![]() ![]() Problem is, people who use the term don't believe that, and while it can be used, disingenuously, or erroneously to dismiss Social-Justice, the unproven claim it makes about a person is what defines its formal meaning, and not whether that claim is accurate or not. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice."Īllegra essentially redefines SJW as meaningless, by claiming that such people don't actually exist - that the phrase is purely a dismissal of Social Justice. The problem is, that's not a real category of people. > Allegra Ringo in Vice writes that "in other words, SJWs don't hold strong principles, but they pretend to. ![]() It reminds me of definitions of SJW at - the first two seems accurate, then the last one is: You've essentially redefined that word/phrase to imply that anyone using it is unsympathetic, which is very convenient to anyone who finds themselves accused of being one. since the person on the right doesn't share that emotion. To someone without those sympathies, it will sound like the person is faking that emotion. who expresses, for example, sympathy with poor people or mentally-ill people. "A man should be very sure that he himself is not what he has always in his mouth." – Hazlitt, On Nicknames It's not easy to be human and not a hypocrite. ![]() Those who often call other people idiots, are idiots etc. Which brings me to my so-called Arsehole Theory of the World - that those who spend their lives calling others arseholes, are themselves arseholes. I don't like the term, avoid using it, and don't think it does any good. Seems to me, the use of the term "virtue signalling" as a weapon in a fight/debate is itself a pungent form of virtue signalling, and is the main one that bothers me! It attempts to signal that one is above virtue signalling, and like "You can trust me!" or "I'm not racist", raises its own doubts about that, for me at least. You claim to see clearly what they can't see at all. They feel they're doing something else, and you're presenting your guess that they're wrong about that as a certain diagnosis. No-one feels they are a hater, or whining, or virtue signalling. And like 'hater', 'whining', etc, people may be haters, may whine, but saying that to their face is an unfriendly, bad faith move. The other is the act of labelling something as virtue signalling, which the GP describes in the part I quoted. Hi!)Īctually, we (you, me, GP) are talking about two different things - one is the alleged signalling itself, which your definition describes. (.I just looked at your comments and see you're in Oz too. To someone without those sympathies, it will sound like the person is faking that emotion, being "politically correct", just saying what they think they should, morally, and not sincerely expressing how they feel, since the person on the right doesn't share that emotion. It seems similar somehow to a term we have in Australia, a bleeding heart, applied by someone on the political right to someone on the political left who expresses, for example, sympathy with poor people or mentally-ill people. It's a bad faith, hostile thing to say - you wouldn't talk to your friends like that. Someone says X, then someone else who doesn't share the feeling that made them say X, accuses them of virtue signalling. – which is the way it normally seems to me used on here. > The use of the term is purely to denigrate the person by vaguely deriding the values that they've presented as the basis for their argument. I thought the GP's comment was the best I'd read in a while on HN, but you're right that it refers to a more specific phenomenon. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |