In Pursuit of Excellence
June 28, 2018 7:20 AM Subscribe
Be Excellent To Each Other: Virtue Signalling in Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure -- Game designer and writer Stew Wilson (website) digs into the neoreactionary logic behind the idea of "virtue signalling", using the classic 1989 time travel/slacker comedy as an ethical (if imperfect) counter-example.
I would be interested to know the context that inspired the author to write this piece. It's been a long time since I saw Bill & Ted, so it was fun to revisit it.
I think the opposite of "virtue signaling" might be "virtue shrugging". And "hypocrisy" is a perfectly good word. Why did the right discard it? A self-aware fear that if they pick it up it will rebound in their faces?
posted by puddledork at 7:41 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
I think the opposite of "virtue signaling" might be "virtue shrugging". And "hypocrisy" is a perfectly good word. Why did the right discard it? A self-aware fear that if they pick it up it will rebound in their faces?
posted by puddledork at 7:41 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
If anyone's considering whether to click through and read, it points out that the term (virtue-signaling) started to catch on when "columnist and suspected hedgehog-masturbator James Bartholemew used it in the disappointing over-priced bog-roll that is The Spectator...."
You beat me to this exact same pull-quote and sentiment by about 45 seconds.
The term "virtue signalling" also seems to have gained some traction with the ditrbag left as well as a way to purity-gatekeep. It's super disappointing every time I see it because like it's 2018.
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:42 AM on June 28, 2018 [13 favorites]
You beat me to this exact same pull-quote and sentiment by about 45 seconds.
The term "virtue signalling" also seems to have gained some traction with the ditrbag left as well as a way to purity-gatekeep. It's super disappointing every time I see it because like it's 2018.
posted by soren_lorensen at 7:42 AM on June 28, 2018 [13 favorites]
If the film had made a show out of having a positive presentation of women, or of its historical accuracy, or any number of other points on which it falls down, then it could well be claimed to be virtue signalling. That is however not the case. It is flawed but it is earnest, in a clueless way reminiscent of its protagonists.
So his point seems to be that it is not about virtue signalling in B&TEA. But this misses a wider point, as some critics have pointed in past years. When making a show that parodies the culture, featuring of course very stupid protagonists (Beavis and Butthead, It's Always Sunny...) they tend to be mostly white males, exactly because their status is being comically targeted by their functional stupidity. In other words, Beavis and Butthead of any other race or gender would have the opposite effect and the theme would backfire.
posted by Brian B. at 7:50 AM on June 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
So his point seems to be that it is not about virtue signalling in B&TEA. But this misses a wider point, as some critics have pointed in past years. When making a show that parodies the culture, featuring of course very stupid protagonists (Beavis and Butthead, It's Always Sunny...) they tend to be mostly white males, exactly because their status is being comically targeted by their functional stupidity. In other words, Beavis and Butthead of any other race or gender would have the opposite effect and the theme would backfire.
posted by Brian B. at 7:50 AM on June 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
And "hypocrisy" is a perfectly good word. Why did the right discard it?
Nuance, possibly? At least, to me, there's a difference between standard hypocrisy and "virtue signaling".
Standard hypocrisy, at least the way I understand it, is when you knee-jerk take the position that something is bad - but then when someone catches you in having done the very thing that you declared was bad, you're all "that's different!" It's more re-active. "Virtue signaling", on the other hand, is a more calculated thing - "i want those people over there to like me. I've heard that they believe that this thing is bad. Therefore I will declare that I also think it's bad, and that will make them like me." You know? One is more of a knee-jerk "I haven't thought my position through" kind of situation, and the other is a way more calculated "I'm going to manipulate you" kind of thing.
Still, though, I agree that it's been over-used, but I suspect that it's probably because a lot of people who are using it are indeed using it because it's a popular buzzword and they don't really know what it means. ....maybe that would be a good tactic -
"Pfeh, there you go with your virtue signaling!"
"....'Virtue signaling'? I'm not familiar with that term, what does it mean?"
"....uh...."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:51 AM on June 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
Nuance, possibly? At least, to me, there's a difference between standard hypocrisy and "virtue signaling".
Standard hypocrisy, at least the way I understand it, is when you knee-jerk take the position that something is bad - but then when someone catches you in having done the very thing that you declared was bad, you're all "that's different!" It's more re-active. "Virtue signaling", on the other hand, is a more calculated thing - "i want those people over there to like me. I've heard that they believe that this thing is bad. Therefore I will declare that I also think it's bad, and that will make them like me." You know? One is more of a knee-jerk "I haven't thought my position through" kind of situation, and the other is a way more calculated "I'm going to manipulate you" kind of thing.
Still, though, I agree that it's been over-used, but I suspect that it's probably because a lot of people who are using it are indeed using it because it's a popular buzzword and they don't really know what it means. ....maybe that would be a good tactic -
"Pfeh, there you go with your virtue signaling!"
"....'Virtue signaling'? I'm not familiar with that term, what does it mean?"
"....uh...."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:51 AM on June 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
Basically, "virtue signaling" always translated for me as "the implications of you genuinely holding the position you do make me uncomfortable vis a vis my own positions, so I will instead insinuate that you are just cynical, so that I can avoid self-reflection."
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:52 AM on June 28, 2018 [75 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:52 AM on June 28, 2018 [75 favorites]
What if we redefined "virtue signaling" as the habit of proclaiming one's opinions but never doing anything about them? E.g., expressing support for trans people or immigrants on Facebook but not bothering to vote, to donate to organizations that work for equality, or to show up at protests? As a practicing semiotician, I am entirely happy about stigmatizing the mere display of signs of virtue when there is no praxis behind the puff. And for the same reasons I am suspicious of the trick of sneering at the display when the real aim is to discredit the praxis that might follow from taking the puff seriously. I think people are able to tell the difference between the two.
posted by homerica at 7:55 AM on June 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by homerica at 7:55 AM on June 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
What if we redefined "virtue signaling" as the habit of proclaiming one's opinions but never doing anything about them?
