News report: https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6215946537001
I wouldn't take anything said on there as accurate or fact-checked.
By the way, it is disheartening to see the growth in the number of throw-away accounts used in discussions like these. Stand up for your opinions, dare to voice them, don't hide for the cancel mob. Use your real account even if - or maybe especially if - you expect the mob to pounce. It is only when "established" users show they are not afraid to speak up that the mob can be beaten.
I don't know anything about that data, sorry. Just the janitor.
According to Wikipedia, there are 91 million members, so this isn't a complete list. I wonder what the source database was for.
You're correct that most party members have "have [no] specific role in a hierarchy," but "group identification and virtue signalling," seriously? That feels like an inappropriate transfer of some stereotypes of the English-speaking left to the CCP.
My understanding is that most people who join do so because being a member offers small privileges, like preferences in hiring.
Why do you feel it is inappropriate? Human nature is human nature, its not as though Chinese are a sub-species of humans that has different psychology than American sub-species. People signaling values and identifying with groups is human nature.
> My understanding is that most people who join do so because being a member offers small privileges, like preferences in hiring.
Yes there are benefits to being in a group and sharing values with those in power.
Because my understanding is that most Chinese people do not consider the CCP to be virtuous nor do they "identify" with it. That's not to say they're dissidents, but more semi-deliberately indifferent and have knowledge of and experience with government corruption. Even people who work for the party are often just going through the motions.
> Because my understanding is that most Chinese people do not consider the CCP to be virtuous nor do they "identify" with it.
Perhaps its not meant to signal virtue to the majority but instead to the decision makers. Perhaps the majority do not identify as a member but the members do.
> Even people who work for the party are often just going through the motions.
That would be covered by signaling virtue.
That's not "virtue signalling." If everyone involved in the interaction is cynical about the organization, no virtue is being signaled. The "decision makers" most of all know the true nature of the party.
I think the word you're really looking for is just "signalling" or at least a different kind of signaling than "virtue signalling." You're really torturing that term into meaninglessness here.
"Virtue signalling" really only applies to situations where at least some people genuinely think they're signalling virtue or that others would actually perceive it that way. One end or the other can be cynical, but not both.
Its naive to assume that none of them consider the true nature of the party to be what constitutes "virtuous."
> I think the word you're really looking for is just "signalling" or at least a different kind of signaling than "virtue signalling." You're really torturing that term into meaninglessness here.
Sure.
> "Virtue signalling" really only applies to situations where at least some people genuinely think they're signalling virtue or that others would actually perceive it that way. One end or the other can be cynical, but not both.
Value signaling is perhaps a more value-neutral way of expressing the same sentiment.
Virtue is relative, not objective.