People who defend virtue signaling generally only agree with it when "virtues" they agree with are being signaled.
For example, what if instead of non-stop left-wing virtue signaling, enormous, multi-billion dollar companies were running ad campaigns with women who happily chose to keep their babies instead of aborting them. Stand with babies. Infant lives matter. Etc.
The left would flip their proverbial shit and demand that giant companies stop lecturing us on what is moral and what is not.
I was never comfortable with religious lecturing from evangelicals, and I am equally uncomfortable with lecturing from left wing secular religion (which is just as, or even more intolerant of dissent then the religious people).
You can raise awareness and raise money without wagging your finger and looking down on your peers.
The author appears to be defending virtue signalling because of its marketing effectiveness for organizations like charities which have no marketing budget.
The author writes "Which means a lot of what I do and think about is how to make a business more successful. Usually this means helping the company make more money."
If an anti-abortion ad campaign would help a multi-billion dollar company make money, then I don't see anything from the essay where the author would be against it. I checked the other essays and saw nothing which indicated left- or right-wing support.
But since the point of the essay was to argue that we should "stop shaming people for literally helping charities" ... what actually are you arguing against?
The examples were the ALS ice bucket challenge, wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness, Black Out Tuesday, and going silent for a day on social media.
How are any of those "wagging your finger and looking down on your peers"?
Is there any way to show support which people won't label virtue signalling? Wear a MAGA hat? That's virtue signalling. Wear a "Vote Biden" button? That's virtue signalling. Wear designer shoes? That's virtue signalling. Switch web frameworks to the new hotness? That's virtue signalling. To the point that the term seems meaningless.
Or, quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling#Criticism : "David Shariatmadari argues that the typicality of virtue signalling to show off one's own values makes it no different than the acts that it was supposed to abhor. That is, virtue signalling is designed to call out individuals on their lack of action, but the very act of doing so is an act of virtue signalling in itself."
Neither you nor I are doing anything effective about the topic, so our comments themselves are virtue signally, yes? As are any up- or down- votes?
I count 8 preachers and missionaries in my family, going back to my grandparent's generation. The first husband of one of my aunts died as a missionary pilot in SE Asia.
4 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 18.5 ms ] threadFor example, what if instead of non-stop left-wing virtue signaling, enormous, multi-billion dollar companies were running ad campaigns with women who happily chose to keep their babies instead of aborting them. Stand with babies. Infant lives matter. Etc.
The left would flip their proverbial shit and demand that giant companies stop lecturing us on what is moral and what is not.
I was never comfortable with religious lecturing from evangelicals, and I am equally uncomfortable with lecturing from left wing secular religion (which is just as, or even more intolerant of dissent then the religious people).
You can raise awareness and raise money without wagging your finger and looking down on your peers.
The author writes "Which means a lot of what I do and think about is how to make a business more successful. Usually this means helping the company make more money."
If an anti-abortion ad campaign would help a multi-billion dollar company make money, then I don't see anything from the essay where the author would be against it. I checked the other essays and saw nothing which indicated left- or right-wing support.
But since the point of the essay was to argue that we should "stop shaming people for literally helping charities" ... what actually are you arguing against?
The examples were the ALS ice bucket challenge, wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness, Black Out Tuesday, and going silent for a day on social media.
How are any of those "wagging your finger and looking down on your peers"?
Is there any way to show support which people won't label virtue signalling? Wear a MAGA hat? That's virtue signalling. Wear a "Vote Biden" button? That's virtue signalling. Wear designer shoes? That's virtue signalling. Switch web frameworks to the new hotness? That's virtue signalling. To the point that the term seems meaningless.
Or, quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling#Criticism : "David Shariatmadari argues that the typicality of virtue signalling to show off one's own values makes it no different than the acts that it was supposed to abhor. That is, virtue signalling is designed to call out individuals on their lack of action, but the very act of doing so is an act of virtue signalling in itself."
Neither you nor I are doing anything effective about the topic, so our comments themselves are virtue signally, yes? As are any up- or down- votes?
If you want to do good, be good, don't preach to others.
I don't agree with your assessment.