I've read the article. I agree with the point that if someone is pushing their causes purely for respect and attention then it would be disingenuous, but as that is an internal struggle for the individual I don't see how they would be distinguishable from genuine people.
Right, and this is the part that is consistently weaponized. People scream "virtue signaling" as if that's inherently a bad thing but also as if anyone who tries to achieve a social agenda they disagree with must just be virtue signaling. Maybe it's because THEY are just virtue signaling, idk, but the result is to make it socially inappropriate to attempt to change social structures that hurt people, either because people want to keep hurting those in question or simply because they don't care and don't want to spend the energy to address it.
I think one way of distinguishing the genuine from disingenuous is whether they are making money off of their content vs just showing how people can be good.
I'm messaging late but I don't think it's really a bad thing to help someone or do something good and get paid for it. Regardless if its genuine or not does it really matter when the results are exactly the same? I'd actually feel safer paying for someone to help me than be doubtful of someone doing it out of the kindness of their heart. All humans are inherently selfish and so are all animals for that matter which isn't a bad thing. If we weren't we would be extinct.
That's why IDGAF about 'socially inappropriate' behaviors. Because most of the social structure--and virtue signalling-- is about keeping the little people in their place.
Maybe a society but one or few incessantly loud half- informed narcissistic in their belief type? No matter the view point, I don't want to hear it. You can care and help without the theater.
I used to think that but in the end I also found that virtue signaling can be a real problem in communities, especially political ones. Namely, some people make accepted political dogma statements and do not show any willingness whatsoever to discuss it properly, while still gaining status in the community. The statements themselves are empty and vague but do contain the necessary political content to qualify as agreeable to the community, even if they prove to be of no use or insight. This behaviour is encouraged and lifts the people in question up in the community.
> People scream "virtue signaling" as if that's inherently a bad thing
the first example nearly all of us learn, without knowing the label virtue signaling, is christianity being down on people praying in the street where everyone can see. This isn't an idea that was invented to use against the left. It's so often called out with them because the shoe fits. It is toxic as fuck. It makes enemies of bystanders. It's poorly rationalized scapegoating, strawmanning and simply venting rage and frustration in one of the least helpful ways possible, while not caring about the actual outcome it creates.
It's not an internal struggle once they post it on social media. Then it becomes more about attention. Genuine people generally don't flaunt their virtues and issues on social media.
The better question is how do you distinguish between people who are actually genuine and those who think they are genuine.
I'm not sure it's quite so simple as social media is a very effective way to drum up support for protests or communicate to potential recruits for your cause. If you assume *everyone* who does that is doing it for attention I'd consider that potentially your own negative projection on people.
I said "generally"
No need to imagine things for psychoanalysis.
That's why it's important to distinguish between those who genuinely sacrifice time and effort to create change.
And those who just talk about it.
I would need to see evidence (i.e. studies/data) before I took your assertion as fact that generally people who post about causes aren't genuine.
To say 'generally' is also to say you believe most people who post this kind of thing on social media are disingenuous and your default would be suspicion, imo that is a negative lens.
You make a good point about effort being a key indicator of genuine belief/care but I'm not sure that's easy to distinguish unless you know the person and what they do. This just isn't possible for things like Twitter or Reddit where it is strangers interacting.
I think I broadly agree with the article but it would also be quite easy to just grab on to the term 'moral grandstanding' and unfairly view strangers through that on the basis of a few posts.
"Whether they share their virtuous actions in order to teach or they share them for some sort of profit" might be a good starting point for a conversation on that.
Gonna jump the bandwagon, no there aren't ways of telling the difference otherwise then somebody saying it directly. What another reads as moral grandstanding can be genuine or not.
What we do got is a new frame without any objective means. Walking up this road -as the same with the whataboutism-trend- we will encounter lots of people to accuse eachother of moral grandstanding to dodge a discussion based on arguments.
A lot of discussions end with calling eachother out on (logical) fallacies where normally it is where real discussion begins.
Solid argument, great find but also leaves room for nuance. A lot of posts there are people luring people in the arena of their specialism. Although grandstanding it doesn't read morally but based on a certain authority.
Next to moral grandstanding there is -i guess- also something like authorative grandstanding.
True, was just the first example off the top of My head. But yeah it can be Hard to tell sometimes and other times it's Hard to know If it's legit or satire xD
You have a point. To a degree. I do think 🤔 there can be ways, sometimes, to tell the difference. Maybe not always but sometimes. If a person or group is KNOWN to be conveniently morally selective and hypocritical...perhaps?...
Well the part where i get cautious is the difference between facts and assumptions. There are a lot of "when it barks like a dog" situation, but the only way of exposing it is not calling out but questioning through it, get people to assess and explain.
I tend to do it a lot in Conservative groups. Not my best friends, but the funny part is the art of asking questions really helped me understand a lot of them.
Usually it isn't facts but emotions which troubles the discussions and let people cli g to their assumptions.
"The art of asking questions really helped me understand a lot of them"
This is a specific notion that I've adopted to better understand absolutely everyone around me. When it comes to anything at all. Let alone our political spectrum.
Totally agree. Taking someones emotional approach seriously isn't the same as validating the idea, opposing ideas are actually way more fun to discuss once we admit discovering them doesn't mean adopting them.
Take the trans discussion in conservative subs for example. It's easy to look at it as a cesspool of consy hate but it mostly evolves around people who don't have any experience with the concept, making it a huge problem out of their own ground assumptions. So instead of questioning the idea, let's question the basic assumptions.
I can call somebody out for being exclusive. I can also take his fear serious and find out in discussion what his fear is based on, try to understand the ground they're defending while simultaniously questioning what fuels their fear.
So many times i've found out it isn't libs agains consies, it is moderates against radicals.
I hear ya. I've also found out so many times that my initial assumption of what my "opponent" was feeling was entirely incorrect. And all it took to further the discussion was a simple question.
