Prosperity Comes To Intaki At Last

[Ria_Nieyli]

@Tannia_Ambrye

Which removes power as only people with power in a society have opinions that others in that society think matter. Not all opinions are equal and can be rejected out of hand for failing to meet the most basic criteria. Some groups that continually parade bad opinions rejected for good reasons, conflate it with marginalization and call it “virtue signalling.”

That you claim the Caldari are marginalized under the “virtual signalling” argument robs the Caldari of some of their legitimacy. I’d wish you’d stop it. Thank you.

However, a democratic regime is the living counter example of what you just said. There’s the term opposition for a reason. If you’re in the opposition, it doesn’t mean that your opinion is bad. However, it means that you’re ■■■■ out of luck, since you get outvoted 6:4 and a policy that you or the other 40% of the population don’t care about gets implemented.

At that point you’re left with barely any civil options. Form a peaceful protest? The protest will get protested. File a complaint? It gets voted down. So what you do is, buckle down, start a revolution and seize the means of production for yourself.

[Andreus_Ixiris]

@Ria_Nieyli

The fact of the matter is that the practice has existing long before the term was coined, and will continue to exist after it was debunked.

It hasn’t. The practice you’re speaking of verifiably does not exist.

[Ria_Nieyli]

@Andreus_Ixiris

It hasn’t. The practice you’re speaking of verifiably does not exist.

It does. It used to be called “holier-than-though” beforehand, for a reason.

[Andreus_Ixiris]

Am I going to have to give you a course in remedial philosophy? This is something a 7-year-old should be able to grasp, let alone a capsuleer.

Very well. Virtue signalling is not a thing, for the following reasons:

1. It is reductive to assume that you automatically have a better insight into a person’s motivations than the person themselves. Unless you’re Sansha, ruling over a nation of puppets who can literally be programmed to think whatever you want them to, you by definition cannot know what a person is thinking or why, and therefore any assertion that a person is “virtue signalling” is inherently unfalsifiable.

2. Assume, for a moment, that a person is indeed simply saying something because they want to look good for having said it. That doesn’t invalidate the argument. If you acknowledge that something someone is saying is true, then the assertion that they’re only saying it to appear moral doesn’t somehow make it less true. To assert this would essentially be an ad hominem argument, attacking the character of the speaker rather than the content of their speech.

3. Given its untennably broad and vague definition, any act or statement could be construed as virtue signalling. People rarely openly engage in behaviour they personally believe is immoral (privately is another matter, of course), so any act or statement they make in the presence of an audience will most likely be one they wish to make them look good.

4. By its own definition, making an accusation of virtue signalling… is inherently an act of virtue signalling, since - unless the accuser is a massive hypocrite - it makes the implicit statement “I do not say or do things with the intent to look good to others, and I am therefore more virtuous than you.”

QED.

While I’m here, would you like me to re-settle any other long-concluded matters? Might I reinvent the wheel, or puzzle out superluminal communication? Perhaps we could debate heliocentrism, or the spontaneous generation theory of disease.

[Tannia_Ambrye]

@Ria_Nieyli

However, a democratic regime is the living counter example of what you just said. There’s the term opposition for a reason. If you’re in the opposition, it doesn’t mean that your opinion is bad. However, it means that you’re ■■■■ out of luck, since you get outvoted 6:4 and a policy that you or the other 40% of the population don’t care about gets implemented.

Which is “virtue signalling” how? That’s not what “virtue signalling” is and I think you know it. What your example is a form of marginalization known as the tyranny of the majority. Social action taking place over a long period of time has been seen to correct this sort of thing, as is outright civil disobedience. “Virtue signalling” as an argument has only ever been used by representatives of the majority who simultaneously cling to bad opinions about the oppressed group. I’m sure you must see this.

At that point you’re left with barely any civil options. Form a peaceful protest? The protest will get protested. File a complaint? It gets voted down. So what you do is, buckle down, start a revolution and seize the means of production for yourself.

