to get a bit irritated with all the virtue signalling on MN

[OTheHugeManatee]

Virtue signalling = going on really loudly about how much you hate something that's considered right-on to hate (eg UKIP, the Daily Mail) in order to tell the world how kind, compassionate and generally virtuous you are.

I see it all the time on MN. It's the moral equivalent of stealth boasting. Instead of saying 'Look at how much more kind and compassionate I am than most other people' virtue signallers claim really loudly to hate something 'bad', thereby hinting at their superior niceness rather than bragging about it out loud.

As well as being thoroughly in bad faith it creates a climate where sometimes quite difficult and nuanced issues can't be discussed, because any attempt to weigh different sides is drowned out by people using that issue to signal their own virtue.

I'm averagely right-on, averagely selfish/kind/whatever, generally fairly normal I suppose in my ethical views. But I find all this posturing hypocritical and very irritating. The internet seems to be making it worse. AIBU to wish it would stop?

YANBU

Can you read minds? Perhaps they really do hate the things they say they hate.

YANBU.

I find it very irritating too. I was delighted when I realised it had a name as I could then identify exactly why it is so annoying.

So you want everyone to shut up?

Or you want to vet people to determine how "genuine" they are?

Well done on being average (WTF does that mean anyway?). But don't assume that others hold equally average views about the same range of issues.

What if you really hate UKIP and the Daily Mail?

Yanbu!!!
I hate the disclaimer DM ones. It's pretty obvious that many, many people here are dm readers but deny it.

I fucking hate the Daily Mail. Not only is it trash. But it's also, in its reporting of medical nonsense, positively dangerous.

Is that "virtue signalling" or, you know, just my feelings?

I agree to an extent. Wrt the refugee crisis, I suspect most posters are roughly on the same page about what we should be doing to help - ie, take in as many as we practically can.

But the language used creates two sides - those who care and have compassion, and those who have questions and concerns about practicalities.

Many of the arguments end up as I'm so nice, you're so horrible. Despite the fact we all want to help.

I just came onto this page to give the OP an earful for mentioning the Daily Mail without the compulsory warning/apology!

HOW VERY DARE YOU OP!

YANBU it's pathetic.

I don't like the Daily Mail but I don't immediately leap on anyone mentioning it and castigate them for their failure to be as right on as I am.

YANBU. I've never heard the term before, so thanks for introducing me to it.

Too late!

I read the DM because Dh has bought the DM for the last eleventy million years and at last twice a week for the last eleventy million years reads it whilst saying "why do I read this shit and shaking his head in despair".

I used to buy other papers but realised it was all the same news just different vitriol. Op UANBU.

Totally agree. Esp comments like "I'm not even going to read your post because you've mentioned the DM". It's negative, closes down discussion and very superior.

Maid - what you do or don't like is your business. How you feel about the Daily Mail or anything else only becomes virtue signalling if you make an effort to ensure everyone knows you think it's bad and dangerous and immoral.

YANBU
Read another thread in which OP and several others looked at what was behind the media manipulation of the migrant crisis and was impressed by some of the posts. (This phrase came up)

I have been accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic, Tory, insensitive, unkind, uncaring, Daily Mail loving and old!!!! (I am, (possibly), only one of those things!!).

Unless I also cry "Racist" or "Daily Fail shite" at every attempt to discuss a complex issue from benefits to education, I am by default, a lover of those things. Only by decrying them and accusing others can I be sure that:
a everyone is fully aware of my virtue
and
b I am not "one of them" - whoever they may be

Clever post yanbu

YANBU. It's the black & whiteness of the attitude of some posters that makes sensible discussions difficult - there are shades of grey in almost every debate but these are rarely acknowledged.

Ok, fuck stealth boasting: I'm a really nice, moral and kindly person. There, I've said it.

How you feel about the Daily Mail or anything else only becomes virtue signalling if you make an effort to ensure everyone knows you think it's bad and dangerous and immoral

Understood.

So if someone posts a thread about a miracle cancer cure that they read about in the DM, am I allowed to comment then?

YA so NBU. The smugupmanship on here is nauseating at times.

I think that's the point. Most people who go on about hating UKIP or whatever probably genuinely do. But so what? Why make a big fuss about it, unless you're trying to signal something about who you are?

Besides, I just don't think disliking something that's seen as 'bad' makes someone more moral. It's easy to be negative and to hate things; I think being a good person is more complicated than that. So I really dislike the way internet culture seems increasingly to suggest that being a good person is about putting on a sort of performance.

I have hidden so many people on FB because of this that I barely get any updates at all!