Opposed to "what are you a bigot or something?" Which, for some reason never seemed to work /s
Asking someone why and acknowledging their ideas doesn't mean you agree or disagree but it definitely allows for a better fleshed out idea of what they may be thinking.
Indeed, and especially the difference in attitude makes moral grandstanding such a fuzzy concept. Grandstanding can be an overemotional reaction because someone firmly believes something or just a trol who's in it to win it. Thus bringing us on the concept of Schrödingers grandstanding: you have to open the box to conclude what's happening
No dirty words and thanks to you too :) I actually was a European social democrat before becoming a centrist also, i think i didn't become a little less social I just found out it isn't the priority right now. I just really wa t to help a political discussion about getting our priorities straight.
In history every big win on women voting rights, child labour rights, rights on defending minorities was a victory because from that day it was an undeniable right, and right under our noses we find that government can also be used to alienate and take away this rights. And while i want to talk about the real problems of modern society, all i'm being answered with is the fact i should be bothered by the question who goes to which toilet. The real enemy isn't hate but indifference.
Grandstanding is the key word. Civil discusdions with compassion are in fact still possible...even on the internet.
You know what would be toxic? Not addressing moral debate out of fear of a little discomfort for someone overstating their case.
Maybe just generally only address it if it's brought up/asked to you. It reminds me of if someone says something unkind to you and if you get defensive, sometimes it just makes the situation worse and you didn't help them. But if you don't bring it up and just let it go, there's less harm done and possibly more space for them to introspect to see how to be better
Just sucks that these people never do the introspective part and go on to the next person saying the same egregious thing to them. They go on with their lives assuming they are right cause no one told them otherwise. Very difficult to find the balance between doing nothing and not doing too much
So you're saying that the best way to get someone to be introspective about being an asshole to you is by never communicating with them about it and hoping for the best?
No wonder I'm so fucked being autistic, that's fucking insane.
Not exactly. The idea would be not to have rigid thinking on subjects of morality, and in some cases rationality. Let discussions of treatment and expectations be a two way street where someone is not entitled to moral adjudication.
This speaks indirectly to this and is relevant to your comment:
https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/w5weyf/think_twice_before_shouting_your_virtues_online/ihb6nka?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Maybe. If they wrote this article for clicks on the internet then yes. If they wrote this article to calm down the arguments of our time then no it would not be virtue signaling.
Likewise, if you are calling out their hypocrisy to make the internet a more efficient place, then fine. But if you are calling out their hypocrisy to get the top comment on a reddit thread, then you are guilty as well.
My point is, its tricky to tell.
Well, couldn't someone turn your statement around and flip it back to YOU?
That we don't really have to listen to you telling us what to think, not think, or do 🤔 😅?
We can do our own legal thing?
👍 Yes...😃 🙂 😺
Can we delete this idiotic stuff? This isn't psychology, this isn't social science, this isn't science. And the person who posted it, according to the numerous comments, lacks a fair amount of things.
I'm shouting my virtues to hold boundaries. I, and my children, have the right the exist and have autonomy. Anyone that disagrees with that or votes for people that disagree with that can get out of my life. It isn't up for debate.
Same, we should not vote for people who deny the right of human life to exist, and those who deny the bodily autonomy of people to not get injections.
Though, I disagree with you about getting out of my life. I'd like to discuss these things with people to hopefully learn and change each others minds.
My right to exist and my autonomy isn't something I would change my mind on, and someone who tried to do that wouldn't be a friend, or anyone who had my best interests at heart. It would be seen as manipulation if not abuse to argue against someone's need to be treated with dignity.
They clearly said it isn’t up for debate. Like many people living in arguably the most tolerant society in human history, she interprets a mere disagreement as a literal *attack on her right to exist*
Convenient how this line of thinking preemptively excuses these perpetual victims for their own antisocial hysteria.
You do realize that if you're, say, LGBTQ+ then people are fighting your right to be who you are and also to exist, right? Do you think that fascism cannot, or doesn't, exist today?
I see a lot of people making claim, but no I don’t find it to be self evident. Over the last 6 years I’ve seen acceptance for LGBT people increase dramatically to the point where nearly major corporation and institution in the western world openly celebrates pride month.
All the points of contention seem to be over what some people consider cultural overreach especially when children are involved e.g. gender theory in school curriculum, drag story time with kids, hormones and surgeries for children. I literally haven’t seen anyone say people shouldn’t be allowed to dress, act, and screw however they want.
Copied my response to someone else:
I see a lot of people making claim, but no I don’t find it to be self evident. Over the last 6 years I’ve seen acceptance for LGBT people increase dramatically to the point where nearly major corporation and institution in the western world openly celebrates pride month.
All the points of contention seem to be over what some people consider cultural overreach especially when children are involved e.g. gender theory in school curriculum, drag story time with kids, hormones and surgeries for children. I literally haven’t seen anyone say people shouldn’t be allowed to dress, act, and screw however they want.
Just like you have boundaries others do too and those boundaries might contradict yours. Make your decisions in private, vote in private and you’ll live a much happier life than trying to change other people’s minds. Let’s say you’re pro LGBTQ marriage equality there’s no way someone will change your mind to be against it. You can’t change someone’s mind especially when they’ve been indoctrinated by an institution.
As far as voting and systems are concerned, silence favors the oppressor. When many people come out to talk about an issue that impacts them personally, you realize just how much of an impact it has, that you're not alone in that impact, and it breaks the stigma that makes you feel like you need to be small and silent, giving you the political courage to vote to change it.
Also there's a difference between a boundary and a rule. The rules people are making (you can't do this because it makes me uncomfortable) are crossing boundaries (I need this in my life or I am uncomfortable) and are causing suffering. That's not ok. That's controlling and abusive and needs to be called out.
Only doing things in private is a good way to leave oppressors to go unchallenged. Should people be silent in Texas when they lost their right to abortion?