Then "we" would be using the term in a completely different sense than the nazis. We also already have the perfectly serviceable "slacktivism" for that phenomenon.
posted by PMdixon at 8:00 AM on June 28, 2018 [10 favorites]
Then "we" would be using the term in a completely different sense than the nazis. We also already have the perfectly serviceable "slacktivism" for that phenomenon.
posted by PMdixon at 8:00 AM on June 28, 2018 [10 favorites]
And "hypocrisy" is a perfectly good word. Why did the right discard it?
An accusation of hypocrisy is "You said that X is bad, but then you did X.", or essentially, "The negative thing cancels out the positive thing." But an accusation of virtue-signaling is "You said that X is bad, but you don't really care about X.", or essentially, "The lack of a positive thing cancels out the positive thing." From there, it's a short hop to "The lack of a sufficiently positive thing cancels out the positive thing.", e.g., "Oh, sure, you say you're for women's rights, and you vote for women and protest the wage gap and escort women to Planned Parenthood, but despite all that... um... you aren't watching Oprah's cable channel enough, so you're not really a feminist, and I can ignore you."
(As always, accusations of "virtue-signaling" aren't about carefully weighing the pros and cons of the speech and the speaker -- they're about searching for an excuse not to listen to the speech.)
posted by Etrigan at 8:00 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
An accusation of hypocrisy is "You said that X is bad, but then you did X.", or essentially, "The negative thing cancels out the positive thing." But an accusation of virtue-signaling is "You said that X is bad, but you don't really care about X.", or essentially, "The lack of a positive thing cancels out the positive thing." From there, it's a short hop to "The lack of a sufficiently positive thing cancels out the positive thing.", e.g., "Oh, sure, you say you're for women's rights, and you vote for women and protest the wage gap and escort women to Planned Parenthood, but despite all that... um... you aren't watching Oprah's cable channel enough, so you're not really a feminist, and I can ignore you."
(As always, accusations of "virtue-signaling" aren't about carefully weighing the pros and cons of the speech and the speaker -- they're about searching for an excuse not to listen to the speech.)
posted by Etrigan at 8:00 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
I tend to think that the term "virtue signalling" comes out of the disconnect between speech and actions.
To take racism, many people in polite company would absolutely decry racism as a concept and would refrain from using racist slurs. Still, many of those same people support policies that have racist outcomes.
Those who argue the speech is "virtue signalling" imply that the people actually do espouse racist views but do not wish the negative social consequences of saying it. That's perhaps true for some, but misses the other possibility I see:
Many people are also imperfect and do not always think through the consequences of their actions. I think most people want not to be racist, even when their actions don't always live up to that.
To say that they are "virtue signalling" seems unreasonably cynical in most cases. I don't know if, as NoxAeternum suggested above, that's because those using the term are unable or unwilling to understand that others hold views that make them uncomfortable, or if it's just a useful tactic in refusing to engage with the actual arguments of those trying not to be racist. or, on preview, what Etrigan said
posted by thegears at 8:01 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
To take racism, many people in polite company would absolutely decry racism as a concept and would refrain from using racist slurs. Still, many of those same people support policies that have racist outcomes.
Those who argue the speech is "virtue signalling" imply that the people actually do espouse racist views but do not wish the negative social consequences of saying it. That's perhaps true for some, but misses the other possibility I see:
Many people are also imperfect and do not always think through the consequences of their actions. I think most people want not to be racist, even when their actions don't always live up to that.
To say that they are "virtue signalling" seems unreasonably cynical in most cases. I don't know if, as NoxAeternum suggested above, that's because those using the term are unable or unwilling to understand that others hold views that make them uncomfortable, or if it's just a useful tactic in refusing to engage with the actual arguments of those trying not to be racist. or, on preview, what Etrigan said
posted by thegears at 8:01 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
I would be interested to know the context that inspired the author to write this piece. It's been a long time since I saw Bill & Ted...
Dude, they have a time machine.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 8:01 AM on June 28, 2018 [7 favorites]
Dude, they have a time machine.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 8:01 AM on June 28, 2018 [7 favorites]
The insane thing about all of this is that mainstream conservatism is nothing but constant virtue signaling. They claim to love babies, they claim to care about human life, they pretend to be concerned about human decency.
It's all a fucking game to them, and their "moral positions" are just tokens on the board.
posted by idiopath at 8:02 AM on June 28, 2018 [39 favorites]
It's all a fucking game to them, and their "moral positions" are just tokens on the board.
posted by idiopath at 8:02 AM on June 28, 2018 [39 favorites]
Since Stew Wilson is a game designer, I was expecting this to be about the Bill and Ted game.
posted by RobotHero at 8:06 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by RobotHero at 8:06 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
People. "Virtue signalling" is a term of the right. Its connotations are fundamentally antithetical to what the left holds. I cannot believe that in 2018 I have to say that this means that, unless you are happy with that, you shouldn't be using it.
posted by praemunire at 8:14 AM on June 28, 2018 [25 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 8:14 AM on June 28, 2018 [25 favorites]
...Like, you don't have to spend your time trying to dissect and pick out nuggets of good faith meaning when dealing with people who are talking to you in fundamental bad faith. You really don't.
posted by praemunire at 8:17 AM on June 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 8:17 AM on June 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
It's funny that the very people who unironically use the term "virtue signalling" are the same people who say "I'm not racist, but..."
posted by 256 at 8:17 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by 256 at 8:17 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
This article didn't click for me, can't quite make the jump about how the analysis of Bill and Ted relates. I think I saw a blurb about a third movie in development.
Usually as I encounter it, the implicit argument is that work with LGBTQ, feminist, or multicultural elements can't really be worthwhile to engage in except as an exercise in showing how progressive you are. Which boggles my mind because those elements are often minimal and the works complained about are well within the mainstream.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 8:18 AM on June 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
Usually as I encounter it, the implicit argument is that work with LGBTQ, feminist, or multicultural elements can't really be worthwhile to engage in except as an exercise in showing how progressive you are. Which boggles my mind because those elements are often minimal and the works complained about are well within the mainstream.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 8:18 AM on June 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
Basically, "virtue signaling" always translated for me as "the implications of you genuinely holding the position you do make me uncomfortable vis a vis my own positions, so I will instead insinuate that you are just cynical, so that I can avoid self-reflection."Yeah, it's not a new attitude, just a new(ish) buzzword. When I was an active participant in fandom activities, you'd get people accusing female-character-centric fic (and fannish celebrations thereof) as being "dutyfic" -- nobody could possibly want to read or write about female characters out of enjoyment, amirite? And this wasn't some random 4chan dudebros crashing the party, it was in a mostly-female transformative-fandom space.
posted by inconstant at 8:25 AM on June 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
People. "Virtue signalling" is a term of the right
It's true, liberals have the term 'performative wokeness' to throw around instead.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:33 AM on June 28, 2018 [14 favorites]
It's true, liberals have the term 'performative wokeness' to throw around instead.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:33 AM on June 28, 2018 [14 favorites]
Those who argue the speech is "virtue signalling" imply that the people actually do espouse racist views but do not wish the negative social consequences of saying it.