When it’s a minority group, minority in terms of power, and it gets protested down then that’s a tragedy. If it’s a group from the reigning majority and they get protested down my the minority, that’s hilarious as it shows a sizable portion of the majority now think the minority is right. It also shows how out of touch the protesting members of the majority are.

That said, there is a time and place for revolution. But what happened between the Federation and the Caldari isn’t “virtue signalling.”

[Ria_Nieyli]

1. Let me introduce you to the field of psychology.

2. You are implying that there are universal truths, which is not true. Setting aside things like “pain hurts”, the GalFed itself presupposes that there are no universal truths as it lets people vote on how to tackle an issue. So - saying that something is true does not neccessarily mean that the counter arguement is not true. It’s just a matter of what is more popular. Don’t tell me you haven’t seen people that would appeal to the majority by engaging in popular opinions within that group just as an instrument to become more liked.

3. What you’re saying here is that everyone is a sociopath. Also, in point 1, you claimed that one can not gain insight into people’s motivation, yet here you claim you have done so.

4. If I might refer you back to point 2, in which you argue that a valid point is valid, regardless of who brings it up, only to turn around and say “virtue signalling does not exist because the person claiming it does mudt be… a virtue signaller”.

[Ria_Nieyli]

Oh, don’t get me wrong it’s not. What happened was a bona-fide secession by people left with little other recourse.

The virtue signalling happens around it, and it takes the form of “they don’t want to livebe under a democraric regime, unlike I, and therefore don’t want people to have any rights” etc blabla, I’m sure you’re acquainted with the anti-Caldari rhetoric.

Meanwhile, in reality Quafe is happily selling product to the State, for example, showing that they’re quite happy to ignore the demagogery. Why? Because people are people everywhere.

[Tannia_Ambrye]

@Ria_Nieyli

The virtue signalling happens around it, and it takes the form of “they don’t want to livebe under a democraric regime, unlike I, and therefore don’t want people to have any rights” etc blabla, I’m sure you’re acquainted with the anti-Caldari rhetoric.

I’m afraid to break it to you, but that’s not actually “virtue signalling.” No one saying that is claiming that they’re a better person because they don’t say or do the things that the Caldari say or do as good things. They’re outright saying that they think the Caldari are wrong. Do you see the difference, because it’s a pretty important one.

Whether we agree or not with the Federation’s position on Caldari internal affairs is beside the point. The point is that this isn’t “virtue signalling” by the Federation, nor is the Federation accusing the Caldari of “virtue signalling” in this example.

[Veikitamo_Gesakaarin]

An accusation of virtue signalling is about as much as an argument as asking someone in a debate if, “They are mad, because they seem mad.” – that is to say, not much of an argument at all. They both form a method of attack designed to a) cast aspersion through speculation on the motives and emotional state of the speaker and; b) a method of deflection to shift discussion from the argument to aforementioned speculation and supposition of personal motives and emotional state.

[Ria_Nieyli]

Oh, but it is, when you take the workings of democratic elections. After all, if you were Gallente and could vote, would you vote for the person that says that corporate rule is bad and people need to have their freedoms and liberties, or? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[Tannia_Ambrye]

@Ria_Nieyli

Oh, but it is, when you take the workings of democratic elections. After all, if you were Gallente and could vote, would you vote for the person that says that corporate rule is bad and people need to have their freedoms and liberties, or? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Yeah, but I detest the neoliberal posturing and the nationalist jargon that many of the current politicians there perpetuate these days anyhow. What I would do is research the politicians political history, their track record on keeping election promises, their platform, try to attend some question and answer sessions and see which politician’s promises lined up with my concerns.

It’s easy to say “corporate rule is bad,” half of the bloody corporatists say it! Lol.

That’s still not virtue signalling, it is politicking though.

[Ria_Nieyli]

Hence the initial line that started this conversation: “it’s a demagogic tool”.