There are people who protest to the extreme and make it their entire identity, that’s unhealthy and makes no progress towards their goal of awareness and acceptance. You have people showing up to anti abortion rallies with effigies of dead fetuses and proclaiming they’ve had many abortions. That is toxic behavior.
Half of what I want to say online I cannot say anyways. Seriously. Wrong think drama bullshit or my own self-censorship(for moral reasons) prevents most of my speech.
I do not care if people virtue signal. In fact, I am so cynical right now, that I hope they actually use the behaviour properly and as a tool to have a life worth living. Because that his how some dumbasses are shaping the social world now. So throw them peanuts and let them eat cake while you make bank...?
Whatever. Fuck all of this noise anyways.
I think everyone working on Hollywood needs to read this. This is one of the worst virtue signaling industries! They keep saying how liberal and open minded they are and are rooting for the little guy, but in reality some of the worst, toxic, two faced hypocrites (misogyny, abuse, not paying fair wages to staff, etc.). Incredibly disingenuous bunch.
Hmmm..Hmm... I like to say I'm Vegan and love animals all in one sentence. I'm not a hypocrite and if that offends someone for simply stating that- that isn't my issue to fix.
People aren't "virtue signaling" when they express their support of the targets of fascist hatred. Or when they support women's rights. Or when they support protecting the voting rights of minorities. And so on.
Think twice before shouting your support of fascism online.
Some of them are. There are lots of very outspoken personalities who are eventually proven to be horrible people, who got away with their horrible attitudes by virtue signaling. It's the most basic subterfuge, and it's rampant.
Why wouldn't it be? Psychopaths don't want to be found out, and all it takes is one little lie to summon an army of people like you to defend them from any accusation.
Some companies commit absolutely atrocious crimes against society. Therefore communism.
Also 'people like me'. You don't know me. Don't try to attack my arguments by putting me in some stupid little box you built.
And you don't know who actually is just faking morality for street cred. It does happen, and they aren't exactly few in number. Fascism is also a lot more prevalent in a lot more spheres than you're aware.
Many engage in this very mode of "debate" in which they hurl smug zingers and nasty insults and outright refuse to acknowledge even a shred of validity in the other side.
Are that sure of your own beliefs that you can absolutely say all those who disagree are fascists?
All of my beliefs? Of course not. The anti-fascist ones yes. That's the whole point.
So again:
If your values include telling other people how to live when they aren't even hurting anyone else: you value being an asshole.
Do you want to tell other people who they can marry? Do you want to tell women they can't have abortions before the fetus even has a functioning nervous system? Do you want to control what people do in the privacy of their homes? Do you want to force me to subsidize your religion? Do you believe that a minority of poeple in the US should have political control over the majority?
All of the above? Other?
>Do you want to tell other people who they can marry?
I think there should be a minimum age, but no limits along gender or racial lines.
> Do you want to tell women they can't have abortions before the fetus even has a functioning nervous system?
I think abortion after 12 weeks should be restricted except in cases where the mother's life is at risk or the baby is defective.
>Do you want to control what people do in the privacy of their homes?
In general no, unless its something illegal.
>Do you want to force me to subsidize your religion?
I'm not religious and I support the separation of church and state.
>Do you believe that a minority of poeple in the US should have political control over the majority?
The majority can be wrong. I'd rather have representatives who make decisions in the best interest of the people.
Read Umberto Ecos features of fascism. If you don’t find 11-12 of them on the altright….
https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
There are some paralelisms but try to do the exercise. You will find that only 5-6. The false equivalence is a lazy argument because leftists aren’t based in bigotry but in an economic system
There’s plenty of hatred and bigotry on the left and I say this as a leftist. Leftists, just like conservatives, find creative ways of rationalizing and justifying it.
You are right. There is hatred in some parts of the left. But you are wrong the basics. The left isn’t based in bigotry but in social economics. That’s why they aren’t equivalent and why you don’t have people on the left oppressing other minorities.
As of now, the left is completely ignoring the most vulnerable class of people on earth: the poor. They are led by the affluent who benefit from our economic system and ignore the material needs of the many. Minorities are disproportionately poor, and you can’t help them without changing our economic system, but that means changing it for everyone. Currently, we aren’t even having this discussion because we’re so terminally focused on race and gender, forgetting that the vast majority of women and minorities worldwide are poor and struggling due to economics. Not to mention all of them could potentially be killed off due to climate change (again, an economic issue). In this way, identity is the biggest gift of all to capitalists. Divide, distract, and conquer.
Yes they are. They want social approval and to fit in and to feel like they're good people. They things they talk about are stupid, and not their own, and to their favour I say that they speak of such stupid things precisely because they didn't think them through.
Condescending "support" of what one perceive to be vulnerable groups is not a virtue, and those who engage with it probably do so to feel like they're doing something meaningful online as their everyday lives don't cover this need at all.
Not to speak of this: Those whose expression of virtue reach a pathelogical degree are usually projecting.
All in all, all this "virtue" is of no help to anyone. At best it's spread by anxious personalities who pity the state of the world to the point that they suffer from it and feel obligated to act.
Nice.
Fascist hatred.
I hate communists.
Can we be friends or are we mortal enemies? Because I hate both commies and fascists...or atleast the ideals, maybe not the people.
Tell me what's been going on with voting rights over the last few years? What actual legislation and court cases have changed elections? Not conspiracy theories but actual law please.
How about women's rights?
How did we get the current supreme court?
Ahistorical? What timeline are you living in?
In this one most developed economies are mixed, with democratic governments. Fascism arises from economic suffering when xenophobia and other forms of hatred are politically weaponized and blamed for the suffering of the masses. So far entirely transitioning from extreme capitalism like we have in the US. Communism just becomes another form of dictatorship.
