Is "virtue signalling" good or bad?

[Santo]

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

 

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

 

 

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 ----------

 

 

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.

 

Yes, I know.

 

I remember ages ago there was a TV show about celebrity wealth. One week it was George Michael's turn. The show pointed out that he gave to charity and this was tax deductible.

 

The following week I tuned in and before the episode started the announcer apologised on behalf of the show to George Michael for implying he only gave to charity for tax purposes. He or his management had obviously seen the show and were miffed by the insinuation.

[NigelFargate]

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.

 

The 'signalling of virtue' (i.e. 'virtue signalling') is as old as the hills, as I have already pointed out. The contemporary usage merely places it in a different context, i.e. its prevalence in social media. As you say, the wiki article is short. Like many wiki articles - as academics frequently point out to their students- the one you cite is to be regarded with caution if viewed as as an authoritative source.

 

---------- Post added 27-10-2016 at 18:32 ----------

 

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

 

Moral posturing, or phoney altruism (i.e. a form of 'virtue signalling'), is also as old as the hills. I would agree that contemporary examples of it are perhaps more egregious than in previous eras, but in their essence they are very similar. What does it cost Charlotte Church, Lily Allen or similar egotistical airheads to rant on twitter or facebook about the plight of refugees? Nothing, as far as we know.

 

Some forms of 'virtue signalling' can reap rewards to the signallers in terms of public profile and image, as we know from the careers of Geldof and the tax exile Bono. U2 as a band really took off after their appearance at a Live Aid concert (they may have made it without this of course, but it certainly did the band no harm).

Edited October 27, 2016 by NigelFargate

[Santo]

The 'signalling of virtue' (i.e. 'virtue signalling') is as old as the hills, as I have already pointed out. The contemporary usage merely places it in a different context, i.e. its prevalence in social media. As you say, the wiki article is short. Like many wiki articles - as academics frequently point out to their students- the one you cite is to be regarded with caution if viewed as as an authoritative source.

 

---------- Post added 27-10-2016 at 18:32 ----------

 

 

Moral posturing, or phoney altruism (i.e. a form of 'virtue signalling'), is also as old as the hills. I would agree that contemporary examples of it are perhaps more egregious than in previous eras, but in their essence they are very similar. What does it cost Charlotte Church, Lily Allen or similar egotistical airheads to rant on twitter or facebook about the plight of refugees? Nothing, as far as we know.

 

Some forms of 'virtue signalling' can reap rewards to the signallers in terms of public profile and image, as we know from the careers of Geldof and the tax exile Bono. U2 as a band really took off after their appearance at a Live Aid concert (they may have made it without this of course, but it certainly did the band no harm).

 

I don't disagree that banging on about your own virtuous behaviour is anything new. But 'virtue signalling' is a new term relating to the social media phenomena.

 

IMHO the thread title is erroneous.

[saunaman]

Gutted that my thread title has been deemed "erroneous", silly me .

 

Shut down by mere words... now where have I seen that happen before ?

[Cyclone]

 

Moral posturing, or phoney altruism (i.e. a form of 'virtue signalling'), is also as old as the hills. I would agree that contemporary examples of it are perhaps more egregious than in previous eras, but in their essence they are very similar. What does it cost Charlotte Church, Lily Allen or similar egotistical airheads to rant on twitter or facebook about the plight of refugees? Nothing, as far as we know.

I don't think it even has to be false in any way.

Some people prefer to let others know that they are giving, and that way they get something back. Others prefer to keep it mostly private, but perhaps they think they'll be rewarded after death, or they simply feel good about themselves. Altruism is almost always a little bit selfish somewhere.

 

Some forms of 'virtue signalling' can reap rewards to the signallers in terms of public profile and image, as we know from the careers of Geldof and the tax exile Bono. U2 as a band really took off after their appearance at a Live Aid concert (they may have made it without this of course, but it certainly did the band no harm).

 

I'm not sure that playing live aid is virtue signaling. It sounds more like conspicuous altruism. It's the same as giving money to a cause. It's not saying you hate the daily mail in order to fit in with your guardian reading friends.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 07:26 ----------

 

Gutted that my thread title has been deemed "erroneous", silly me .

 

Shut down by mere words... now where have I seen that happen before ?

 

Given that it's a forum where only words are used, using them appropriately and correctly is quite important isn't it?

[NigelFargate]

Gutted that my thread title has been deemed "erroneous", silly me .

 

Shut down by mere words... now where have I seen that happen before ?

 

Your title is only erroneous to those of a pedantic and inflexible view of neologisms. Most of these are simply new variants of, or labels for, phenomena which have a very long pedigree. The signalling of virtue through social media is merely a difference in the means through which the end of appearing virtuous to others is pursued.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 12:18 ----------

 

I don't think it even has to be false in any way.

Some people prefer to let others know that they are giving, and that way they get something back. Others prefer to keep it mostly private, but perhaps they think they'll be rewarded after death, or they simply feel good about themselves. Altruism is almost always a little bit selfish somewhere.

 

 

 

I'm not sure that playing live aid is virtue signaling. It sounds more like conspicuous altruism. It's the same as giving money to a cause. It's not saying you hate the daily mail in order to fit in with your guardian reading friends.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 07:26 ----------

 

 

Given that it's a forum where only words are used, using them appropriately and correctly is quite important isn't it?

