Hacker News Reader

Comment by pageandrew | Hacker News Reader

Its called virtue signaling.

This is just a lazy buzzword you can use to shut down other peoples opinions without having to actually engage with them.

It's just "virtue signalling", it's just "PC gone mad", it's just "cancel culture", they're just "crazy SJWs". Notice how none of these things actually have any substance, they're just a way to dismiss someone else and walk away feeling like you've won a pointless argument.

Post something substantial or don't post at all.

It is a way to dismiss someone. Doesn't make it unsubstantial. It's akin to saying "he just wants attention."

> This is just a lazy buzzword you can use to shut down other peoples opinions

It can be used that way, but it isn't just that. You could say the same about the word "racist", "TERF", or "transphobe".

> Notice how none of these things actually have any substance

I notice substance to these claims all the time (as well as non-substantial ones).

People to whom these words accurately apply have a stake as dismissing them though.

Better to signal virtue than a lack of virtue.

I think it is more virtuous to send honest signals than to be a hypocrite.

Also, "virtue" in these cases usually just means conforming to social pressure and the norms of particularly vociferous factions of society.

Even if you happen to agree with those norms (which are seen as Draconian by many), the sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitude probably won't help the cause in the long run.

Honesty is better than hypocrisy although the two are not mutually exclusive. More often one has to choose between being honest and hypocritical or being dishonest and consistent.

What evidence do you have that this move by Neil Young is anything other than his honest feelings on the subject? A lot of people are sick of Rogan spreading BS. It's not suprising someone like Young would choose to use what little leverage they have to push for him to be removed.

Engage with peoples points, don't just claim that they're sanctimonious or that there's a lot of them, so you get to ignore them - that's absurd.

A lot of people sharing the same opinion doesn't magically make that opinion less valid, engaging with the world as if there's some great conspiracy against you is counterproductive.

> that there's a lot of them,

I kinda made the opposite of the that claim in my comment :-) I think a lot of people see the norms "virtue signallers" want to impose as Draconian. I don't think a guy having controversial guests on his podcasts is something many people find intolerable.

Well in this case he's signalling support for censorship, so you can't really call that virtuous.

There are people out there who care more about the truth and acknowledge that such a thing exists than giving every crazy person a megaphone.

If we want to live in a circus where people who have no idea what they're talking about get to disseminate lies while thousands of people die preventable deaths every day we've lost our collective minds.

If Joe Rogan had the head of NAMBLA on and leant him a sympathetic ear would you have Rogans back?

Is he though? He asked them to remove JRE or remove his catalog. He's exercising his choice to remove himself from the platform because he doesn't want to be associated with Spotify and the people they employ.

Supporting censorship would be more along the lines of asking the government to jail Rogan, erasing his content, etc.

Spotify has actually removed certain JRE episodes from the available catalog as a condition of their deal.[1]

[1]: https://nypost.com/2021/04/09/spotify-quietly-deletes-contro...

He knew what the outcome of what his "ultimatum". He put his personal profits on the line and followed through. This clearly isn't a case of virtue signaling.

So is dismissing something by saying "it's just virtue signaling".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com