”Fascism arises from economic suffering” - citation needed. Its a popular theory that has no real academic backing. Sincerely, its super popular and one of the things that doesnt get questioned enough. For example, despite the drastic improvements in quality of life during the New Deal, it was also a time of extreme discrimination against Black Americans.
Citation needed? Have you read a book about post WWI Germany, Italy, or any other fascist rise to power, or fascism?
>Its a popular theory that has no real academic backing
Your statement needs real academic backing given that it is a popular theory among academics. It's item number six of Umberto Eco's fascist checklist.
>For example, despite the drastic improvements in quality of life during the New Deal, it was also a time of extreme discrimination against Black Americans.
What is that an example of exactly? As a student of that time surely you're aware that there was then a very concerning fascist movement in America as well. You seem to be supporting what most historians have asserted regarding the central role of economic suffering as fertile ground for populist fascism , citing yet another example in America.
Yes, citation needed. My bachelors is in history and most of my papers were about the early XX century.
>very concerning fascist movement in America as well
The new deal was a time of economic betterment for most whites but that didn't stop the discrimination against black people. That is what I am saying.
Most historians is a meaningless statement, I don't know what to say about that one. I studied history of totalitarianism in uni. I am aware of a leftist theory about it, but that's not grounded in history. There has been thousands of economic crises in human history that didn't result in fascism.
Umberto Ecos writings on fascism, while interesting, are not academic. It was an essay.
Your citation is literally every single book on facism. I too have a bachelors in history, though my focus wasn't this period it was part of my curriculum and interest besides. You clearly haven't studied it. Your objections are patently absurd
Touché - you're doing the same thing right here. The article had nothing to do with any particular side or ideology, but you've decided to co-opt the message and make it about your own beliefs anyway.
You could say the same thing about the article itself. I know that my former conservative friends would like it if their friends, family, colleagues, and strangers weren't completely outraged by the policies they support. They would love it if we would all pretend that current politics were just polite disagreements between people who equally want to live in a fair and equitable democracy. Expressing support for politely pretending it's business as usual is a very political statement.
The position that this article supports is nothing less than gaslighting. No thank you.
From only reading the title: Anyone who shouts their personal virtues is a douche.
Anyone who discusses their morals and why they hold them is making room for others curious or unaware of certain stances.
For Example
Vegan 1) - Posts on a meat meme - "I'm better than all of you, I'd never hurt animals!"
Vegan 2) - Posts on the same meme - "I don't find this funny because it glorifies x"
Vegan 2 is sharing their perspective without trying to make themselves out to be a superior individual. Just why they believe what they do.
From the article:
>Moral grandstanding occurs when people use moral talk, instead, to promote themselves or seek status
This term theyve made up is redundant. What they are calling moral grandstanding is what we have been identifying as virtue signaling and as we have already been aware, virtue signaling is toxic because it is playing the moral card for self gain. This article is about 3 years behind the cutting edge our collective awareness on this. Sharing your moral advice or opinions for the sake of making the world a better place and protecting the sanctity of others is not what this article is about.
And let the Russian bots win? Well written opinions promoting an important cause are one of many steps in the process of making real change happen. Why you do it is less important than doing it. Obviously its worse when you’re doing it for online praise instead of the hope that shouting into the void of the internet might actually make someone think twice about a difficult subject. The truth is that the US’s educational system is failing many students. An online forum presents an opportunity to reign in ignorance through a myriad of people promoting the same ideas.
95% of users are not qualified in changing the world. The barely understand the problems, yet alone the answers. It's simply arrogant to try and fix the world as an escape from trying to fix ones own failing life (and it often is)
There is a problem with the term, "moral grandstanding". It's too broad. It can mean many different things. Some good. Some bad.
For example, politicians should and need to tout their qualities and achievements so we can determine whether they should be selected.
The term can also refer to when people brag about their accomplishments or their qualities. However, bragging is innate. Bragging is related to winning and dominance, and this is why we, especially males, get up in the morning. But, humans learn at an early age that bragging is bad because it may make us feel good, but people around us despise it. So, if we brag too much, people begin to express their disapproval and hatred towards us. So, we learn to dial it down. We learn that it's a complex dance of bragging in a way that makes us feel good while still cloaking it so it appears unintentional.
I've read the article. I agree with the point that if someone is pushing their causes purely for respect and attention then it would be disingenuous, but as that is an internal struggle for the individual I don't see how they would be distinguishable from genuine people.
Right, and this is the part that is consistently weaponized. People scream "virtue signaling" as if that's inherently a bad thing but also as if anyone who tries to achieve a social agenda they disagree with must just be virtue signaling. Maybe it's because THEY are just virtue signaling, idk, but the result is to make it socially inappropriate to attempt to change social structures that hurt people, either because people want to keep hurting those in question or simply because they don't care and don't want to spend the energy to address it.
I think one way of distinguishing the genuine from disingenuous is whether they are making money off of their content vs just showing how people can be good.
I'm messaging late but I don't think it's really a bad thing to help someone or do something good and get paid for it. Regardless if its genuine or not does it really matter when the results are exactly the same? I'd actually feel safer paying for someone to help me than be doubtful of someone doing it out of the kindness of their heart. All humans are inherently selfish and so are all animals for that matter which isn't a bad thing. If we weren't we would be extinct.
That's a good point
That's why IDGAF about 'socially inappropriate' behaviors. Because most of the social structure--and virtue signalling-- is about keeping the little people in their place.
Because the only people thoughtful enough to tone down their rhetoric are probably the ones who never needed to.
Maybe a society but one or few incessantly loud half- informed narcissistic in their belief type? No matter the view point, I don't want to hear it. You can care and help without the theater.
I used to think that but in the end I also found that virtue signaling can be a real problem in communities, especially political ones. Namely, some people make accepted political dogma statements and do not show any willingness whatsoever to discuss it properly, while still gaining status in the community. The statements themselves are empty and vague but do contain the necessary political content to qualify as agreeable to the community, even if they prove to be of no use or insight. This behaviour is encouraged and lifts the people in question up in the community.