Yep and that implication is probably, a lot of the time, a genuine belief. It's kind of a failure of empathy, in the over-generalising from self mode:the speaker is racist, but does not wish to suffer the negative consequences for it, so they imply that anyone expressing anti-racist views or bringing the negative social consequences to bear on the racist must be acting out of a desire to preserve their social standing, to offer up the outspoken to save themselves. It's a belief that of course everyone is racist, how could they not be, it's just that everyone is also part of and beholden to a social system that demands non-racism.
posted by Dysk at 8:36 AM on June 28, 2018 [11 favorites]
Yep and that implication is probably, a lot of the time, a genuine belief. It's kind of a failure of empathy, in the over-generalising from self mode:the speaker is racist, but does not wish to suffer the negative consequences for it, so they imply that anyone expressing anti-racist views or bringing the negative social consequences to bear on the racist must be acting out of a desire to preserve their social standing, to offer up the outspoken to save themselves. It's a belief that of course everyone is racist, how could they not be, it's just that everyone is also part of and beholden to a social system that demands non-racism.
posted by Dysk at 8:36 AM on June 28, 2018 [11 favorites]
...which is why anyone using the term in earnest earns a serious dose of suspicion and side-eye from lots of people.
posted by Dysk at 8:40 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:40 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
It's interesting to read this after the discussion in the other thread of the Mefi-favorite term "performative despair." Both phrases have the same premise: that the person they are directed at could not possibly be speaking in good faith. I think "performative despair" is a shitty term and I wish we would ban both terms from the site.
posted by enn at 8:40 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by enn at 8:40 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
I dunno, I think something can be performative and heartfelt at the same time. I'd call that a comment on the mode of expression more than the validity or genuineness of the content.
posted by Dysk at 8:42 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:42 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
> "It's a belief that of course everyone is racist, how could they not be, it's just that everyone is also part of and beholden to a social system that demands non-racism."
Yeah. This is why "virtue signaling" at this point pretty much means for me, "Any person using this term about someone is an asshole and possibly a sociopath", and pretty much nothing else.
posted by kyrademon at 8:45 AM on June 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
Yeah. This is why "virtue signaling" at this point pretty much means for me, "Any person using this term about someone is an asshole and possibly a sociopath", and pretty much nothing else.
posted by kyrademon at 8:45 AM on June 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
Wow, this entire time I thought virtue signaling was a leftist term for when a guy “signaled” that he was into lefty things, but actually was just trying to score points from the particular crowd he was signaling at, e.g. “woke” guys trying to get laid on tinder by hitting all the bullet points needed, but it’s all surface level.
posted by gucci mane at 8:47 AM on June 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 8:47 AM on June 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
Then "we" would be using the term in a completely different sense than the nazis. We also already have the perfectly serviceable "slacktivism" for that phenomenon.
I've understood the term to have the meaning homerica suggests we assign to it, and thegears suggests an understanding that's close to that. I've never used it myself (or even mentioned it prior to this), but my experience is that praemunire's declaration that it's a term of the right is overstated.
I see from the examples here that it is widely used to mean "you couldn't possibly actually believe that," but I've seen a number of examples (from left of center speakers) where it means "put your money where your mouth is."
Regarding it's use the the Bill and Ted essay, the idea that a virtue signalling is itself an empty gesture if it is not backed by significant changes in behaviour, not just statements is disproved by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that either the author or I have a serious misunderstanding of what that hypothesis is.
posted by layceepee at 8:51 AM on June 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
I've understood the term to have the meaning homerica suggests we assign to it, and thegears suggests an understanding that's close to that. I've never used it myself (or even mentioned it prior to this), but my experience is that praemunire's declaration that it's a term of the right is overstated.
I see from the examples here that it is widely used to mean "you couldn't possibly actually believe that," but I've seen a number of examples (from left of center speakers) where it means "put your money where your mouth is."
Regarding it's use the the Bill and Ted essay, the idea that a virtue signalling is itself an empty gesture if it is not backed by significant changes in behaviour, not just statements is disproved by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that either the author or I have a serious misunderstanding of what that hypothesis is.
posted by layceepee at 8:51 AM on June 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
Wow, this entire time I thought virtue signaling was a leftist term for when a guy “signaled” that he was into lefty things, but actually was just trying to score points
I mean, that is virtue signalling, but it's the implication that anyone having a anti-bigotry (or anti-bigotry-that-doesn't-affect-them-personally) stance is doing it that marks someone out. The person using the term is likely someone who absolutely does do it themselves on the regular - that's why it's so easy to assume that everyone does, all the time. "Tyv tror hver mand stjæler" as we say in Danish - thieves think everyone steals. So using the term marks you out as one of those douches, poisoning any potential good-faith application of the term.
posted by Dysk at 8:52 AM on June 28, 2018 [13 favorites]
I mean, that is virtue signalling, but it's the implication that anyone having a anti-bigotry (or anti-bigotry-that-doesn't-affect-them-personally) stance is doing it that marks someone out. The person using the term is likely someone who absolutely does do it themselves on the regular - that's why it's so easy to assume that everyone does, all the time. "Tyv tror hver mand stjæler" as we say in Danish - thieves think everyone steals. So using the term marks you out as one of those douches, poisoning any potential good-faith application of the term.
posted by Dysk at 8:52 AM on June 28, 2018 [13 favorites]
Nah, virtue signaling is code for "I don't actually believe anyone truly holds these anti-racist/feminist/pro-immigration views, you're all as racist/misogynist/xenophobic as I am, and you're just claiming not to be in order to get some credit with people you want to impress."
posted by suelac at 8:54 AM on June 28, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by suelac at 8:54 AM on June 28, 2018 [15 favorites]
I just really, really disagree with most of the posters on this thread about the term "virtue signalling." It' a phrase that has its uses, and sometimes those uses are accurate. Other times they're not.
