Hacker News Reader

Comment by Apocryphon | Hacker News Reader

There are some phrases which, despite their ostensibly unbiased definition and utility, end up being colored by overuse by one partisan side or another. Immediately jumping to accuse critics of those phrases of being on the opposite partisan side only reinforces the biased nature of the phrase. Are you triggered?

It is interesting that one of the earlier pop uses of "virtue signaling" was on LessWrong, and hence fairly apolitical [A]. But it seems to have been mostly used by the right. If one was to see a lot of leftist groups calling freedom of speech protesters or statue protectors "virtue signalers", then the phrase would indeed retain its original apolitical, universal nature. The article also gives some interesting analysis about how the original term has semantically drifted over the years to become watered down in meaning- at least according to Sam Bowman.

[A] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

View on HN

Good response.

I do agree with Sam Bowman that the term is often misused (and that it doesn't make as much sense as it should since the word 'signalling' is meant to refer to costly signals and not 'cheap talk'), however my belief is that people are critiquing because the term is hitting 'too close to home' rather than because the term warrants serious criticism.

@matt4077:

  > Here's an analogy, a term I abhor for the
  > same reason: "mansplaining".
  >
  > It's a similarly cheap and unfair argument, because 
  > it's completely generic and can be used in any
  > discussion. It's also impossible to argue
  > against, because it uses any answer as proof.

Yes, agreed. That term often gets used when somebody isn't merely re-explaining what somebody already knows and is in fact giving new information from their own personal experiences in good-faith.

I don't really use the term 'virtue signalling' anymore, but I do get annoyed when somebody uses it and another person jumps in to tell them that they're not allowed to say it because it is used by the wrong sort of person or because it has no meaning. It does have a meaning and it is sometimes appropriate: male feminists who turn out to be using this identity to cloak their misogyny, politicians preaching about peace but consistently voting to bomb countries, Ivanka Trump harnessing a feminist image to hawk sweatshop clothing, etc.

Actually, I feel the same way about 'mansplaining'. There are cases where men step-in to re-explain what a woman just said to her or to others in a louder, more-confident tone and in these cases I think it's a great word.

Edit: You deleted your comment but I had already written this so I've posted it anyway.

(Sorry for deleting the comment. I wanted to move it into the original one, and see what happens when I add the example from the other side of the political aisle, only to realise I could no longer edit it.)

But none of those examples actually involve self-sacrifice in order to perpetuate falsehood. Those are examples of hypocritically showing off. It's an example of specialized technical jargon that does have valid specific use, but has been watered down to score cheap ideological points, an indictment of the target of being textbook irrational. How ironic that the use of the phrase has become an act of virtue signaling, in of itself!

Er, yeah, a more legible description is "virtue cheap talking" and not "virtue signalling".

But it's quite likely that usage of the latter term has always been a sarcastic jibe about the fraudulent/low-investment quality of the 'virtuous' acts that are being performed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com