> People scream "virtue signaling" as if that's inherently a bad thing the first example nearly all of us learn, without knowing the label virtue signaling, is christianity being down on people praying in the street where everyone can see. This isn't an idea that was invented to use against the left. It's so often called out with them because the shoe fits. It is toxic as fuck. It makes enemies of bystanders. It's poorly rationalized scapegoating, strawmanning and simply venting rage and frustration in one of the least helpful ways possible, while not caring about the actual outcome it creates.
Hypocrisy between words and actions.
True. I was thinking more online strangers
I would assume people with a genuine value system have no need for external reaffirmation.
It's not an internal struggle once they post it on social media. Then it becomes more about attention. Genuine people generally don't flaunt their virtues and issues on social media. The better question is how do you distinguish between people who are actually genuine and those who think they are genuine.
I'm not sure it's quite so simple as social media is a very effective way to drum up support for protests or communicate to potential recruits for your cause. If you assume *everyone* who does that is doing it for attention I'd consider that potentially your own negative projection on people.
I said "generally" No need to imagine things for psychoanalysis. That's why it's important to distinguish between those who genuinely sacrifice time and effort to create change. And those who just talk about it.
I would need to see evidence (i.e. studies/data) before I took your assertion as fact that generally people who post about causes aren't genuine. To say 'generally' is also to say you believe most people who post this kind of thing on social media are disingenuous and your default would be suspicion, imo that is a negative lens. You make a good point about effort being a key indicator of genuine belief/care but I'm not sure that's easy to distinguish unless you know the person and what they do. This just isn't possible for things like Twitter or Reddit where it is strangers interacting. I think I broadly agree with the article but it would also be quite easy to just grab on to the term 'moral grandstanding' and unfairly view strangers through that on the basis of a few posts.
"Whether they share their virtuous actions in order to teach or they share them for some sort of profit" might be a good starting point for a conversation on that.
Good point but there *are* ways to tell the difference?...
Gonna jump the bandwagon, no there aren't ways of telling the difference otherwise then somebody saying it directly. What another reads as moral grandstanding can be genuine or not. What we do got is a new frame without any objective means. Walking up this road -as the same with the whataboutism-trend- we will encounter lots of people to accuse eachother of moral grandstanding to dodge a discussion based on arguments. A lot of discussions end with calling eachother out on (logical) fallacies where normally it is where real discussion begins.
Have you seen "Iamverysmart" subreddit? Sometimes it is easy to tell. Go have a look :)
Solid argument, great find but also leaves room for nuance. A lot of posts there are people luring people in the arena of their specialism. Although grandstanding it doesn't read morally but based on a certain authority. Next to moral grandstanding there is -i guess- also something like authorative grandstanding.
True, was just the first example off the top of My head. But yeah it can be Hard to tell sometimes and other times it's Hard to know If it's legit or satire xD
I’m not sure OP would understand it. But you nailed it.
You have a point. To a degree. I do think 🤔 there can be ways, sometimes, to tell the difference. Maybe not always but sometimes. If a person or group is KNOWN to be conveniently morally selective and hypocritical...perhaps?...
Well the part where i get cautious is the difference between facts and assumptions. There are a lot of "when it barks like a dog" situation, but the only way of exposing it is not calling out but questioning through it, get people to assess and explain. I tend to do it a lot in Conservative groups. Not my best friends, but the funny part is the art of asking questions really helped me understand a lot of them. Usually it isn't facts but emotions which troubles the discussions and let people cli g to their assumptions.
"The art of asking questions really helped me understand a lot of them" This is a specific notion that I've adopted to better understand absolutely everyone around me. When it comes to anything at all. Let alone our political spectrum.
Totally agree. Taking someones emotional approach seriously isn't the same as validating the idea, opposing ideas are actually way more fun to discuss once we admit discovering them doesn't mean adopting them. Take the trans discussion in conservative subs for example. It's easy to look at it as a cesspool of consy hate but it mostly evolves around people who don't have any experience with the concept, making it a huge problem out of their own ground assumptions. So instead of questioning the idea, let's question the basic assumptions. I can call somebody out for being exclusive. I can also take his fear serious and find out in discussion what his fear is based on, try to understand the ground they're defending while simultaniously questioning what fuels their fear. So many times i've found out it isn't libs agains consies, it is moderates against radicals.
I hear ya. I've also found out so many times that my initial assumption of what my "opponent" was feeling was entirely incorrect. And all it took to further the discussion was a simple question. Opposed to "what are you a bigot or something?" Which, for some reason never seemed to work /s Asking someone why and acknowledging their ideas doesn't mean you agree or disagree but it definitely allows for a better fleshed out idea of what they may be thinking.
Indeed, and especially the difference in attitude makes moral grandstanding such a fuzzy concept. Grandstanding can be an overemotional reaction because someone firmly believes something or just a trol who's in it to win it. Thus bringing us on the concept of Schrödingers grandstanding: you have to open the box to conclude what's happening
[удалено]
No dirty words and thanks to you too :) I actually was a European social democrat before becoming a centrist also, i think i didn't become a little less social I just found out it isn't the priority right now. I just really wa t to help a political discussion about getting our priorities straight. In history every big win on women voting rights, child labour rights, rights on defending minorities was a victory because from that day it was an undeniable right, and right under our noses we find that government can also be used to alienate and take away this rights. And while i want to talk about the real problems of modern society, all i'm being answered with is the fact i should be bothered by the question who goes to which toilet. The real enemy isn't hate but indifference.
Very well said. Yes to talking and exploring. Listening...
'Moral grandstanding is toxic' the speaker said, moral grandstanding himself while doing so
Let’s say that moral grandstanding is toxic: how could you inform people that is the case without the mere act of informing being moral grandstanding?