Maybe I don't read all the same Twitter threads you do or something, but I think there's something distasteful about performatively claiming a belief system that you're not backing up with action - or seeking social capital for doing the easiest part (posting about it) without doing the hard part (doing stuff.)
I was raised Presbyterian, and my parents and grandparents believed very strongly in the value of being a good neighbor and doing good for a community without taking public credit for it. Call it the church of Mr. Rogers. When my grandparents fought to integrate public schools in VA, they sure weren't doing it for the social capital.
Performative allyship is just gross, and as a performer in NYC, I see a lot of it in the standup and burlesque communities.
Once you hear a few dozen shitbag guys open mediocre sets/open mic bits with "so I consider myself a feminist" you start seeing "virtue signalling" as a shortcut to getting applause instead of the laughter a comic is supposed to earn through insight. Or the most public, Facebook-virtuous people turn out to be accused of multiple acts of sexual assault.
Harvey Weinstein sure did do a lot of virtue signalling.
I guess what I'm saying here is - don't let some clowns on the right take a perfectly useful phrase and use it as a weapon. "Right to life" people and other Jesus nuts do their own version of virtue signalling, so there's plenty of blame to go around.
The other thing I'm saying here is that while I liked reminiscing about Bill and Ted, I found the linked article confusing as hell.
posted by chinese_fashion at 9:04 AM on June 28, 2018 [11 favorites]
Maybe I don't read all the same Twitter threads you do or something, but I think there's something distasteful about performatively claiming a belief system that you're not backing up with action - or seeking social capital for doing the easiest part (posting about it) without doing the hard part (doing stuff.)
I was raised Presbyterian, and my parents and grandparents believed very strongly in the value of being a good neighbor and doing good for a community without taking public credit for it. Call it the church of Mr. Rogers. When my grandparents fought to integrate public schools in VA, they sure weren't doing it for the social capital.
Performative allyship is just gross, and as a performer in NYC, I see a lot of it in the standup and burlesque communities.
Once you hear a few dozen shitbag guys open mediocre sets/open mic bits with "so I consider myself a feminist" you start seeing "virtue signalling" as a shortcut to getting applause instead of the laughter a comic is supposed to earn through insight. Or the most public, Facebook-virtuous people turn out to be accused of multiple acts of sexual assault.
Harvey Weinstein sure did do a lot of virtue signalling.
I guess what I'm saying here is - don't let some clowns on the right take a perfectly useful phrase and use it as a weapon. "Right to life" people and other Jesus nuts do their own version of virtue signalling, so there's plenty of blame to go around.
The other thing I'm saying here is that while I liked reminiscing about Bill and Ted, I found the linked article confusing as hell.
posted by chinese_fashion at 9:04 AM on June 28, 2018 [11 favorites]
> "I guess what I'm saying here is - don't let some clowns on the right take a perfectly useful phrase and use it as a weapon."
The problem is, it's too late. That ship has sailed.
posted by kyrademon at 9:10 AM on June 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
The problem is, it's too late. That ship has sailed.
posted by kyrademon at 9:10 AM on June 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
Sidenote - a 3rd Bill & Ted movie is in the works.
posted by Windigo at 9:12 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Windigo at 9:12 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
I am entirely happy about stigmatizing the mere display of signs of virtue when there is no praxis behind the puff.
I don't get this. It doesn't deserve plaudits or cookies or whatever (necessarily) but stating that "I think x people deserve human rights" is a net good.
And a ton of now passionate activists I know started dipping their toes in with baby actions like putting rainbow flags on their profiles in the face of extremely conservative families. Not a big deal for some, but definitely a starting point that doesn't deserve scorn.
posted by threetwentytwo at 9:13 AM on June 28, 2018 [17 favorites]
I don't get this. It doesn't deserve plaudits or cookies or whatever (necessarily) but stating that "I think x people deserve human rights" is a net good.
And a ton of now passionate activists I know started dipping their toes in with baby actions like putting rainbow flags on their profiles in the face of extremely conservative families. Not a big deal for some, but definitely a starting point that doesn't deserve scorn.
posted by threetwentytwo at 9:13 AM on June 28, 2018 [17 favorites]
We have plenty of other, more useful words and phrases, like "appropriation" or "slaktivism" as examples. This specific phrase was popularized as a conservative dogwhistle and still primarily works in that sphere.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 9:14 AM on June 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 9:14 AM on June 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
I think there's something distasteful about performatively claiming a belief system that you're not backing up with action - or seeking social capital for doing the easiest part (posting about it) without doing the hard part (doing stuff.)
I completely agree with this. The question is whether it makes any tactical sense to adopt a term for it that is currently being used to tar the entire left with this brush. The answer is: no. Don't adopt your enemy's terms for you.
posted by praemunire at 9:14 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
I completely agree with this. The question is whether it makes any tactical sense to adopt a term for it that is currently being used to tar the entire left with this brush. The answer is: no. Don't adopt your enemy's terms for you.
posted by praemunire at 9:14 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
I think the bit from Stewart Lee in TFA covers this, though comes at it from the opposite side.
People deciding that it's no longer The Done Thing to use racial slurs openly, regardless of why, is a net good just in and of itself. It doesn't Solve Racism Forever, and the people who have removed those terms from their vocabulary may never lift a finger to do anything else beyond talking less racist, but it is an improvement over the prior state of affairs.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:22 AM on June 28, 2018 [10 favorites]
People deciding that it's no longer The Done Thing to use racial slurs openly, regardless of why, is a net good just in and of itself. It doesn't Solve Racism Forever, and the people who have removed those terms from their vocabulary may never lift a finger to do anything else beyond talking less racist, but it is an improvement over the prior state of affairs.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:22 AM on June 28, 2018 [10 favorites]
I've always thought of 'virtue signalling' is just like idiopath describes above- false words while the actual action isn't silence, performative, or slight (I'd count those all as good things mostly- everyone has to start somewhere!), it's in direct opposition.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:24 AM on June 28, 2018
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:24 AM on June 28, 2018
It's also the case that organizational efforts that benefit people are labeled "virtue signalling," like gender neutral restrooms or publishing minority voices.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 9:25 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 9:25 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
What’s the difference between “virtue signalling” and “cookie begging”?
posted by Construction Concern at 9:34 AM on June 28, 2018
posted by Construction Concern at 9:34 AM on June 28, 2018
One is used to describe women working in mass media and the other your dog?
