surreptitious57 wrote:At one end of the spectrum virtue signalling is nothing more than pure narcissism
At the other end of it it is an attempt at genuinely trying to raising consciousness

Aww, c'mon, surr. At its most intense, trying to be genuine wraps right around itself into narcissism.

Most people are shades of grey with rather subjective notions of what it means to be good
We are all works in progress who bumble along as best we can trying to make a difference

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:Honestly, I dunno how this shit works. I suspect most people want to be good people and are willing to delude themselves in the process. However, I do believe peer pressure works and, I guess, most people are emotionally liable. The goal of those who signal is to gain some advantage. Be it with regards to own delusions or peer recognition. If this works for most people, I think the emotionally not liable are of no real concern. They will end up on the fringe.

These work as bona fides:

"I believe most people want to be good people"

"I believe peer pressure works"

"Most people are emotionally labile"

Now that you've told me what you believe, what then? Does it mean that anecdotes are not (precisely) anecdotes? Virtue signalling is not subject to criticism because it only (or even ever) consists of anecdotes. It's only reliable if you believe in certain stuff.

To keep the conversation going, to give you a reply, what choice do I have? If I knew for fact how it works I would tell you, but do not. I said in the first sentence that I do not know how it works. Either you can relate to what I said or you don't, either it makes sense to you or it does not, either you want to continue the conversation or you don't. What do you want me to say? Shall I invest I dunno several hours to present you with an argument on peer pressure only to get your recognition? I am not that emotionally liable ;)

tuco wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:Honestly, I dunno how this shit works. I suspect most people want to be good people and are willing to delude themselves in the process. However, I do believe peer pressure works and, I guess, most people are emotionally liable. The goal of those who signal is to gain some advantage. Be it with regards to own delusions or peer recognition. If this works for most people, I think the emotionally not liable are of no real concern. They will end up on the fringe.

These work as bona fides:

"I believe most people want to be good people"

"I believe peer pressure works"

"Most people are emotionally labile"

Now that you've told me what you believe, what then? Does it mean that anecdotes are not (precisely) anecdotes? Virtue signalling is not subject to criticism because it only (or even ever) consists of anecdotes. It's only reliable if you believe in certain stuff.

To keep the conversation going, to give you a reply, what choice do I have? If I knew for fact how it works I would tell you, but do not. I said in the first sentence that I do not know how it works. Either you can relate to what I said or you don't, either it makes sense to you or it does not, either you want to continue the conversation or you don't. What do you want me to say? Shall I invest I dunno several hours to present you with an argument on peer pressure only to get your recognition? I am not that emotionally liable

Yeah, I can relate to what you said. Most people don't know how it works. Actually, you're getting right at the heart of a lot of what passes for argument, here at RatSkep. Are we arguing about whether or not peer pressure is effective? That's going to depend on where we want to go. At its worst, peer pressure leads to conformity to all sorts of idiotic stuff, just as it leads at its best to adventurous and liberating reforms. The thing about virtue signalling that discourages me is that it smells a lot more like conformity with poorly thought out ideals, and eventually, conformity just for its own sake. You can have it. I've already had the experience of being a twenty-something and conforming to some set of poorly-articulated ideals that were in the air at the time. The world was overwhelmed by what seemed like threats that could end it all.

Nothing so acute now, but now there are twice as many people to worry about it and lots of twenty-somethings to rally around a threat that could end the world. It's a grand activity for twenty-somethings, who still have a lot to live for.

I really wanted things to work out better than they have, and I've lived as if that way was important. But fuck it, you know?

Doing good should be its own reward without you having to advertise the fact you did it as well
Telling random strangers on the internet what a wonderful person you are is not how it is done
Doing good but keeping it to yourself is how to do it because that is pure and genuine and real

That's how Jesus preached it, but let's face it, how many self claimed Xians are properly following his teachings?

Svartalf wrote:That's how Jesus preached it, but let's face it, how many self claimed Xians are properly following his teachings?

So, you're obviously skeptical of the anecdotes people tell about "being Christians". I think that's wise. It looks as if you think we should have an objective means of deciding whether someone is a True Christian or not. At least, that's the way the Christians feel, but they're wound up in a devil's bargain, in that case. I don't think studying the teachings of Jesus helps much. It's not an axiomatic system. Same goes for being a True Eco-Warrior™. You may be able to detect some parallels, here.

