Moved this over from this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?627918-The-Journey-To-North-America-Part-Two/page2
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?627918-The-Journey-To-North-America-Part-Two/page2
Moderation Question
- Status
I disagree with your assessment of how that term is invoked. It is used almost exclusively to dismiss or deride progressive viewpoints by impugning the motive of the speaker.
Like "social justice warrior", whatever its origin may have been, that is its modern function. It is a derogatory term. It's even in the rules as an example of one.
As is commonly said, attack the argument, rather than the speaker's motives.
Like "social justice warrior", whatever its origin may have been, that is its modern function. It is a derogatory term. It's even in the rules as an example of one.
As is commonly said, attack the argument, rather than the speaker's motives.
I agree completely with attacking the argument.
However, there is a real practice these days that some folks who do not actually have an argument that they can discuss or defend tend to express a point of view that they think is politically correct in order to go with the flow or be seen as cool. Once the argument is attacked, the shallowness of the point itself becomes readily apparent, but the practice itself always seems to continue. Banning a reasonably clear phrase for the description of that practice seems questionable to me without an adequate alternate phrase for something that does seem to keep happening. I guess you could say to someone "please think for yourself" instead of "please stop virtue signalling" but one does not seem much more harsh than the others to me.
I've participated here (with older accounts) since Eric Noah first setup the site, then handed it off to you - and you've done a fantastic job with it. However, my observation is that the idea of what is not offensive has shifted in many parts of society in one particular direction. In this case, for example, the "Keep it inclusive" rule expresses general ideas against bullying and discrimination that no reasonable person would object to, but then specifically calls out only terms that might offend someone with progressive viewpoints. That does send a bit of a signal, which may just be based on your personal experience with whatever folks who have been acting up on the forums, but nonetheless.
In any case, your site, your rules and I shall follow them but hopefully discussing them is not looked on badly.
However, there is a real practice these days that some folks who do not actually have an argument that they can discuss or defend tend to express a point of view that they think is politically correct in order to go with the flow or be seen as cool. Once the argument is attacked, the shallowness of the point itself becomes readily apparent, but the practice itself always seems to continue. Banning a reasonably clear phrase for the description of that practice seems questionable to me without an adequate alternate phrase for something that does seem to keep happening. I guess you could say to someone "please think for yourself" instead of "please stop virtue signalling" but one does not seem much more harsh than the others to me.
I've participated here (with older accounts) since Eric Noah first setup the site, then handed it off to you - and you've done a fantastic job with it. However, my observation is that the idea of what is not offensive has shifted in many parts of society in one particular direction. In this case, for example, the "Keep it inclusive" rule expresses general ideas against bullying and discrimination that no reasonable person would object to, but then specifically calls out only terms that might offend someone with progressive viewpoints. That does send a bit of a signal, which may just be based on your personal experience with whatever folks who have been acting up on the forums, but nonetheless.
In any case, your site, your rules and I shall follow them but hopefully discussing them is not looked on badly.
Yes. This community is unapologetically inclusive, and falls deliberately and firmly on that side of the line. I was hoping it sent more than "a bit" of a signal; I would hope that was blindingly obvious to anybody (in fact, I *know* it is from the nasty names I've been called on social media because of it).
Celebrim
Legend
Virtue signaling is a scientific term whose origin is behavior which serves the evolutionary purpose of signaling fitness to other members of the species, particularly future mates, because by being costly in some manner, it signals the fitness of the individual and thus its ability to produce healthy offspring.
In social animals, the term can encompass acts intended to show fitness to the other members of the social group, in the hopes that they will reciprocate in kind.
For decades now, the consensus biological explanation for religious observance in humanity was that it had evolved as a form of virtue signaling, where the persons self-sacrificing acts signaled both fitness and devotion to the band. Piety of any sort therefore, is from a purely materialist biological view point simply virtue signaling. It's a way of attracting social admiration and reciprocal resources, and ultimately increasing breeding success or near kindred breeding success.
I encourage you to read some journal articles on the subject of the evolutionary explanation for altruistic behavior and of religious behavior in particular.
Sometime in the last few years, conservative political commentators offered up the theory that since religious observance was accepted to be a biological imperative, and a universal instinct in humanity, one would expect that in people who had become irreligious or secular that there would be parallel behavior observed in some non-religious part of the persons life. For example, one might expect that a person might show excessive irrational devotion to a sport team, not merely for some obvious reason like 'they enjoy sports', but because it was a subversion of their instinct to tribal piety - a set of ritual observances that they could engage in that would serve much the same emotional and biological purpose for them that pious acts serve in the religious.
From that, it was observed that very likely for many people this pious observance would become associated with political movements or political parties for the same biological reasons. In other words, a person that gets up in front of a church and speaks in tongues or testifies or makes a large commitment of some sort or a large donation, is fundamentally engaging in the exact same behavior (from a purely biological perspective) as someone who builds a paper-mache mask and paints a sign of some sort, and marches down the street singing some sort of chant. That is to say, they are both virtue signaling.
In social animals, the term can encompass acts intended to show fitness to the other members of the social group, in the hopes that they will reciprocate in kind.
For decades now, the consensus biological explanation for religious observance in humanity was that it had evolved as a form of virtue signaling, where the persons self-sacrificing acts signaled both fitness and devotion to the band. Piety of any sort therefore, is from a purely materialist biological view point simply virtue signaling. It's a way of attracting social admiration and reciprocal resources, and ultimately increasing breeding success or near kindred breeding success.