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
I did not know the LessWrongers were the originators of the term “virtue signalling.” But dressing up some effectively right-wing bullshit in pseudoscientific language is precisely their jam, so I’m not surprised.
posted by edheil at 9:52 AM on June 28, 2018
posted by edheil at 9:52 AM on June 28, 2018
I've primarily seen the term used to ascribe manipulative, cynical motives to anyone who acts or speaks "virtuously" in public. It's a poisonous term.
If someone is behaving kindly towards others in part or even entirely because they want others to think of them as a good person, so what? The key thing is that they're behaving kindly towards others. It shouldn't matter what's in their heart of hearts; that's not something they can control.
If someone's speech is inclusive but their actions are bigoted or callous, the problem is not with the inclusive speech ("virtue signalling"). The problem is with their actions.
posted by Kilter at 10:08 AM on June 28, 2018 [11 favorites]
If someone is behaving kindly towards others in part or even entirely because they want others to think of them as a good person, so what? The key thing is that they're behaving kindly towards others. It shouldn't matter what's in their heart of hearts; that's not something they can control.
If someone's speech is inclusive but their actions are bigoted or callous, the problem is not with the inclusive speech ("virtue signalling"). The problem is with their actions.
posted by Kilter at 10:08 AM on June 28, 2018 [11 favorites]
The variant of the argument used by conservative "media criticism" such as Puppies, GamerGate, etc., is that "SJWs" produce crappy and unmarketable work, and the only reason to view, read, recommend, or promote that work is "virtue signalling." "SJWs" are entirely earnest in this argument, we just have extraordinary bad taste.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 10:35 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 10:35 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
We have plenty of other, more useful words and phrases, like "appropriation" or "slaktivism" as examples.
I actually really like the one chinese_fashion uses - performative allyship.
posted by Dysk at 10:41 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
I actually really like the one chinese_fashion uses - performative allyship.
posted by Dysk at 10:41 AM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
Hey, OP here. I've had a major case of posting block for a couple of years (my last FPP for the Blue was in Feb 2016, which makes sense looking back at everything that's happened in that time), but I stumbled across TFA in my social media crawl this morning so I thought "why the hell not?"
I just want to say that I'm pleased with the positive response and the ensuing discussion. You guys are why I keep coming back here, and it's a great feeling to help add more to the overall dialogue.
posted by Strange Interlude at 10:42 AM on June 28, 2018 [14 favorites]
I just want to say that I'm pleased with the positive response and the ensuing discussion. You guys are why I keep coming back here, and it's a great feeling to help add more to the overall dialogue.
posted by Strange Interlude at 10:42 AM on June 28, 2018 [14 favorites]
Can I just say that this post is... excellent
posted by Dysk at 10:44 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 10:44 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
So here's what I see happening. The left observes a behavior and coins a term for it. Then they use that term to ask the authoritarians to please not do that. Because "human rights" or "rule of law" or "falsifiable" or what have you are important principles.
Then the fascists take that word or phrase, and they weaponize it against the left. They cry harder at the littlest thing that resembles it, saying, "I thought you didn't like that, but you do it too," because one time in the 16th century we said we didn't like hypocrisy. And then we fall all over ourselves trying to parse out the legit moral and ethical parameters of whatever the thing is we were talking about.
It's a devastating strategy. In this very thread we have been reduced us to arguing about the meaning of "virtue signaling" and they're not even actively present in this conversation. (OMG, imagine trying to have this dialogue in an environment where even 5% of us were Russian bots.) You are only free to do this when you don't care about methods, when there is no principle of reciprocity or indeed any principles at all underneath your actions. When you only care about winning the argument, without regard to the collateral consequences. When your opponents have no value.
On preview: Kilter makes a super good point and reminds us that we don't have access to other people's internal experience. So any use of an argument intended to highlight the difference between someone's rhetoric and their actions is de facto in bad faith when it is used to hypothesize a difference between their their rhetoric and their beliefs.
posted by Horkus at 11:45 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
Then the fascists take that word or phrase, and they weaponize it against the left. They cry harder at the littlest thing that resembles it, saying, "I thought you didn't like that, but you do it too," because one time in the 16th century we said we didn't like hypocrisy. And then we fall all over ourselves trying to parse out the legit moral and ethical parameters of whatever the thing is we were talking about.
It's a devastating strategy. In this very thread we have been reduced us to arguing about the meaning of "virtue signaling" and they're not even actively present in this conversation. (OMG, imagine trying to have this dialogue in an environment where even 5% of us were Russian bots.) You are only free to do this when you don't care about methods, when there is no principle of reciprocity or indeed any principles at all underneath your actions. When you only care about winning the argument, without regard to the collateral consequences. When your opponents have no value.
On preview: Kilter makes a super good point and reminds us that we don't have access to other people's internal experience. So any use of an argument intended to highlight the difference between someone's rhetoric and their actions is de facto in bad faith when it is used to hypothesize a difference between their their rhetoric and their beliefs.
posted by Horkus at 11:45 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
Not sure I agree, because I think the term can have value even within in-groups (like within the 'left'). For example, I don't see European/African/Middle Eastern criticism of US policy (cf virtue signalling) as anything other than making some legitimate points.
I also think (since English the language is approximately infinite) that having a word that describes the speech/vs actions is perfectly fine.
Finally I think making language concessions because it might be weaponized is a waste of time. If not words then something else will be weaponized by the people who want to bludgeon with weapons.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:09 PM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
I also think (since English the language is approximately infinite) that having a word that describes the speech/vs actions is perfectly fine.
Finally I think making language concessions because it might be weaponized is a waste of time. If not words then something else will be weaponized by the people who want to bludgeon with weapons.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:09 PM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
There are a lot of terms to use that describe the act of saying one thing and doing another. duplicitousness, doublespeak, hypocrisy, slacktivism, performative allyship, etc. The thing that sets "Virtue Signalling" apart is it's used primarily as a rhetorical weapon to discredit someone by implying their beliefs are not genuine and thus their argument is invalid.
