The virtue signalling epidemic.
What is virtue signalling and why you should stop!
Virtue signalling as defined above is,
An attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on socialmedia:
Virtue signalling is the popular modern habit of indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for certain political ideas or cultural happenings.
The best virtue signalers are politicians.
You may also read “best” as the worst. There is no good virtue signalling, it makes you look self-centered, pandering to the crowd for self-approval.
Which crowd? Any crowd! The crowd at any given moment, the virtue signaller is only after the crowd's social approval. They have no concern for critical thinking, and they definitely have no interest in saying anything remotely controversial. “Safe speak” is the virtue signalers language.
The virtue signalling politician also cares about the social points. He or she has no real concern for the group in which they express so much (fake) empathy towards. Only their self-preservation (votes) matter, which is why politicians epitomize the best (worst) of virtue signalers.
Watch a slimy Trudeau (below), interrupt a women mid-sentence just to correct her on using “mankind” instead of “peoplekind”.
Peoplekind is not actually a word. As I’m writing this my spell checker keeps putting a red line under “peoplekind” perhaps my spell checker a sexist male?
Was Trudeau even listening to what she was saying, or just scanning her sentences for social justice buzz words. Waiting to pounce at any chance to demonstrate to her, and more importantly to the wider audience, that he denounces that evil word with, “M-A-N” at the beginning.
Look at me I am so virtuous!
The good thing about this slimy virtue signalling shit is that it exposes people like Trudeau for the weasels that they are. Astute people that don’t automatically buy the latest social narrative, can see a weasel like this a mile away.
Just because a word has the 3 the consecutive letters M-A-N, doesn’t mean this word is excluding women. Manhattan, Mangos, Manic…. (it’s too long of a list to continue it.) I mean Christ, mankind has never been used to talk only about men. The word literally means every human. A grade-schooler could tell you that.
Come to think of it, a grade schooler these days is probably being taught to not say mankind, and to use made up words. That’s still the fault of the adults in society thou, children can’t be blamed for our madness, and it is MADNESS!
He can’t score points with everyone, but he's not trying to.
Politicians are just playing the numbers. Most people are easily convinced (in an attempt to virtue signal themselves) that using a made up word like peoplekind is more compassionate and ethical. Weasels like Trudeau know this and is just playing to the majority. As the majority are told what to think and don’t look at things critically.
Critical thought is at an all-time low. Which is evident all around us. It doesn’t take much critical thought to see the weaselling manipulative psychopaths. Which demonstrates how short in supply, critical thought is.
People think, “What’s the harm in using a different word”. It seems innocent and harmless enough.
The point is that it shouldn’t be that easy to manipulate how you speak. The word “mankind” has been used for hundreds of years to describe ALL of humanity. This doesn't change overnight, like old weasel Trudeau would have you believe.
You need to be worried about how quickly you can be tricked into doing something, like changing the way you speak, which intern is going to change how you think. That is too much power to relinquish to the powers at be, especially when all they care about is keeping their power.
The vast majority of the general public have their hearts in the right place.
While the weasels like Trudeau can’t be trusted with their motives. Most people have their hearts in the right place when virtue signaling. As they have no real power to gain, they just want to be liked.
Often they would say “I just want to do “the right thing” and that’s understandable. Most people do! Only often for the virtue signaler being right is secondary to being liked.
Sometimes the right thing, requires you go against the narrative you're being spoon feed. Remember, if there is a conservative effort to spoon feed you something, you should automatically question whatever is on that spoon.
Often the right thing is the hard thing.
Have you never noticed that things worth having are hard to get?
You can’t get fit quickly it takes hard work, sweat and a careful eye on nutrition.
You can’t pay someone to love you, that’s something earned over time. A relationship which would have gone through as many ups as downs. The downs are the hard parts, where arguably the relationship is tested and built upon.
It’s the same with virtue. Being virtuous is a good thing, but it takes some thought and effort. It’s hard!
Moreover, virtue signalling is not inherently virtuous because it’s focused on the aforementioned social points.
Virtue signalling aims at getting a desirable reaction from others, whereas a person with real virtue does not care about what others think of them. They stick to their moral compass, whether or not it is pleasing to others.
A well thought out opinion on a social matter (or anything), will likely not be well received by everyone. If you are going to discuss a touchy subject like immigration, for example, you must be prepared to insult and offend.
The avid virtue signaler would never risk being offensive. Which is exactly why they are without real virtue.
To take the Immigration example further.
A virtue signaler would say something very broad, over sympathetic and simplistic to appease to the common narrative of simplified “good”.
“ Boarders shouldn’t exist, people should be able to live wherever they want.”
Someone who has actually taken 5 mins to think about the issue probably might say something like.