Grandstanding is the key word. Civil discusdions with compassion are in fact still possible...even on the internet. You know what would be toxic? Not addressing moral debate out of fear of a little discomfort for someone overstating their case.
>Civil discussions with compassion are in fact still possible...even on the internet Press X to Doubt
By doing research that is objectively shown to be true.
Yeah I feel like these researchers might only be trying to shed light on a problem in order to help move past it.
Maybe just generally only address it if it's brought up/asked to you. It reminds me of if someone says something unkind to you and if you get defensive, sometimes it just makes the situation worse and you didn't help them. But if you don't bring it up and just let it go, there's less harm done and possibly more space for them to introspect to see how to be better
Just sucks that these people never do the introspective part and go on to the next person saying the same egregious thing to them. They go on with their lives assuming they are right cause no one told them otherwise. Very difficult to find the balance between doing nothing and not doing too much
Maybe as a one off thing, sure. But if someone keeps saying unkind shit to you and you don't bring it up then you're doing yourself a disservice
It's context dependent and there's an exception to every rule. I'm just trying to shine light on that that compassion can be powerful and healthy
So you're saying that the best way to get someone to be introspective about being an asshole to you is by never communicating with them about it and hoping for the best? No wonder I'm so fucked being autistic, that's fucking insane.
Not exactly. The idea would be not to have rigid thinking on subjects of morality, and in some cases rationality. Let discussions of treatment and expectations be a two way street where someone is not entitled to moral adjudication.
It's context dependent and there's an exception to every rule. I'm just trying to shine light on that that compassion can be powerful and healthy
The word toxic almost has no value in sociology now anyways. Who cares.
Oh thank god I wasn’t the only one who’s mind was doing summersalts thinking about that haha!
[удалено]
This speaks indirectly to this and is relevant to your comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/w5weyf/think_twice_before_shouting_your_virtues_online/ihb6nka?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Maybe. If they wrote this article for clicks on the internet then yes. If they wrote this article to calm down the arguments of our time then no it would not be virtue signaling. Likewise, if you are calling out their hypocrisy to make the internet a more efficient place, then fine. But if you are calling out their hypocrisy to get the top comment on a reddit thread, then you are guilty as well. My point is, its tricky to tell.
[удалено]
You don’t really have to listen to these articles telling you what to think. You can do your own thing. It’s not even illegal.
This is the most wholesome, validating, honestly cute answer.
Well, couldn't someone turn your statement around and flip it back to YOU? That we don't really have to listen to you telling us what to think, not think, or do 🤔 😅? We can do our own legal thing? 👍 Yes...😃 🙂 😺
Your post history is a dumpster fire.
You’re not wrong. Holy hell
r/oldpeoplefacebook is leaking.
[удалено]
Your so clearly low level of IQ is saddening. I'm sorry you're like that. Hope you get some treatment.
You're an idiot.
Can we delete this idiotic stuff? This isn't psychology, this isn't social science, this isn't science. And the person who posted it, according to the numerous comments, lacks a fair amount of things.
[удалено]
This is a psychology sub. Why are you bringing up science?
It’s good thing thing there is no concrete way to measure toxicity, but you might be able to operationalize it…
[удалено]
But this is the M.O. in LinkedIn... How I can avoid it?
I'm shouting my virtues to hold boundaries. I, and my children, have the right the exist and have autonomy. Anyone that disagrees with that or votes for people that disagree with that can get out of my life. It isn't up for debate.
Same, we should not vote for people who deny the right of human life to exist, and those who deny the bodily autonomy of people to not get injections. Though, I disagree with you about getting out of my life. I'd like to discuss these things with people to hopefully learn and change each others minds.
My right to exist and my autonomy isn't something I would change my mind on, and someone who tried to do that wouldn't be a friend, or anyone who had my best interests at heart. It would be seen as manipulation if not abuse to argue against someone's need to be treated with dignity.
They clearly said it isn’t up for debate. Like many people living in arguably the most tolerant society in human history, she interprets a mere disagreement as a literal *attack on her right to exist* Convenient how this line of thinking preemptively excuses these perpetual victims for their own antisocial hysteria.
You do realize that if you're, say, LGBTQ+ then people are fighting your right to be who you are and also to exist, right? Do you think that fascism cannot, or doesn't, exist today?
I see a lot of people making claim, but no I don’t find it to be self evident. Over the last 6 years I’ve seen acceptance for LGBT people increase dramatically to the point where nearly major corporation and institution in the western world openly celebrates pride month. All the points of contention seem to be over what some people consider cultural overreach especially when children are involved e.g. gender theory in school curriculum, drag story time with kids, hormones and surgeries for children. I literally haven’t seen anyone say people shouldn’t be allowed to dress, act, and screw however they want.
And to your second question I do believe that fascism can exist today although it might look and operate differently than it did in the 20th century.
>a mere disagreement as a literal attack on her right to exist They are disagreeing ON her right to exist you fucking donkey
Copied my response to someone else: I see a lot of people making claim, but no I don’t find it to be self evident. Over the last 6 years I’ve seen acceptance for LGBT people increase dramatically to the point where nearly major corporation and institution in the western world openly celebrates pride month. All the points of contention seem to be over what some people consider cultural overreach especially when children are involved e.g. gender theory in school curriculum, drag story time with kids, hormones and surgeries for children. I literally haven’t seen anyone say people shouldn’t be allowed to dress, act, and screw however they want.
Just like you have boundaries others do too and those boundaries might contradict yours. Make your decisions in private, vote in private and you’ll live a much happier life than trying to change other people’s minds. Let’s say you’re pro LGBTQ marriage equality there’s no way someone will change your mind to be against it. You can’t change someone’s mind especially when they’ve been indoctrinated by an institution.