Is that a term that should be used by people within an in-group that ought to be building each other up instead of tearing each other down? Or is it possible to spend a bit more time thinking about one's speech and critiquing one another without resorting to unhelpful clichés?
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 12:14 PM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
Is that a term that should be used by people within an in-group that ought to be building each other up instead of tearing each other down? Or is it possible to spend a bit more time thinking about one's speech and critiquing one another without resorting to unhelpful clichés?
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 12:14 PM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
Wikipedia confirms my memory that it never had much currency among left-of-center people, and that it exploded as a primarily internet-based neologism, (with notable exceptions such as blaming the Labour Party for their defeat.) For one thing, virtue ethics doesn't seem to have much currency in the left, and for another, we've already had lots to say about conditional and fair-weather allies going all the way back to the abolitionist movement before this neologism exploded.
So it's not something that we need to "concede." The current use of the phrase started off as a dogwhistle and is still used that way in most discussions where the actual work of the accused is never examined.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 12:30 PM on June 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
So it's not something that we need to "concede." The current use of the phrase started off as a dogwhistle and is still used that way in most discussions where the actual work of the accused is never examined.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 12:30 PM on June 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
There's plenty of other good expressions for what some of you seem to want this to mean, like "can you walk the walk" or "put your money where your mouth is." But that's never what people seem to mean when they say "virtue signal." They're only interested in shutting up said signal.
I guess if there's going to be a new Bill and Ted, this analysis is trying to get ahead of complaints about it. Like, if the new movie does try to give women characters more fleshed-out characters and so-on, it's inevitably going to be accused of virtue signalling.
posted by RobotHero at 12:45 PM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
I guess if there's going to be a new Bill and Ted, this analysis is trying to get ahead of complaints about it. Like, if the new movie does try to give women characters more fleshed-out characters and so-on, it's inevitably going to be accused of virtue signalling.
posted by RobotHero at 12:45 PM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
It's a term used to stigmatize empathy and compassion, mainly in an attempt to avoid addressing the user's own lack thereof. This term, along with "elite", "political correctness" or "SJW" should never be used by rational people.
posted by rocket88 at 1:33 PM on June 28, 2018 [10 favorites]
posted by rocket88 at 1:33 PM on June 28, 2018 [10 favorites]
I guess, I just don't think the terms that were suggested carry any less malice. In fact, if someone told me to 'put up or shut up', I'd deem them more apt to physical violence than someone who accused me of 'virtue signalling' - which obviously signals malice but more likely to approve of using state-sponsored violence than personal fists.
In terms of a new Bill and Ted, at best it's also going to be accused of Hollywood being out of ideas and being an unnecessary remake, so it'd better have some thick skin.
This term, along with "elite", "political correctness" or "SJW" should never be used by rational people. This I agree with, but that list also includes 'tendies' (chicken tenders) from the other thread.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:59 PM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
In terms of a new Bill and Ted, at best it's also going to be accused of Hollywood being out of ideas and being an unnecessary remake, so it'd better have some thick skin.
This term, along with "elite", "political correctness" or "SJW" should never be used by rational people. This I agree with, but that list also includes 'tendies' (chicken tenders) from the other thread.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:59 PM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
Virtue Signaling is a bad term if it means a difference between virtuous conduct and speaking for but not actually conducting oneself in a virtuous fashion. Because a signal is an indication of a thing, as a means of communication.
Indeed, a quick look at the wikipedia article indicates that that the term is taken from honest signaling in evolutionary biology. Like a Peacock's tail is going to be bigger if the peacock is healthier/better fed, or the idea that humans may prefer clear skin and generally symmetrical faces because they may indicate health.
A turn signal is an indication you are going to turn, for example.
The term has become pejorative only outside this context, by suggesting that any signal of virtue is inherently false. Which is damn cynical, in my view.
The fact that the term "virtue signaling" and it's meaning is itself debatable outside of the original context means that it is, in itself, a poor means of communication. The term signal, outside of the specific context of signaling theory, is ambiguous in terms of honest or dishonest signals.
I think we should reject virtue signaling as a term, outside of evolutionary biology or similar contexts, and challenge people outside those contexts to use different terms, to nail down what they mean.
posted by gryftir at 3:52 PM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
Indeed, a quick look at the wikipedia article indicates that that the term is taken from honest signaling in evolutionary biology. Like a Peacock's tail is going to be bigger if the peacock is healthier/better fed, or the idea that humans may prefer clear skin and generally symmetrical faces because they may indicate health.
A turn signal is an indication you are going to turn, for example.
The term has become pejorative only outside this context, by suggesting that any signal of virtue is inherently false. Which is damn cynical, in my view.
The fact that the term "virtue signaling" and it's meaning is itself debatable outside of the original context means that it is, in itself, a poor means of communication. The term signal, outside of the specific context of signaling theory, is ambiguous in terms of honest or dishonest signals.
I think we should reject virtue signaling as a term, outside of evolutionary biology or similar contexts, and challenge people outside those contexts to use different terms, to nail down what they mean.
posted by gryftir at 3:52 PM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
On a separate level, I view several of the assumptions inherent in common understandings of the term virtue signaling as inherently problematic. Much like I don't believe in selfishness as an inherent virtue in the Randian sense.
I don't believe people are virtuous or not. People, in my view, can do good, but they aren't good, or evil, inherently.
There's also the problem of intention vs outcome. I've seen the argument made that good intentions are meaningless if harm is caused. One the on hand, good intentions don't alleviate harm, something worth acknowledging. On the other hand, good intentions are perhaps another way of communicating about likely future actions.
Anyway if people can't be, perhaps acts can be virtuous, then we can use the idea of people being virtuous as a shorthand to say they tend to perform acts we consider to be virtuous. but it's one of those verbal shortcuts that often leads to issues, because to ascribe virtuousness or lack thereof to an individual is to presuppose that whether they are virtuous or not is a fixed quality, instead of something to be assessed based on each new piece of information.
That's where you get people not believing accusations about people with good reputations, or not hiring people previously convicted of minor offenses.