I encourage you to read some journal articles on the subject of the evolutionary explanation for altruistic behavior and of religious behavior in particular.
Sometime in the last few years, conservative political commentators offered up the theory that since religious observance was accepted to be a biological imperative, and a universal instinct in humanity, one would expect that in people who had become irreligious or secular that there would be parallel behavior observed in some non-religious part of the persons life. For example, one might expect that a person might show excessive irrational devotion to a sport team, not merely for some obvious reason like 'they enjoy sports', but because it was a subversion of their instinct to tribal piety - a set of ritual observances that they could engage in that would serve much the same emotional and biological purpose for them that pious acts serve in the religious.
From that, it was observed that very likely for many people this pious observance would become associated with political movements or political parties for the same biological reasons. In other words, a person that gets up in front of a church and speaks in tongues or testifies or makes a large commitment of some sort or a large donation, is fundamentally engaging in the exact same behavior (from a purely biological perspective) as someone who builds a paper-mache mask and paints a sign of some sort, and marches down the street singing some sort of chant. That is to say, they are both virtue signaling.
All very fascinating, but that’s *not* the current modern usage of the term. It’s an insult used to dismiss progressive opinions. Language changes; the term has been co-opted. It is not to be used in this community.
Celebrim
Legend
When I use the term, that's how I mean it. And as far as I'm concerned, you are flat out wrong in this: because in the circles I run in, that's where the term came from and was probably being used long before you even heard it used.
I concur it is often used as an insult, but not to dismiss progressive opinions per se. It's used to dismiss the insertion of political opinions into every aspect of every conversation, often when the way that the insertion is done is very ostentatious and in particular when what the thing the person is doing is not very costly, but the person doing it pretends that they are taking a great risk in presenting the opinion. When someone comes and says, "See how inclusive I am." as the very first part of a conversation, it's like that person with 21 bumper stickers on the back of the car. It may well be that inclusivity is a great thing, but you can still disagree that the person is actually displaying inclusivity, tolerance, and open minded behavior as they trumpet their own virtue and pet theorems.
For example, no one is going to get banned off of EnWorld for presenting a progressive opinion even when it is in violation of the terms of service. They know that, because they know that it is tolerated. You said it yourself:
"This community is unapologetically inclusive, and falls deliberately and firmly on that side of the line. I was hoping it sent more than "a bit" of a signal; I would hope that was blindingly obvious to anybody"
Oh, it is blindly obvious to anyone. What is really hilarious though is that you anoint that behavior as "inclusive", despite the fact that most of the time - indeed, pretty much all of the time - no one is trying to exclude anyone from gaming - except, apparently, yourself. Sure, you can tell yourself that you have valid reason to exclude people that strike you as jerks, and that's fine - maybe you are even right. But please don't validate that as inclusiveness. Labelling it "inclusive" though, poisons the well thoroughly, because it defacto declares disagreement with any part of the opinion is racist. Yet, no one ever gets banned or red modded on EnWorld for calling people racist in order to dismiss someone else's opinion. Or sexist. Or really, any of the left terms of dismissiveness which is blanket dropped whenever they are disagreed with.
As for the term in question, I often feel people find it the term offensive primarily because they resent the comparison.
Final note, so far as I can recall, I've not actually used the term on EnWorld to refer to anyone. I don't find it particularly useful even when I find the term accurate, mostly because people just get offended instead of reflecting on the fact that it's potentially very valid criticism, so it doesn't accomplish the purpose of changing the person's opinion. But it's not necessarily the opinions that bother people. It's the act of politicizing everything that I think annoys people. It's the equivalent of going around with a bible and a tract and knocking on people's door that annoys people. If you can suggest better language for, "I find your insertion of political opinions into everything you write more than a little bit annoying. And in fact, it strikes me as petty self-righteous passive aggressive behavior.", then by all means suggest. Because most of the description of the problem strikes me as a bit more inflammatory and biased that "virtue signaling".
Celebrim
Legend
I agree with Phasestar and Celebrim.
While the phrase may be used as an insult, you should read it in context, and in this case it reads to me like a general comment on marketing. I don’t see that the original post was using it prejoratively. It’s a different beast to ‘SJW’ which, as far as I can see is almost always used as an insult.
I appreciate that you are looking at it from a viewpoint of the, often viscous, US culture wars, but that perspective is not universal. Mine is different: I’m an Irish academic whose spent 25 years not only correcting students writing, but also coaching them to give helpful, non confrontational feedback to each other. I feel you dropped a blanket ban on that phrase very quickly; there’s a lower level of alert, like ‘That’s a contentious phrase, please be careful how you use it’ for example. Because when anyone bans a word or phrase, it hurts my soul.
While the phrase may be used as an insult, you should read it in context, and in this case it reads to me like a general comment on marketing. I don’t see that the original post was using it prejoratively. It’s a different beast to ‘SJW’ which, as far as I can see is almost always used as an insult.
I appreciate that you are looking at it from a viewpoint of the, often viscous, US culture wars, but that perspective is not universal. Mine is different: I’m an Irish academic whose spent 25 years not only correcting students writing, but also coaching them to give helpful, non confrontational feedback to each other. I feel you dropped a blanket ban on that phrase very quickly; there’s a lower level of alert, like ‘That’s a contentious phrase, please be careful how you use it’ for example. Because when anyone bans a word or phrase, it hurts my soul.
- Status