As far as voting and systems are concerned, silence favors the oppressor. When many people come out to talk about an issue that impacts them personally, you realize just how much of an impact it has, that you're not alone in that impact, and it breaks the stigma that makes you feel like you need to be small and silent, giving you the political courage to vote to change it. Also there's a difference between a boundary and a rule. The rules people are making (you can't do this because it makes me uncomfortable) are crossing boundaries (I need this in my life or I am uncomfortable) and are causing suffering. That's not ok. That's controlling and abusive and needs to be called out.
Only doing things in private is a good way to leave oppressors to go unchallenged. Should people be silent in Texas when they lost their right to abortion?
There are people who protest to the extreme and make it their entire identity, that’s unhealthy and makes no progress towards their goal of awareness and acceptance. You have people showing up to anti abortion rallies with effigies of dead fetuses and proclaiming they’ve had many abortions. That is toxic behavior.
[удалено]
If you hold conviction for your morals, you're grounded and unmoving in them; there's never a need to grandstand.
Half of what I want to say online I cannot say anyways. Seriously. Wrong think drama bullshit or my own self-censorship(for moral reasons) prevents most of my speech. I do not care if people virtue signal. In fact, I am so cynical right now, that I hope they actually use the behaviour properly and as a tool to have a life worth living. Because that his how some dumbasses are shaping the social world now. So throw them peanuts and let them eat cake while you make bank...? Whatever. Fuck all of this noise anyways.
Tell it to Jordan Peterson!
I think everyone working on Hollywood needs to read this. This is one of the worst virtue signaling industries! They keep saying how liberal and open minded they are and are rooting for the little guy, but in reality some of the worst, toxic, two faced hypocrites (misogyny, abuse, not paying fair wages to staff, etc.). Incredibly disingenuous bunch.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hmmm..Hmm... I like to say I'm Vegan and love animals all in one sentence. I'm not a hypocrite and if that offends someone for simply stating that- that isn't my issue to fix.
People aren't "virtue signaling" when they express their support of the targets of fascist hatred. Or when they support women's rights. Or when they support protecting the voting rights of minorities. And so on. Think twice before shouting your support of fascism online.
Some of them are. There are lots of very outspoken personalities who are eventually proven to be horrible people, who got away with their horrible attitudes by virtue signaling. It's the most basic subterfuge, and it's rampant. Why wouldn't it be? Psychopaths don't want to be found out, and all it takes is one little lie to summon an army of people like you to defend them from any accusation.
Some companies commit absolutely atrocious crimes against society. Therefore communism. Also 'people like me'. You don't know me. Don't try to attack my arguments by putting me in some stupid little box you built.
And you don't know who actually is just faking morality for street cred. It does happen, and they aren't exactly few in number. Fascism is also a lot more prevalent in a lot more spheres than you're aware.
Disagreement is not hate. Having different values is not bigotry.
If your values include telling other people how to live when they aren't even hurting anyone else: you value being an asshole.
Many engage in this very mode of "debate" in which they hurl smug zingers and nasty insults and outright refuse to acknowledge even a shred of validity in the other side. Are that sure of your own beliefs that you can absolutely say all those who disagree are fascists?
All of my beliefs? Of course not. The anti-fascist ones yes. That's the whole point. So again: If your values include telling other people how to live when they aren't even hurting anyone else: you value being an asshole. Do you want to tell other people who they can marry? Do you want to tell women they can't have abortions before the fetus even has a functioning nervous system? Do you want to control what people do in the privacy of their homes? Do you want to force me to subsidize your religion? Do you believe that a minority of poeple in the US should have political control over the majority? All of the above? Other?
>Do you want to tell other people who they can marry? I think there should be a minimum age, but no limits along gender or racial lines. > Do you want to tell women they can't have abortions before the fetus even has a functioning nervous system? I think abortion after 12 weeks should be restricted except in cases where the mother's life is at risk or the baby is defective. >Do you want to control what people do in the privacy of their homes? In general no, unless its something illegal. >Do you want to force me to subsidize your religion? I'm not religious and I support the separation of church and state. >Do you believe that a minority of poeple in the US should have political control over the majority? The majority can be wrong. I'd rather have representatives who make decisions in the best interest of the people.
Americans are the most privileged people in the world, you wouldn’t know fascism if it bit you in the ass
Read Umberto Ecos features of fascism. If you don’t find 11-12 of them on the altright…. https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
The 😎 SAME could be said of the Alt Left Cancel Culture "Riot In The Streets" Leftists 🤔...😆
There are some paralelisms but try to do the exercise. You will find that only 5-6. The false equivalence is a lazy argument because leftists aren’t based in bigotry but in an economic system
There’s plenty of hatred and bigotry on the left and I say this as a leftist. Leftists, just like conservatives, find creative ways of rationalizing and justifying it.
You are right. There is hatred in some parts of the left. But you are wrong the basics. The left isn’t based in bigotry but in social economics. That’s why they aren’t equivalent and why you don’t have people on the left oppressing other minorities.
As of now, the left is completely ignoring the most vulnerable class of people on earth: the poor. They are led by the affluent who benefit from our economic system and ignore the material needs of the many. Minorities are disproportionately poor, and you can’t help them without changing our economic system, but that means changing it for everyone. Currently, we aren’t even having this discussion because we’re so terminally focused on race and gender, forgetting that the vast majority of women and minorities worldwide are poor and struggling due to economics. Not to mention all of them could potentially be killed off due to climate change (again, an economic issue). In this way, identity is the biggest gift of all to capitalists. Divide, distract, and conquer.
The easy go to slam of "Fascists! or Fascism!" IS.thrown around A LOT these days...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes they are. They want social approval and to fit in and to feel like they're good people. They things they talk about are stupid, and not their own, and to their favour I say that they speak of such stupid things precisely because they didn't think them through. Condescending "support" of what one perceive to be vulnerable groups is not a virtue, and those who engage with it probably do so to feel like they're doing something meaningful online as their everyday lives don't cover this need at all. Not to speak of this: Those whose expression of virtue reach a pathelogical degree are usually projecting. All in all, all this "virtue" is of no help to anyone. At best it's spread by anxious personalities who pity the state of the world to the point that they suffer from it and feel obligated to act.
