Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

AIBU to think "virtue signalling" doesn't apply to anonymous posts?

39 replies

KellyanneConway · 24/09/2018 09:10

I get the accusations when the poster is in the public eye and posting under their real name e.g. politicians on twitter - of course they want to come across as virtuous to help their public image. However on MN people are labelled as virtue signallers (e.g. recent posts about poverty and race) when they post any content that contains values that are seen as virtuous in our society, such as empathy, listening to other's point of view, trying not to judge. This is an anonymous site, no one knows who we really are, so why would we give a shit about falsely attributing "virtuous" values to ourselves, when there's ultimately nothing actually in it for us? People are just posting what they think, surely? I'm actually relieved there are people out there with these values, posting "virtuous" stuff, rather than judgey vitriol.

OP posts:

MephistophelesApprentice · 24/09/2018 09:13

It's masturbatory. It gives them a sense of moral superiority that's even better than when it's not-anonymous as they have to do even less to signal it.

BertrandRussell · 24/09/2018 09:16

Saying someone is “virtue signaling” just means either “I disagree with you” or “Acctually, a bit of me thinks you’re right and it makes me feel uncomfortable so i’m going to insult you to mKe myself feel better”

Original poster

KellyanneConway · 24/09/2018 09:19

So anyone who advocates listening, empathy etc towards other posters is just having a virtual wank whilst grinning smugly at the screen?

OP posts:

Trills · 24/09/2018 09:21

People who use the phrase "virtue signalling" are signalling to me that they don't believe anyone would do a good thing for any reason other than to try to gain others' approval. They don't believe that anyone might genuinely be kind, or care about people's feelings, or want to try to do the right thing.

Trills · 24/09/2018 09:23

That isn't to say that I believe everyone does the things they say on threads.

I think people often post this is how I would like to think I would behave without thinking about how realistic and likely that is.

When people say I would just give it to her as a gift or I would have said this pithy response, that's their ideal version of themselves.

Sohardtochooseausername · 24/09/2018 09:33

This. It also implies there’s something wrong with doing something good.

bridgetreilly · 24/09/2018 09:34

timshortfforthalia · 24/09/2018 09:37

What @trills (very wisely) said

MeAgainSparkle · 24/09/2018 09:38

The reason a lot of anonymous posters might get called out for virtue signalling is because one might think they have come on purely to recieve massive virtual backslaps from a community of unknown people. Why do they feel the need for that?

Justanotherlurker · 24/09/2018 09:43

They don't believe that anyone might genuinely be kind, or care about people's feelings, or want to try to do the right thing.

There is a vast difference between virtue signalling and being kind, virtue signalling is trynig to come across as morally superior and offer no concrete solution, it is a suitable phrase for many people wether that is anonymous online or in person.

Thighofrelief · 24/09/2018 09:48

I've heard the phrase virtue signalling a lot and my understanding of it is that it is like giving to charity but extremely loudly and only with a camera present. Does that sum up it's meaning?

Original poster

KellyanneConway · 24/09/2018 09:49

MeAgainSparkle, exactly, why would people do that?

Isn't the most likely explanation that some posters genuinely have opinions and values that reflect what we think of in society as virtuous? Or are we all really a bunch of bastards looking for praise from strangers?

I think accusations of VS probably provide an insight into the people who make the accusations, as other posters have articulated here.

OP posts:

sonjadog · 24/09/2018 09:54

I think there are a fair number who are really a bunch of bastards looking for praise from strangers, yes.

derxa · 24/09/2018 10:01

I think people often post this is how I would like to think I would behave without thinking about how realistic and likely that is. Yes that's it.

UpOnTheDowns · 24/09/2018 10:02

You can always tell the most enthusiastic virtue-signallers because they really hate being called out on their virtue-signalling

MaggieSimpsonsPacifier · 24/09/2018 10:05

It depends on the situation, surely.

Some posts are clearly nothing other than well-intentioned and that is obvious. Others are just meant to make the poster feel good. A good clue is often how much they talk about the OP/situation and how much they talk about themselves.

So for example where someone posts in desperation that they cannot get their toddler to eat anything healthy, someone giving useful tips is not VS. But someone replying that the OP must have let them get into bad habits early and theirs only ever eat organic hand knitted home grown food and have never touched a grain of sugar and only beg for water and get the vapours if a drop of juice wafts past - that wouldn’t be so well-intentioned!

karyatide · 24/09/2018 10:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PatchworkGirl · 24/09/2018 10:09

It probably is real, sometimes. And these are other times when the person is genuinely virtuous. It seems a shame to assume the worst every time - I also this it says a lot more about the person 'calling it'.

Like this comment "It's masturbatory. It gives them a sense of moral superiority that's even better than when it's not-anonymous as they have to do even less to signal it."

Attributing the same reason to all of 'them' (whoever 'they' are - nice people?) Some might enjoy the sense of moral superiority. Some might be looking for an ego boost after a really, really bad day. Some might be offering their genuine opinion. How can you possible know?

Justanotherlurker · 24/09/2018 10:30

Generally when I see someone on MN accuse others of virtue signalling I assume they’re just a massive racist.

This demonstrates why the term took off and is still in use.

karyatide · 24/09/2018 10:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Firesuit · 24/09/2018 10:43

People who use the phrase "virtue signalling" are signalling to me that they don't believe anyone would do a good thing for any reason other than to try to gain others' approval.

I'm trying to work out which fallacy you're displaying. Could be "straw man", but I thought there was a more specific one involves restating you opponents position in a more extreme form so as to make them wrong. But I can't find that on the lists I've just googled.

BertrandRussell · 24/09/2018 11:11

"I’ve yet to see anyone explain why asking not to be called n is “virtue signalling.”"
I think asking not to be called a nr yourself is fine. Asking that other people not be called n*rs is virtue signalling. The people who say that also seem to say that pointing out racism is racist because if you weren't a racist you wouldn't notice racism. Or something like that.

Bluelady · 24/09/2018 11:19

It's a term I'd never come across before MN. It implies that the person in question lacks integrity which is a pretty nasty thing to say to anyone. It's like the sneering "cool wife" reference just because you don't agree with them.

RangeRider · 24/09/2018 11:35

Sure you can do it anonymously. You still get to see everyone's responses telling you how great you are. I don't think everyone does it consciously, and I definitely don't think that every post which shows compassion etc. is virtue-signalling. But I think it's entirely possible to do it on an anonymous forum.
This ^^.
Why post 'I bought a homeless person breakfast this morning' if it's not to have people go 'oh you're sooooo kind'? You've done the nice thing when you made the purchase, there's no further benefit to the homeless person when you post on MN / FB etc. It's different if you come on MN (not in AIBU because it's not an AIBU question!) and say 'I think it would be really nice if people bought a homeless person a meal' and didn't blow their own trumpet.

Racecardriver · 24/09/2018 11:50

@BertrandRussell no it doesn't. Virtue signaling is voicing a particular opinion purely for the kudos that it brings without any contribution to the argument/any sincerity. Think of lily Allen crying over refugees for example. It's done purely for attention. Dambisa Moyos Dead Aid. Yes the book contained some statements that were in line with popular moral opinion but it was written with the purpose of making a meaningful contribution to intellectual moral and economic argument not to make sure that everybody was aware that the author is woke. A virtue signaling statement is I believe x look at how woke I am. A non virtue signaling statement would be I believe x because y.

Flip

1 2