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:Honestly, I dunno how this shit works. I suspect most people want to be good people and are willing to delude themselves in the process. However, I do believe peer pressure works and, I guess, most people are emotionally liable. The goal of those who signal is to gain some advantage. Be it with regards to own delusions or peer recognition. If this works for most people, I think the emotionally not liable are of no real concern. They will end up on the fringe.

These work as bona fides:

"I believe most people want to be good people"

"I believe peer pressure works"

"Most people are emotionally labile"

Now that you've told me what you believe, what then? Does it mean that anecdotes are not (precisely) anecdotes? Virtue signalling is not subject to criticism because it only (or even ever) consists of anecdotes. It's only reliable if you believe in certain stuff.

To keep the conversation going, to give you a reply, what choice do I have? If I knew for fact how it works I would tell you, but do not. I said in the first sentence that I do not know how it works. Either you can relate to what I said or you don't, either it makes sense to you or it does not, either you want to continue the conversation or you don't. What do you want me to say? Shall I invest I dunno several hours to present you with an argument on peer pressure only to get your recognition? I am not that emotionally liable ;)

Yeah, I can relate to what you said. Most people don't know how it works. Actually, you're getting right at the heart of a lot of what passes for argument, here at RatSkep. Are we arguing about whether or not peer pressure is effective? That's going to depend on where we want to go. At its worst, peer pressure leads to conformity to all sorts of idiotic stuff, just as it leads at its best to adventurous and liberating reforms. The thing about virtue signalling that discourages me is that it smells a lot more like conformity with poorly thought out ideals, and eventually, conformity just for its own sake. You can have it. I've already had the experience of being a twenty-something and conforming to some set of poorly-articulated ideals that were in the air at the time. The world was overwhelmed by what seemed like threats that could end it all.

Nothing so acute now, but now there are twice as many people to worry about it and lots of twenty-somethings to rally around a threat that could end the world. It's a grand activity for twenty-somethings, who still have a lot to live for.

I really wanted things to work out better than they have, and I've lived as if that way was important. But fuck it, you know?

So do I understand it correctly that the virtue signaling in question, not in general but this particular about AGW and biodiversity, is based on poorly thought out ideas?

Because if so, I do not agree since there a strong body of evidence behind it. Little does it matter, to me at least, that perhaps a majority of those kids are not aware of the evidence and indeed join the movement because, well, they are kids full of energy, not afraid to risk personal comfort, defying the status quo, having revolutionary spirit etc while trying to conform to peer pressure. To me its important whether the basic premise is sound or not. That people behave like hairless monkeys, well, that is just the way it is.

tuco wrote:

So do I understand it correctly that the virtue signaling in question, not in general but this particular about AGW and biodiversity, is based on poorly thought out ideas?

Because if so, I do not agree since there a strong body of evidence behind it. Little does it matter, to me at least, that perhaps a majority of those kids are not aware of the evidence and indeed join the movement because, well, they are kids full of energy, not afraid to risk personal comfort, defying the status quo, having revolutionary spirit etc while trying to conform to peer pressure. To me its important whether the basic premise is sound or not. That people behave like hairless monkeys, well, that is just the way it is.

Then the next question is: Do you just want to win the argument or do you want to see steps taken to combat AGW? You can choose "both of the above", but lack of focus might do you in, as you just grow old and die. You believe that peer pressure is effective, but at what level? Do you want to try to win that argument with all the statistics you can muster and apply to the problem of AGW? These are poorly-sketched ideas. But here's the clincher for me: I didn't write the word 'ideas'. I wrote the word 'ideals', which don't necessarily have anything to do with practical solutions. I understand the desire to see movement, to see action, but that could just be due to boredom. If you just want to win the next argument, that could also just be boredom. It's not absurd, but you should come equipped, rather than just prolonging the agony of your poorly-sketched ideas.

If whether the basic premise is sound or not is just a poorly-sketched ideal, what the fuck else is it? If you don't know how to test your premise, and just want to believe in one more thing, go with God.

All I want is to get majority of people on board because that is what is needed if we want biodiversity to be preserved.