Finally there's the differentiation between expressions in support of virtue and other performances of virtue. I think there is something there when talking about individuals with the capacity to make definitive changes in policy. Thoughts and prayers regarding gun violence as expressed by people with the ability to make changes in the law come to mind. I think though, that the concepts of paying lip service or false piety or throwing up one's hands vs putting one's money where one's mouth is, or walking the walk. Those all can serve better than the term virtue signaling when criticizing people speaking about a problem without taking any action to address it.
So if someone says something that sounds virtuous, and someone else says, "that's just virtue signaling," I recommend you ask them what they mean.
posted by gryftir at 4:09 PM on June 28, 2018
I don't believe people are virtuous or not. People, in my view, can do good, but they aren't good, or evil, inherently.
There's also the problem of intention vs outcome. I've seen the argument made that good intentions are meaningless if harm is caused. One the on hand, good intentions don't alleviate harm, something worth acknowledging. On the other hand, good intentions are perhaps another way of communicating about likely future actions.
Anyway if people can't be, perhaps acts can be virtuous, then we can use the idea of people being virtuous as a shorthand to say they tend to perform acts we consider to be virtuous. but it's one of those verbal shortcuts that often leads to issues, because to ascribe virtuousness or lack thereof to an individual is to presuppose that whether they are virtuous or not is a fixed quality, instead of something to be assessed based on each new piece of information.
That's where you get people not believing accusations about people with good reputations, or not hiring people previously convicted of minor offenses.
Finally there's the differentiation between expressions in support of virtue and other performances of virtue. I think there is something there when talking about individuals with the capacity to make definitive changes in policy. Thoughts and prayers regarding gun violence as expressed by people with the ability to make changes in the law come to mind. I think though, that the concepts of paying lip service or false piety or throwing up one's hands vs putting one's money where one's mouth is, or walking the walk. Those all can serve better than the term virtue signaling when criticizing people speaking about a problem without taking any action to address it.
So if someone says something that sounds virtuous, and someone else says, "that's just virtue signaling," I recommend you ask them what they mean.
posted by gryftir at 4:09 PM on June 28, 2018
I just want to say that this article gives good footnotes. There is one footnote that has its own footnote, and I always appreciate that.
Also 2018 is totally bogus. Non-non-heinous, even.
posted by egypturnash at 9:36 PM on June 28, 2018
Also 2018 is totally bogus. Non-non-heinous, even.
posted by egypturnash at 9:36 PM on June 28, 2018
I loved the extended quotation about "political correctness." One of the virtues of stigmatizing overt racism, it always seemed to me, was that it made it at least slightly more difficult to transmit the hatred between generations. If you have to use innuendo instead of slurs (at least in public), there's a chance that your kids might not all pick up on your intended transmission of your racist ideas. No idea of the extent of that effect, but I think in the aggregate it makes some positive difference (in addition to the obvious and inherent benefit of PC--the targets of slurs not having to be subjected to them as often).
posted by mabelstreet at 11:26 PM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by mabelstreet at 11:26 PM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
The idea behind political correctness was a noble one, yeah. But it unfortunately got carried too far - there were cases where people were being called out for using the expressions "there's a nip in the air" and "a chink in one's armor", because of offensiveness to Japanese and Chinese persons. There was also a flurry of trying to come up with awkward alternative terms for perceived problem words (i.e. someone may turn "short" into "vertically challenged" or something).
I do appreciate the fact that several slurs are now more taboo than they were 20-odd years ago. But I suspect that the "nip in the air" overshoots lead to the Right mocking "political correctness" now.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:24 AM on June 29, 2018
I do appreciate the fact that several slurs are now more taboo than they were 20-odd years ago. But I suspect that the "nip in the air" overshoots lead to the Right mocking "political correctness" now.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:24 AM on June 29, 2018
There was also a flurry of trying to come up with awkward alternative terms for perceived problem words (i.e. someone may turn "short" into "vertically challenged" or something).I have literally never seen anything remotely like that being said outside of satire.
posted by inconstant at 9:24 AM on June 29, 2018 [7 favorites]
I have literally never seen anything remotely like that being said outside of satire.
It was mostly in the early 90s heyday of the politically correct movement, but I definitely saw a flurry of people using the term "differently abled" to replace "disabled" or "Handi-capable" as a replacement for "handicapped". And using it with sincerity.
There have been more recent discussions about preferred descriptive terms for people with physical or developmental challenges, and I think that's a really good thing. But the movement had a bit of a growing-pains stage, shall we say, back in the 90s - and I think some people are still holding that stage against the notion of political correctness as a whole and thinking that it's all still like that. Kind of like how some people just can't let go of the fact that your pants fell down during sophmore year math class or something.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:36 AM on June 29, 2018
It was mostly in the early 90s heyday of the politically correct movement, but I definitely saw a flurry of people using the term "differently abled" to replace "disabled" or "Handi-capable" as a replacement for "handicapped". And using it with sincerity.
There have been more recent discussions about preferred descriptive terms for people with physical or developmental challenges, and I think that's a really good thing. But the movement had a bit of a growing-pains stage, shall we say, back in the 90s - and I think some people are still holding that stage against the notion of political correctness as a whole and thinking that it's all still like that. Kind of like how some people just can't let go of the fact that your pants fell down during sophmore year math class or something.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:36 AM on June 29, 2018
That's very different from the initial examples provided. For one they have actual motivation behind them.
The very term "political correctness" is itself a sneering sort of a phrase -- turning it into a matter of politics and quibbling correctness, evoking rules-lawyering and underhanded tricks. Consign it to the fire.
posted by inconstant at 9:45 AM on June 29, 2018 [1 favorite]
The very term "political correctness" is itself a sneering sort of a phrase -- turning it into a matter of politics and quibbling correctness, evoking rules-lawyering and underhanded tricks. Consign it to the fire.
posted by inconstant at 9:45 AM on June 29, 2018 [1 favorite]
That's very different from the initial examples provided. For one they have actual motivation behind them.
Dude, all the initial "politically correct" stuff had "actual motivation" behind them in the minds of the speakers.
and by the "initial examples provided" are you referring to "a nip in the air"? Here. That's not satire. And there was more stuff like that back in the 1990s.