“While drawing imaginary lines on a map does seem like an unfair system to dictate where one is allowed to live. As one doesn’t choose the country they were born in. Having open borders causes some issues. Do we let everyone in? Do we not want to stop violent criminals? Then we would need to check them before they got here, at a set geographical location (like a border). What about social services? Should anyone from anywhere be able to claim social benefits in a country that likely struggles to supply their current citizens with social aid? What about sharia law? Some Muslims follow sharia law, would we allow them to be governed by different laws than the rest of the country? Many countries have reasonable systems that allow someone to legally immigrate, maybe we can review those systems. However, having uncontrolled migration, especially in a world that from country to country, the culture is so vastly different. Unregulated immigration (for now) seems it would cause more problems than it would solve.”
As you can see it’s easy to virtue signal, you can do it in a sentence or two. To actually put some thought in, takes time. It’s hard to articulate a statement not aimed at virtue signalling. Being critical will often bring up many more questions than it answered, and will always piss a few people off.
Isn't this article kind of virtue signalling?
It would be easy to think so, and maybe in a way it is. However, read that last paragraph about immigration. That has likely got a lot of people angry. Funny that the paragraph is mainly questions, rather than statements. Should questions really be so controversial? If we can't ask a question or two what type of society do we live in?
This article wasn't written to appease any one group. It's just some thoughts, ramblings and questions.
It may be slightly towards the virtue signalling end of the spectrum. As if I'm trying to show everyone how great my critical thinking is, and how poor everyone else is at it.
That was not my intention, but in true non-virtue signaler fashion, I don't care.
How to not virtue signal.
There’s always two ends of the spectrum.
Take the immigration example again.
One end is to have zero boarders let everyone in all the time. The other end is don’t let any immigrants in, at all.
Both options are ridiculous. Rarely is there such a simple answer to anything, pertaining to large numbers of people.
To not virtue signal, look at both ends of the spectrum, and consider both. Realise how stupid they both are and come up with a considered opinion. If after careful consideration you still hold one of the two extreme beliefs, then fine! At least now, after some thought, you should be able to articulate why you believe it. If you’re not just parroting some 10-sec clip from the internet, and you explain yourself, good!
Only one end of the spectrum will be in danger of virtue signalling.
Again with the immigration example. If you are down the end of the spectrum that wants to open up all the borders, all the time. This is usually because you are predispositioned to gravitate towards characteristics like empathy, compassion, care, and so on. Now, these characteristics are not bad, not at all. We need more of them, but they need to be cemented in reality. Real love, real compassion, real empathy, and not just lip service.
Character lip service?
Let me use another example other than immigration.
Take the best example of real love that one can experience, the love of a parent/s. Parental love is often(hopefully), empathic, caring, and of course “loving”.
However, often it doesn't come across as this to the child. Sometimes the best love in a situation appears tough and very un-empathic to the child. The child may not be allowed to eat what they like when they like or go where they would always like to go.
A parent needs to set clear boundaries and rules, and if you asked the child at the time, they would proclaim how unfair or unloving this feels. It usually takes a child years, to realise this was actually unconditional love at its finest.
A parent that loves their child so much, they would hurt their child's feelings in the short term, for much more long term positive impact. That is what I refer to previously as a “real” characteristic. In this case “real love” or “real care”.
A bad parent panders to the child's every wish. Instant shallow gratification on the child's part, and stunting their character development.
What's this got to do with virtue signalling?
Virtue signalling is easy. Easy in the moment, but detrimental in the long term.
Just like letting a child eat whatever they like when they like. In the short term easy, but in the long term, it's harming the relationship between parent and child, not to mention the long term health effects on the child.
Easy vs hard.
Harmful vs helpful.
What's the long term detriment of virtue signalling?
Lack of character for one.
Your character as a virtue signaller has no depth, as you are a crowd pleaser. Only interested in short term accolades.
You don’t spend much time thinking about the complexities of an issue. Only how you can get some instant social pat on the back.
Made so easy by social media.
Virtue signallers have almost in every case, had some thoughts counter to the general “safe” narrative, but is scared of speaking these out loud.
People that speak their mind, are infinitely better off. See below.
Virtue signallers fall into one of two categories.
- They have conflicting thoughts, and questions about social issues that would undoubtedly piss some people off, if they were to say these thoughts aloud. So they self-censor, become scared and develop weak character.
- They have been virtue signaler for so long, that the counter thoughts they used to keep to themselves, they no longer have. They have trained themselves so well and got enough social back pats, that they have whitewashed their minds. There may be no coming back from this type of virtue signaler. This person is doomed to shout down invited speakers at universities, and require a “safe space” that fits some obscure segregated social group. A space in which they will complain (while self-segregated) about societal segregation.
The key takeaways?
- Stop worrying about what people think, speak your mind.
- Speak your mind without making personal attacks and getting upset.
- Be prepared to change your mind. Always.
- Considered and thought out opinions are usually not found on the extremes.
- Your opinions don't define you.
- ….but your character does.
- Politicians are weasels and the worst of the worst in fake virtue.