Ideas came from Grammarly auto-correct plugin, sorry about that :)

tuco wrote:All I want is to get enough people on board because that is what is needed if we want biodiversity to be preserved.

Ideas came from Grammarly auto-correct, sorry about that

I am bedeviled by auto-correct in exactly the same ways, but also by typing errors. It's over-determined. I checked the preferences in my email client, and I have spelling correction turned off. It fucking doesn't work. What hope is there to stave off environmental disaster?

Getting people on board is a desire, as is wanting to preserve biodiversity. It's not an idea, but an ideal. It's not a strategy, because social movements are not reliably effective. Just the same, it's a salve for the conscience and the moral sensibility. Go with God. Giving up God is easy. Acquiring moral authority with social movements is unreliable and subject to human frailty, and basically ends up not as pursuing the good but of punishing wrongdoers. Use it wisely.

Getting people on board is not weird. Misery loves company.

Yes, preserving biodiversity is an ideal, I like. Human rights are an ideal, I like. Getting rid of loot boxes is an ideal, I like. Legal prostitution sex work is an ideal, I like. Equality is an ideal, I like. etc etc I am not saying it's different from God and if your critique comes from here, if that is the point you are trying to make, I have no argument against it.

tuco wrote:Yes, preserving biodiversity is an ideal, I like. Human rights are an ideal, I like. Getting rid of loot boxes is an ideal, I like. Legal prostitution sex work is an ideal, I like. Equality is an ideal, I like. etc etc I am not saying it's different from God and if your critique comes from here, if that is the point you are trying to make, I have no argument against it.

Then you should consider the fact that dealing from those decks has a bad fucking track record. You are welcome to reinterpret history however you like, but that is not an argument.

What choice do I have?

There is no truth to be found. Science cannot answer moral questions. Morals come from social interactions. To me, it's perfectly human to have ideals and strive for their realization.

So either I can live in a world I don't like, or try to influence it and change it accordingly, or be a nihilist. Well, then I'd probably be better off shooting myself because why bother waking up tomorrow?

Social progress does not have that bad track record because it's not static, its a subject to change, unlike the word of God. Of course, mistakes are made, say communism for example, but humans, using their big brains, learn and adapt. This is one of the reasons we ended up on top of the food chain.

tuco wrote:What choice do I have?

Why do you want a choice? This isn't Burger King. You don't get to have it your own way.

tuco wrote:This is one of the reasons we ended up on top of the food chain.

So, how well's that working out for us? If you like cherry-picking, go with God.

tuco wrote:its a subject to change, unlike the word of God.

You're just plain wrong about that, tuco. The word of God is something people make up as they go along, together with the idea that it's unchanging. Go figure, but try to see that it sounds familiar to you. You're just the latest in a long line of those seeking an ultimate truth, like saving biodiversity or that being at the top of the food chain for awhile means anything. Such shit lacks what we might call perspective.

tuco wrote:or be a nihilist. Well, then I'd probably be better off shooting myself because why bother waking up tomorrow?

My suggestion is to get a little more creative. JFCOAPS.

I don't care about God at all. I only use it in reaction to others who used it. So stop forcing me to use it ;) I do not need the word in my vocabulary nor have use for it elsewhere.

I am not sure what we are debating anymore. I tend to stick to what initially started a debate and right now I am still with it. You criticize virtue signaling, in particular, AGW/biodiversity, correct? Your point is that it's no different from religious ideals, correct? I am telling you I do not care. I would like the world I live in to be in a certain way. You can disagree, you might want a different world, and that is ok with me. Spread your propaganda/agenda all you want, it is your right. What else is there to say? From where I sit: nothing. Sure we could bicker some more but we are not going to get any further when it comes to what initially started the debate.

tuco wrote:I am not sure what we are debating anymore.

You were never sure what you were debating. That's why you eventually have to admit you don't know what you're debating.

tuco wrote:I would like the world I live in to be in a certain way.

Thanks for sharing, tuco, but that doesn't make for much of a debate.

tuco wrote:
Well, then I'd probably be better off shooting myself because why bother waking up tomorrow?

Weed works for me. And never watching the last episode of a TV series. I still haven't seen the last Dexter or Breaking Bad.