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?

That's a fair point, the images were absolutely everywhere in the UK.

And yes, I'm sure I'm equally guilty of signalling that I am lucky enough to be able to access and consume a wide range of international media.

However, I maintain that it would be good to have a no mans land here sometimes, when those black and white views could be left in the trenches and we could all try and listen with open minds. Myself included.

It's so often like a lower 6th debating society with all the liberals wailing about how much they CARE and the economists showing that it's impractical and both sides shouting 'racist' at those who have security concerns.

FWIW, I don't think the story needs pumping up by anyone. If anything, I think some deep breaths taken and tough decisions need to be made.

I do believe the left are making political capital (and I'm sure the right would too, if they were in opposition) out of this, and I think that abhorrent.

Yes, it's true, though as previous posters have pointed out it cuts both ways; there are just as many self-righteous posts on MN representing right-wing views as left-wing views.

I don't like it, but what I find really intolerable is when people use the same approach when commenting on personal issues. Like when a poster at the end of her tether moans about her shrieky toddler or admits that she's just tried controlled crying in desperation, to be met with smug condemnation and vague warnings of irreparable damage to the child. That's properly disgraceful behaviour.

Sometimes I wonder whether the internet, which was supposed to make us all more open-minded and tolerant of diversity, isn't in fact having the opposite effect. By making it easier to create communities of interest, we end up creating ideological echo chambers which convince us that everyone else sensible thinks like us. Then the denunciation of people who disagree gets shriller and shriller. It's a vicious circle.

Homehelpmegawd

Olivepip did not say what you have accused her of saying. You have twisted and exaggerated it.

Certainly it's not unique to MN, but I think it contributes negatively to the quality of political discourse. It's not just the internet - the 24-hour news cycle contributes too - but the ability we now have to whip up mobs around simplistic, emotive stuff via the internet is IMO actively harmful to sensible political decision-making.

By making it easier to create communities of interest, we end up creating ideological echo chambers which convince us that everyone else sensible thinks like us. Then the denunciation of people who disagree gets shriller and shriller. It's a vicious circle.

That is so true.

Manatee, I think this thread is a testament to how the internet can be helpful for ideas. By and large, it has been even-tempered, informative, and provocative - it's pushed me to question some of my assumptions and reframe my thinking. It reminds me of why I liked my lower 6th debating society .

So while I don't disagree that the diamonds are buried in a boat load of pigshit, it's still worth the odd rummage with a pair of rubber gloves and a nosepeg, I'd say.

YANBU

I like this quote from Jon Ronson

"You can lead a good ethical life, but some bad phraseology in a tweet can overwhelm it all."
"Maybe there are two types of people in the world. Those people who favor humans over ideology. And those people who favor ideology over humans. I favor humans over ideology, but right now, the ideologues are winning."
"The great thing about social media was how it gave a voice to voiceless people. But we're now creating a surveillance society where the smartest way to survive is to go back to being voiceless"

I don't think it was an intention of the internet to make us all more open-minded and tolerant. It was first created by the US military, after all.

But many early-adopters happened to have values of tolerance and open-mindedness about many subjects (though not all), so that created a culture early on.

I completely agree with you that it's quite possible to have the opposite effect, though.

The echo-chamber problem is quite widely recognised. Something that makes me particularly uncomfortable is personalised search results: the search engine ranks results to put "stuff you might like" at the top, based on what you clicked on previously. It's completely opaque. You're not seeing the same as your neighbour and making a different choice: you're being presented with a different world from the word go.

As you say, it reinforces our belief that we are the norm, and everyone sensible thinks like us.

Kesstrel

Olivepip said I had a fair point, so... [shrug]

And I quoted her words exactly by cut-and-paste, so...[double-shrug]

I do not think I did what you think I did

So while I don't disagree that the diamonds are buried in a boat load of pigshit, it's still worth the odd rummage with a pair of rubber gloves and a nosepeg, I'd say. Wonderful image - and an excellent point.

Why thank you, BlueJug

So you kept on reading the thread anyway, despite your earlier intentions?!

I've found it thought-provoking when people have pointed out that it's not just what we could broadly call 'the left' that makes moral meta-statements. Mulling it over in the bath just now, think while that's certainly true it's not a simple equivalence, ie one lot of virtue signalling is like any other. The reason it's not that simple is that there are qualitative differences between the groups of virtues being signalled.

I'm going to end up being quite reductive now, so sorry in advance, but to my eye the 'centre left' virtues that are commonly signalled are roughly:

• idealism
• compassion for others
• selflessness
• reluctance to be judgemental
• resistant to corruption by money
• welcoming human diversity
• protective of minorities seen as 'vulnerable'

On the other hand, 'centre right' virtues that might be signalled could be

• pragmatism
• a good grasp of realpolitik
• well educated
• good judgement
• intelligence
• worldliness ('I understand how the world really works')

(I'm going to leave to one side the extreme right and left views for now, as to me they seem to be less about virtue-signalling than about in-group and out-group stuff, plus I'm just less interested in them ).