The very term "political correctness" is itself a sneering sort of a phrase -- turning it into a matter of politics and quibbling correctness, evoking rules-lawyering and underhanded tricks.
I agree with you that it has become that. And I am asserting that part of why it has become that is because of the initial fumbles in the movement, back when it was first getting going. This was a huge deal on my college campus (and that's where the main battleground over this was taking place).
The thing is - while the public commons were fighting over the more extreme excesses of the movement - making the very kind of satire about it that you've seen - the actual idea behind it was continuing to work, and has in the past several years successfully shifted the public perception of several terms from "grudgingly tolerated" to "shameful to use". And I ultimately think that is why the original article brought it up - to point out that at the time that Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was originally released, this was a movement that was just entering the public sphere, and that despite the early public hissy fits over "political correctness", and the reputation that that term has today, it actually achieved something sincerely good.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:09 AM on June 29, 2018
Dude, all the initial "politically correct" stuff had "actual motivation" behind them in the minds of the speakers.
and by the "initial examples provided" are you referring to "a nip in the air"? Here. That's not satire. And there was more stuff like that back in the 1990s.
The very term "political correctness" is itself a sneering sort of a phrase -- turning it into a matter of politics and quibbling correctness, evoking rules-lawyering and underhanded tricks.
I agree with you that it has become that. And I am asserting that part of why it has become that is because of the initial fumbles in the movement, back when it was first getting going. This was a huge deal on my college campus (and that's where the main battleground over this was taking place).
The thing is - while the public commons were fighting over the more extreme excesses of the movement - making the very kind of satire about it that you've seen - the actual idea behind it was continuing to work, and has in the past several years successfully shifted the public perception of several terms from "grudgingly tolerated" to "shameful to use". And I ultimately think that is why the original article brought it up - to point out that at the time that Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was originally released, this was a movement that was just entering the public sphere, and that despite the early public hissy fits over "political correctness", and the reputation that that term has today, it actually achieved something sincerely good.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:09 AM on June 29, 2018
I would like to put in a good word for slacktivism, which the article touches in it's discussion of political correctness.
What I am not talking about is when people say the right things but vote for things that cause harm, or talk about being a good ally but refuse to interrogate their own privilege. Those exist and need to be called out, but I'm thinking here of posting articled on FB and then not showing up to a protest, or adding a rainbow sticker and saying you've supported pride.
Is it enough? I mean, not really, although what is enough is also particular to the individual. I call and donate and protest but haven't joined a campaign as a volunteer yet, so judge as you will, I am also not doing enough for sure.
But even those passive little social media posts or supportive t-shirts or bumper stickers, I really think they make a difference, even if it is all a person does.
It says this is our community, this is what we believe, these things are important, this idea over here is unacceptable. That adds to the conversation. It lifts support. It spreads ideas. I think if that's all you can do sometimes that's OK and if that's all some people will do it's still a contribution.
As a personal example. I grew up in a really homophobic state. I am queer. The difference between some of my high school peers then and the rainbow profiles on them I see now... Have they changed their mind truly? Have they acted to make a difference? I don't know. But the wall of loud pride as a typical June 1st always brings me to tears.
posted by hapaxes.legomenon at 10:24 AM on June 29, 2018 [1 favorite]
What I am not talking about is when people say the right things but vote for things that cause harm, or talk about being a good ally but refuse to interrogate their own privilege. Those exist and need to be called out, but I'm thinking here of posting articled on FB and then not showing up to a protest, or adding a rainbow sticker and saying you've supported pride.
Is it enough? I mean, not really, although what is enough is also particular to the individual. I call and donate and protest but haven't joined a campaign as a volunteer yet, so judge as you will, I am also not doing enough for sure.
But even those passive little social media posts or supportive t-shirts or bumper stickers, I really think they make a difference, even if it is all a person does.
It says this is our community, this is what we believe, these things are important, this idea over here is unacceptable. That adds to the conversation. It lifts support. It spreads ideas. I think if that's all you can do sometimes that's OK and if that's all some people will do it's still a contribution.
As a personal example. I grew up in a really homophobic state. I am queer. The difference between some of my high school peers then and the rainbow profiles on them I see now... Have they changed their mind truly? Have they acted to make a difference? I don't know. But the wall of loud pride as a typical June 1st always brings me to tears.
posted by hapaxes.legomenon at 10:24 AM on June 29, 2018 [1 favorite]
As I understand it, the phrase "Political Correctness" originally referred to something quite different, which it would be incredibly useful to have a phrase for now that the original one has been co-opted. As I remember, it emerged in far left organisations where there was a running joke that while something might technically, factually be true, because it ran counter to the group's ideology it was "politically incorrect", and that "political correctness" - fealty to ideology above all else - beat any affection for mere fact. As I say, this was a joke that was told within left wing groups against themselves, albeit with a certain resigned irony.
Given those terms, one can see that it covers almost all of Fox News' output, for example, and what's often considered to be fact on the right - their ideology dictates that innumerable things must be considered to be true that reality is contradicting in front of their eyes all the time. For example, most of their economic theory proudly evades all empirical analysis and quite patently doesn't work. But it's politically correct, so the fact that it constantly fails doesn't matter.
posted by Grangousier at 11:37 AM on June 29, 2018 [2 favorites]
Given those terms, one can see that it covers almost all of Fox News' output, for example, and what's often considered to be fact on the right - their ideology dictates that innumerable things must be considered to be true that reality is contradicting in front of their eyes all the time. For example, most of their economic theory proudly evades all empirical analysis and quite patently doesn't work. But it's politically correct, so the fact that it constantly fails doesn't matter.
posted by Grangousier at 11:37 AM on June 29, 2018 [2 favorites]
Wikipedia:
Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term "politically correct" in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended "to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic."[3]
posted by Brian B. at 9:07 AM on June 30, 2018 [1 favorite]
Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term "politically correct" in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended "to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic."[3]
posted by Brian B. at 9:07 AM on June 30, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older "He will be grumpy for a while but we're being... | The Art in the art Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If anyone's considering whether to click through and read, it points out that the term (virtue-signaling) started to catch on when "columnist and suspected hedgehog-masturbator James Bartholemew used it in the disappointing over-priced bog-roll that is The Spectator...."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 7:33 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]