue signalling" good or bad?

[Santo]

Okay, so it's actually behaviour that is designed to help you fit in with the group by excessively demonstrating some trait that is associated with that group?

 

Yes that's more or less my understanding. It has nothing to do with giving to charity.

[Berberis]

But back to your point, Coldplay gave £8m to Kids Company so their virtue signalling (used in the incorrect sense) cost them a fair whack.

 

This would be on a par with other altruistic donations to charities that should be applauded.

 

Its the American Football quarter back going into a shop and buying a few thousand dollars worth of toys for some charity. Posing with his receipt and plastering it all over social media that I find hard to trust. The money they spend is nothing in comparison and a far lesser preparation of his annual earnings than the rest of us who give £5 a month to the NSPCC. However, the celeb/sports star will gain much more praise and will receive valuable online exposure to help lift their "brand" and make them even more money.

 

Does anyone remember the group of top flight footballers who pledge to give a weeks salary to a charity that supports nurses. The last I heard, only 10-20% of those that publicly pledged to give the money actually did.

[Santo]

This would be on a par with other altruistic donations to charities that should be applauded.

 

Its the American Football quarter back going into a shop and buying a few thousand dollars worth of toys for some charity. Posing with his receipt and plastering it all over social media that I find hard to trust. The money they spend is nothing in comparison and a far lesser preparation of his annual earnings than the rest of us who give £5 a month to the NSPCC. However, the celeb/sports star will gain much more praise and will receive valuable online exposure to help lift their "brand" and make them even more money.

 

Does anyone remember the group of top flight footballers who pledge to give a weeks salary to a charity that supports nurses. The last I heard, only 10-20% of those that publicly pledged to give the money actually did.

 

That's not virtue signalling though.

[Berberis]

That's not virtue signalling though.

 

Sorry, my bad.

 

In reference to the Lilly Alan coverage. I would be interested to know, how she got there etc. Was she chauffeured to the location and put up in a nice 5 star hotel for her visit or did she do it entirely off her own back and the media just happened to be there.

 

I put Lilly's actions in the same group as that of most of the senior Royal Family. I would find it easy to be woken with breakfast in bed. Put on the clothes someone else has prepared for me, get into a luxury Range Rover and be chauffeured with a police escort to a location. Be told what to say, have a cuppa tea and a slice of cake with the locals. Get back in the Range Rover to be back home in your comfy slippers by 4pm. It cost me nothing and ever step of the way was pampered.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Berberis

[NigelFargate]

As I mentioned above, the OP isn't accurate in his description of virtue signalling.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

 

But back to your point, Coldplay gave £8m to Kids Company so their virtue signalling (used in the incorrect sense) cost them a fair whack.

 

You are being too restrictive in your understanding of the term. You are correct in your assumption that as a neologism it generally refers to the statements and acts of celebrities which enable the latter to appear virtuous in some way or other.

 

However, as with many other phenomena, 'virtue signalling' it can take many forms, including the one mentioned by the first poster. Indeed, the act of performing, or appearing to perform, good works has a long genealogy, for example the distribution of Maundy money by British monarchs, or the kissing of paupers' feet by Popes. In this sense, it can be regarded as a form of moral conspicuous consumption. The term 'conspicuous consumption' was invented by the Economist Thorsten Veblen, to refer to ostentatious displays of wealth, with the aim of boosting the egos or social standing of the wearers. 'Moral conspicuous consumption', where the 'virtuous' drape themselves in the moral jewels of concern for others, or the promotion of 'good causes', seems to be particularly prevalent in the age of twitter and Facebook.

 

Indeed, the age of social media has provided a cost-free platform for fatuous and egotistical celebrities to inflict their puerile and worthless opinions about refugees, climate change and a host of other issues on the rest of us.

 

Incidentally, yes Coldplay did give a lot of money to Kid's Company, but how much of it was spent on worthy causes?

Edited October 27, 2016 by NigelFargate

[Santo]

You are being too restrictive in your understanding of the term. You are correct in your assumption that as a neologism it generally refers to the statements and acts of celebrities which enable the latter to appear virtuous in some way or other.