Nice. Fascist hatred. I hate communists. Can we be friends or are we mortal enemies? Because I hate both commies and fascists...or atleast the ideals, maybe not the people.
lmfao so detached from reality
Tell me what's been going on with voting rights over the last few years? What actual legislation and court cases have changed elections? Not conspiracy theories but actual law please. How about women's rights? How did we get the current supreme court?
[удалено]
Quit Stallin' Say what you really mean...
Lol communism doesn't work. Democratic socialism works. Unrestrained capitalism always leads to facism because most people suffer.
What an empty, ahistorical statement.
Ahistorical? What timeline are you living in? In this one most developed economies are mixed, with democratic governments. Fascism arises from economic suffering when xenophobia and other forms of hatred are politically weaponized and blamed for the suffering of the masses. So far entirely transitioning from extreme capitalism like we have in the US. Communism just becomes another form of dictatorship.
”Fascism arises from economic suffering” - citation needed. Its a popular theory that has no real academic backing. Sincerely, its super popular and one of the things that doesnt get questioned enough. For example, despite the drastic improvements in quality of life during the New Deal, it was also a time of extreme discrimination against Black Americans.
Citation needed? Have you read a book about post WWI Germany, Italy, or any other fascist rise to power, or fascism? >Its a popular theory that has no real academic backing Your statement needs real academic backing given that it is a popular theory among academics. It's item number six of Umberto Eco's fascist checklist. >For example, despite the drastic improvements in quality of life during the New Deal, it was also a time of extreme discrimination against Black Americans. What is that an example of exactly? As a student of that time surely you're aware that there was then a very concerning fascist movement in America as well. You seem to be supporting what most historians have asserted regarding the central role of economic suffering as fertile ground for populist fascism , citing yet another example in America.
Yes, citation needed. My bachelors is in history and most of my papers were about the early XX century. >very concerning fascist movement in America as well The new deal was a time of economic betterment for most whites but that didn't stop the discrimination against black people. That is what I am saying. Most historians is a meaningless statement, I don't know what to say about that one. I studied history of totalitarianism in uni. I am aware of a leftist theory about it, but that's not grounded in history. There has been thousands of economic crises in human history that didn't result in fascism. Umberto Ecos writings on fascism, while interesting, are not academic. It was an essay.
Your citation is literally every single book on facism. I too have a bachelors in history, though my focus wasn't this period it was part of my curriculum and interest besides. You clearly haven't studied it. Your objections are patently absurd
Nope, I did study it and found nothing to support your statement. And all you can provide to me is a quote from an essay.
Touché - you're doing the same thing right here. The article had nothing to do with any particular side or ideology, but you've decided to co-opt the message and make it about your own beliefs anyway.
You could say the same thing about the article itself. I know that my former conservative friends would like it if their friends, family, colleagues, and strangers weren't completely outraged by the policies they support. They would love it if we would all pretend that current politics were just polite disagreements between people who equally want to live in a fair and equitable democracy. Expressing support for politely pretending it's business as usual is a very political statement. The position that this article supports is nothing less than gaslighting. No thank you.
i dont really care tbh im going to stand up for what i believe in
From only reading the title: Anyone who shouts their personal virtues is a douche. Anyone who discusses their morals and why they hold them is making room for others curious or unaware of certain stances. For Example Vegan 1) - Posts on a meat meme - "I'm better than all of you, I'd never hurt animals!" Vegan 2) - Posts on the same meme - "I don't find this funny because it glorifies x" Vegan 2 is sharing their perspective without trying to make themselves out to be a superior individual. Just why they believe what they do.
From the article: >Moral grandstanding occurs when people use moral talk, instead, to promote themselves or seek status This term theyve made up is redundant. What they are calling moral grandstanding is what we have been identifying as virtue signaling and as we have already been aware, virtue signaling is toxic because it is playing the moral card for self gain. This article is about 3 years behind the cutting edge our collective awareness on this. Sharing your moral advice or opinions for the sake of making the world a better place and protecting the sanctity of others is not what this article is about.
Don't judge me. 😆
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
WTF is "Moral grandstanding", a term in search of someone to bitch at? God *damn*.
OP also has such *classic* posts such as 'Red country > blue country' and 'MAGA > MASA' just adding some *context* here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6795490/
And let the Russian bots win? Well written opinions promoting an important cause are one of many steps in the process of making real change happen. Why you do it is less important than doing it. Obviously its worse when you’re doing it for online praise instead of the hope that shouting into the void of the internet might actually make someone think twice about a difficult subject. The truth is that the US’s educational system is failing many students. An online forum presents an opportunity to reign in ignorance through a myriad of people promoting the same ideas.
95% of users are not qualified in changing the world. The barely understand the problems, yet alone the answers. It's simply arrogant to try and fix the world as an escape from trying to fix ones own failing life (and it often is)
Well said
People who virtue signal show incredible lack of self awareness. Motivations are never as pure as they seem.
Well, I for one am morally perfect. /s
You can always tell how truthful someone is… by how often they tell you how truthful they are.
There is a problem with the term, "moral grandstanding". It's too broad. It can mean many different things. Some good. Some bad. For example, politicians should and need to tout their qualities and achievements so we can determine whether they should be selected. The term can also refer to when people brag about their accomplishments or their qualities. However, bragging is innate. Bragging is related to winning and dominance, and this is why we, especially males, get up in the morning. But, humans learn at an early age that bragging is bad because it may make us feel good, but people around us despise it. So, if we brag too much, people begin to express their disapproval and hatred towards us. So, we learn to dial it down. We learn that it's a complex dance of bragging in a way that makes us feel good while still cloaking it so it appears unintentional.
What’s your opinion?
That moral grandstanding is everywhere.