 

Well, on these points we must continue to disagree. 'Conspicuous altruism' - mmm, its sounds like a form of virtue signaling to me. Of course we can add many other adjectives to categorise forms of altruism, such as 'bogus altruism'; 'posturing altruism'; 'self-serving altruism' etc. But unless altruistic acts are done secretly, or without fuss or fanfare, then they are likely to involve virtue signaling in some form or other. The contemporary form, through social media, might be referred to as a form of ostentatious, preening, phoney altruism, because it involves little or no cost to the signaler. Virtuous talk is cheap, as students of the human condition have always known.

Edited October 28, 2016 by NigelFargate
Fixed quote tags

[Santo]

Your title is only erroneous to those of a pedantic and inflexible view of neologisms. Most of these are simply new variants of, or labels for, phenomena which have a very long pedigree. The signalling of virtue through social media is merely a difference in the means through which the end of appearing virtuous to others is pursued.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2016 at 12:18 ----------

 

 

Well, on these points we must continue to disagree. 'Conspicuous altruism' - mmm, its sounds like a form of virtue signaling to me. Of course we can add many other adjectives to categorise forms of altruism, such as 'bogus altruism'; 'posturing altruism'; 'self-serving altruism' etc. But unless altruistic acts are done secretly, or without fuss or fanfare, then they are likely to involve virtue signaling in some form or other. The contemporary form, through social media, might be referred to as a form of ostentatious, preening, phoney altruism, because it involves little or no cost to the signaler. Virtuous talk is cheap, as students of the human condition have always known.

 

Well excuse me for being pedantic but since the OP stylised the title as "virtue signalling" I had assumed he was referring to the current social media phenomena. Though obviously not! Ergo the title is wrong.

 

Kudos to you I guess for being able to interpret the mindset of the Kipper Conspiracy Theorist with the Bon Jovi lyric as a philosophical tag-line.....you must be proud of yourself.

[Cyclone]

Your title is only erroneous to those of a pedantic and inflexible view of neologisms.

To be pedantic, a neologism is a new word. Not a phrase made up of existing words, that's just a phrase.

Well, on these points we must continue to disagree. 'Conspicuous altruism' - mmm, its sounds like a form of virtue signaling to me.

I think they sound quite distinctive, one involves being altruistic, the other just involves repeating a popular sentiment that applies to the group you're trying to belong to.

Of course we can add many other adjectives to categorise forms of altruism, such as 'bogus altruism'; 'posturing altruism'; 'self-serving altruism' etc. But unless altruistic acts are done secretly, or without fuss or fanfare, then they are likely to involve virtue signaling in some form or other. The contemporary form, through social media, might be referred to as a form of ostentatious, preening, phoney altruism, because it involves little or no cost to the signaler. Virtuous talk is cheap, as students of the human condition have always known.

 

You can put whatever adjective before altruism you like, but it doesn't make it signalling virtue as per the description given. Although I suppose it could be argued that CA is a subset of VS (but I'm not sure it would always be so and so it shouldn't be said to be so).

[NigelFargate]

Well excuse me for being pedantic but since the OP stylised the title as "virtue signalling" I had assumed he was referring to the current social media phenomena. Though obviously not! Ergo the title is wrong.

 

Kudos to you I guess for being able to interpret the mindset of the Kipper Conspiracy Theorist with the Bon Jovi lyric as a philosophical tag-line.....you must be proud of yourself.

 

No, ergo the title is correct. It is your assumption that virtue signalling applies exclusively to its use in social media which is incorrect. Indeed, if you read Bartholomews’ original article on ‘virtue signalling’ (rather than relying on Wikipaedia for your information) you will discover that most of the examples he provides to explain the phenomenon are not derived from modern social media at all. Indeed, he does not mention Twitter until the last paragraph, and then only in passing. Instead, he focuses on the purpose or intent of virtue signalling. To paraphrase McLuhun, in virtue signalling, the medium is definitely not the message.

 

As for your second paragraph, presumably it is meant to be an insult of some kind, although it is so badly written as to be incomprehensible as a result of your limited powers of expression. Indeed, experiencing you fumble and stumble with our wonderful English language is like witnessing a Ming vase in the hands of a chimpanzee.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2016 at 22:03 ----------

 

To be pedantic, a neologism is a new word. Not a phrase made up of existing words, that's just a phrase.

I think they sound quite distinctive, one involves being altruistic, the other just involves repeating a popular sentiment that applies to the group you're trying to belong to.

 

You can put whatever adjective before altruism you like, but it doesn't make it signalling virtue as per the description given. Although I suppose it could be argued that CA is a subset of VS (but I'm not sure it would always be so and so it shouldn't be said to be so).

 

What pedants have difficulty in understanding is that languages (and indeed the words, structures and usages which comprise them) cannot be frozen into rigid and immutable forms. They also appear to have difficulty in understanding that the meaning of words can expand or even diverge from their original roots. As a case in point, most dictionaries now define a neologism as a word, phrase or expression (my italics).

 

As for for virtue signalling, in many cases the signallers are in my view seeking to portray themselves as altruistic in some way or other (e.g. contemporary examples would be the wearing of wrist bands or the growing of moustaches in November to 'raise awareness' but also to signify that the wearers are caring individuals). In my view these two examples would fit nicely as supporting evidence into Bartholomew's article referred to above.

Edited November 1, 2016 by NigelFargate

[Cyclone]

No, I understand perfectly that language is an evolving, fluid thing. The word neologism exists to describe the process of a new word coming into being.

What it doesn't mean, has never meant and nobody thinks it means (except perhaps you) is a new phrase being uttered. The language is fluid, but if you simply use it incorrectly then nobody will actually know what you are trying to say.

Virtue signalling appears to have nothing inherently to do with altruism though, it could equally be expressing a dislike of immigrants in order to fit in with a particular group of people...