[Tannia_Ambrye]

@Ria_Nieyli

(N)o. Virtue signalling is a demagogic tool, used to bind members of alternative cultures in society together.

@Ria_Nieyli

Hence the initial line that started this conversation: “it’s a demagogic tool”.

Which you’ve failed to demonstrate, Ms Nieyli.

[Andreus_Ixiris]

1. Not an argument, just a statement.

2. This isn’t a conversation about the Gallente Federation. This is a conversation about the concept of virtue signalling, which is not a valid concept.

3. That isn’t what I’m saying at all. Address my actual arguments or cease talking.

4. No, I’m claiming that - by the concept’s own specious definition - an accusation of virtue signalling would be an act of virtue signalling.

If you’re not going to bother actually addressing the substance of my arguments, stop talking. Bye.

[Tannia_Ambrye]

@Andreus_Ixiris

No, I’m claiming that - by the concept’s own specious definition - an accusation of virtue signalling would be an act of virtue signalling.

Which I also stated at the beginning. The fact that those who use the claim can’t see it is mind boggling to me.

[Ria_Nieyli]

Ok.

5char

[Yumi_Hikare]

And here I was thinking I was full of myself for spending an extra ten minutes in front of the floor-length mirror before going out.

Wowza.

At any rate, I do actually have things of substance to reply to that lengthy reply-by-quotation from Bataav, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.

[Ria_Nieyli]

Well, let’s try something different, then.

Let’s say that Party A includes issue X in their campaign. They make a stance on the issue.

Party B has an opposing stance on the issue.

Oh, and by the way, Party A claims that Party B engages in, lets say the despicable habit of putting pineapple on their pizza.

So, now, every time issue X is brought on the table for discussion, if you disagree with Party A, they’d go and say “Well, you’re not one of those pineapple pizza people, are you?”. And of course, the people that agree with Party A, also start saying that they don’t like pineapple pizza, as no true Gallente does that sort of thing.

Over time, the actual issue is swept under the rug and you end up voting for Blaque, based on pineapple identity politics, as more and more issues get centered around that, and whether the opposition does it or not.

[Tannia_Ambrye]

@Ria_Nieyli

Well, let’s try something different, then.

Must we?

Let’s say that Party A includes issue X in their campaign. They make a stance on the issue.

Party B has an opposing stance on the issue.

Oh, and by the way, Party A claims that Party B engages in, lets say the despicable habit of putting pineapple on their pizza.

Sounds like ad hominen or poisoning the well, but go on…

So, now, every time issue X is brought on the table for discussion, if you disagree with Party A, they’d go and say “Well, you’re not one of those pineapple pizza people, are you?”. And of course, the people that agree with Party A, also start saying that they don’t like pineapple pizza, as no true Gallente does that sort of thing.

Poisoning the well and no true Gallente fallacies. Still not “virtue signalling”.

Look, all those things are terrible things to do, but they’re not “virute signalling.” “Virtue signalling” isn’t a thing, “Virtue signalling” is just people in one groupe whining that people in a second group are doing good things that make the first group look bad, that’s all it is.

Over time, the actual issue is swept under the rug and you end up voting for Blaque, based on pineapple identity politics, as more and more issues get centered around that, and whether the opposition does it or not.

This is not “virtue signalling.” Yeah, it’s not good, but it’s not “virtue signalling.”

Look, you can keep throwing examples at me or you can just accept that this “virtue signalling” business is total crap. It’s your choice, I’ll leave it to you, but I’m bored with this topic and have other things I need to do. If there is something else you’d rather discuss then great, but it’ll have to be later.

Praa!

[Ria_Nieyli]

@Tannia_Ambrye

“virtue signalling” business is total crap

Or so you claim. See, that’s the main issue here. I can pretty much counterclaim it freely, and what you do is “nuh-uh la la la”.

I mean, the textbook definition of it is:

The action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue.

Which brings us right back to the pineapple identity politics.