 

However, as with many other phenomena, 'virtue signalling' it can take many forms, including the one mentioned by the first poster. Indeed, the act of performing, or appearing to perform, good works has a long genealogy, for example the distribution of Maundy money by British monarchs, or the kissing of paupers' feet by Popes. In this sense, it can be regarded as a form of moral conspicuous consumption. The term 'conspicuous consumption' was invented by the Economist Thorsten Veblen, to refer to ostentatious displays of wealth, with the aim of boosting the egos or social standing of the wearers. 'Moral conspicuous consumption', where the 'virtuous' drape themselves in the moral jewels of concern for others, or the promotion of 'good causes', seems to be particularly prevalent in the age of twitter and Facebook.

 

Indeed, the age of social media has provided a cost-free platform for fatuous and egotistical celebrities to inflict their puerile and worthless opinions on refugees, climate change and a host of other issues the rest of us.

 

Incidentally, yes Coldplay did give a lot of money to Kid's Company, but how much of it was spent on worthy causes?

 

No, to be fair I think it's you that is being too broad in your understanding of the term whilst at the same time narrowing it down to celebrities. It's not correct.

 

Do read the wiki article. It's only short.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Santo

[phil752]

As I mentioned above, the OP isn't accurate in his description of virtue signalling.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

 

But back to your point, Coldplay gave £8m to Kids Company so their virtue signalling (used in the incorrect sense) cost them a fair whack.

 

I wonder how much a tax break they got for that, if they did, it really mean all tax payer contributed to it.

[Santo]

I wonder how much a tax break they got for that, if they did, it really mean all tax payer contributed to it.

 

Yes, giving to charity can be tax efficient.

[Cyclone]

You are being too restrictive in your understanding of the term. You are correct in your assumption that as a neologism it generally refers to the statements and acts of celebrities which enable the latter to appear virtuous in some way or other.

 

However, as with many other phenomena, 'virtue signalling' it can take many forms, including the one mentioned by the first poster. Indeed, the act of performing, or appearing to perform, good works has a long genealogy, for example the distribution of Maundy money by British monarchs, or the kissing of paupers' feet by Popes. In this sense, it can be regarded as a form of moral conspicuous consumption. The term 'conspicuous consumption' was invented by the Economist Thorsten Veblen, to refer to ostentatious displays of wealth, with the aim of boosting the egos or social standing of the wearers. 'Moral conspicuous consumption', where the 'virtuous' drape themselves in the moral jewels of concern for others, or the promotion of 'good causes', seems to be particularly prevalent in the age of twitter and Facebook.

 

Indeed, the age of social media has provided a cost-free platform for fatuous and egotistical celebrities to inflict their puerile and worthless opinions about refugees, climate change and a host of other issues on the rest of us.

 

Incidentally, yes Coldplay did give a lot of money to Kid's Company, but how much of it was spent on worthy causes?

 

I think you're referring to conspicuous altruism, rather than virtue signaling.

 

---------- Post added 27-10-2016 at 17:22 ----------

 

I wonder how much a tax break they got for that, if they did, it really mean all tax payer contributed to it.

 

It's tax deductable, in that it comes out of their gross income. It doesn't in any way mean that the tax payer contributed to it, it just means that what you give (what anyone gives) to charity is not taxed. In the case of a basic rate tax payer you sign a form letting the charity recover the 20%, in the case of coldplay, they put it in their accounts and that is taken out before tax is calculated.

 

---------- Post added 27-10-2016 at 17:23 ----------

 

Yes, giving to charity can be tax efficient.

 

But not as 'efficient' as keeping the money. Giving to charity will NEVER increase your net take home, it's just that it won't reduce it by as much as the headline rate.

 

Give 8 million and you probably only see a reduction in net income of 5 million.

[Ghozer]

Personally I prefer to keep good deeds or random acts of kindness to myself . Is there anything wrong with that?

 

What I do get annoyed about is people jumping on this and that "charitable bandwagon" just because it's "cool/whatever" to do so .

 

Call me an old fogie but young people should have to write a 200 word article in defence of whatever random cause they choose to support.

 

Personally my plan to escape this hell which Sheffield has become will begin very , very soon xx

 

I agree fully...

 

There's no problem, and in fact I encourage people to do charitable things...

 

But when they do things, and don't know what the cause is for/about, and they are doing it "just because everyone else is" - that's when I see a problem....