Please feel free to add to the lists above - I've struggled a bit with the centre-right list and would appreciate others' perspectives. What's interesting to me about them, though, is that apart from 'idealism' and 'pragmatism' the two lists aren't the inverse of one another. From the perspective of the 'centre left', people who self-identify as right-wing are characterised as the opposite of the 'centre left' list, eg heartless, selfish, judgemental, money-obsessed, bigoted and indifferent to the suffering of minorities. But they don't see themselves that way, as evidenced by the virtues they signal. Rather, they see themselves as pragmatic and worldly, and would most likely feel they are absolutely capable of compassion, selflessness and many of the other virtues on the 'lefty' list.

Also, I don't think the parallel lists of virtues pack the same punch. Given the choice between signalling yourself to be worldly or compassionate, which one makes a nicer impression? If you had to choose between being seen as clever or a champion of vulnerable minorities, which one would make you feel better? There's an asymmetry between the two perspectives that can't be reduced to saying 'oh, but all political perspectives do virtue-signalling'.

HomeHelpMeGawd - I did. I thought it had reached the end of its natural life - and then I saw lots more posts and had to come back. Glad I did - it's good.

OTheHugeManatee - In answer to your questions about which virute I'd prefer to been seen as exhibiting - it would depend where I was, (at work or on a date!). But the list is thought provoking.

homehelp do join me on the gracious no mans land for footie! Or indeed in the LVI common room last period.

whip up mobs around simplistic, emotive stuff via the internet is IMO actively harmful to sensible political decision-making

Viz the appalling global witch hunt for the Cecil-killing dentist instead of directing ire and action at the authorities who issue the licenses.

OP thank you for a very thought-provoking thread and your fair and considered comments. Hope your bath didn't get cold!

By posting this thread, you have virtuously become the thing you hate, OP.

You don't need to smugly tell us that you hate this, OP.

I have been quite pleased at the number of Conservative supporters on here. Those of us still celebrating the great victory I hope have been magnanimous in victory to the rather upset left wing. Both exist on there though so that's good.

Ditto right and left wing feminists.

Ditto working and non working mothers.

It is not a wholly echo chamber place. I like the opportunity to debate with people of the left. As a Thatcher supporter and supporter of the spare room subsidy I am not alone but there are others with different views around.

However I agree with the premise of the thread that in some areas you can get one prevailing view and woe betide it if you have say my view that the man who forced his non swimming wife from the saftey of Turkey and in effect contributed to his chidlren's deaths is not some kind of saint whose feet we must kiss. If you don't toe the line people are not happy - the mob rule can prevail.

Hwever on the whole MN is better than many other places because it is big and has a lot of posters. Even the anti landlord socialist brigade don't win out because there are plenty of landlords doing God's work here.

I like that we can debate my "jam tomorrow" issues - that if you sacrifice things today and aren't "entitled" (there are many of the entitled amongst us sadly) then you can buy that house or whatever later on.

I find it very irritating that the left think they have a monopoly on helping the poor or supporting the NHS when left wing policies ensure the poor suffer and the right ensure we have the funds to support the poor. The left polish their supposed halos whilst the poor starve whereas the left roll up their sleeves, live within their means and ensure the poor are kept going. The left talk. The right act.

Not much virtue signalling there, Janet

Classic. :o

I enjoy posting my views on the comments page on Daily Mail site and seeing how many likes I get. I can't be the only one?

How many DO you get Mama?

Are you Scott Alexander, op?

Janet ably demonstrates that the right is as able to be contemptuous of its opponents as the left.

As for her comments about that bereaved man...well, it is does rather add to the evidence base that those on the left can present when making their case that the right lack empathy, as well as sympathy. The poverty of imagination that lies behind an assertion that Turkey is a safe place for a Syrian Kurdish refugee family just beggars belief. The notion that this was a man with obvious choices, that avoiding harm to his family was simple. The breathtaking assumption idiocy that lies behind a statement that this man "forced" his wife on to the boat, as though we could know anything of the sort. Gah. Pontificating on a bereaved refugee's poor choices from the safety of the UK: it's just grotesque.

Janet, I wonder if you have some words of wisdom for the poor choices the fathers of the families who boarded the Struma made in 1942? Quite a lot of their wives and children couldn't swim either, and they died of drowning too.

www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005410

YANBU I do agree totally especially about your comment regarding nuanced debate here and irl.

OTheHuge, I am at your chosen virtues for your groups.

Why on earth would anyone need to choose between being seen as clever or a champion of vulnerable minorities? Did you really just say that the "centre right" view the "centre left" as NOT clever and not well-educated?

How on earth did you get yourself there?

Statistically, the higher the educational level, the more likely someone is to embrace values usually categorised as broadly left wing (anti death penalty, more tolerant, etc).

And MNers, that notoriously centre-left nest of vipers, failing to signal that we are clever? Give over!

(The demographic of MN is changing, of course, but it's there are people on this very thread whining it still has a left-wing Groupthink.)