LogFAQs > #952630313

CoorsLight posted... I think the concept is legitimate but the problem is that the people who use the phrase act like a pride parade is the same kind of "virtue signaling" as a corporation doing a rainbow logo

A corporation doing a rainbow logo isn't virtue-signalling, that's just plain old pandering. That's obnoxious for other reasons. It's a whole side discussion. They also suck, though.

As for pride parades, they're inherently problematic. And, all things considered, the two things *can* fall into the same camp depending on motives. There are companies that walk the walk, so they're on par with active participants and allies. Other companies and participants are slacktivists or doing it for shitty reasons. (Like "nice guys" and white knights at women's marches who go there to pick up chicks.)

Some companies take stances they actually believe or are woven into their mission statement (Tom's Shoes's "One for One", Chik-fil-E's decision to close their business down on Sundays (losing TONS of money) so employees can go to church & spend the day with their families). Others kinda wear the issue on their sleeve, and then others just try to capitalize on shit.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Not really. It's essentially pointing out that the other person lacks the moral high ground they pretend to possess, and are essentially lying so you'll see them as a better person than they actually are.

Yeah, most virtue-signallers are actually pretty fucking awful people who spend more time signalling virtue than actually having virtue. A lot of them happen to be slacktivists who think that by "raising awareness" in their echo chamber they're making a difference in the world and that makes them better than everybody who doesn't try to "raise awareness", instead of actually fucking doing something.

If anything, they're contributing to why society sucks so much these days. Once upon a time, people who saw problems would go out and try to solve them. If they thought the cops were corrupt, they'd join the police to fix things from within. If they thought the little man was getting a raw deal, they'd go into law and help them fight government and businesses. These were people who actually had virtue and principles. By contrast, virtue-signallers help to convert people who might have done something into just being virtue-signallers.

Blightzkrieg posted...

The term seems to stem from the belief that nobody can legitimately desire good things for people other than themselves

Whether the person believes it or not isn't always germane to the virtue-signal. It's like trolling (which you can understand), in that it's most widely associated with people doing things they don't believe (or don't strongly believe) to achieve a desired reaction, but you also have people who legitimately believe that thing while being provocative about it. And a *lot* of virtue-signalling is basically trolling. For a case-in-point, you can pretty pull out any of the shit memes you've posted over recent months to try to get a negative reaction out of people.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.