I keep on reading about virtue signalling as it is popping up everywhere and everyone seems to use it.
When I googled it, it came up with "The term is characterized by the signaler's desire to show support for a cause without actually acting to support the cause in question".
So what is it exactly? Is it when someone turns around and says "R U OK" when they really couldn't care less if you killed yourself or not? Is it when someone posts on Instagram about how tragic the fires are and then just goes on to not help out and gets back to commenting on how good someone looks in a bikini?
What is it? I guess the key bit is the bit about not actually doing anything about whatever it is that you are drawing attention to but suggesting that you are, but where do you draw the line? Surely people are allowed to feel sympathy for others but not having to always act?
It's a term used by conservatives to try to drag caring emotionally intelligent people back down to their level.
It's a term used to describe the distorted emotional responses from people that attempt to demonstrate that they are better than everybody else.
Sometimes it's misused against genuinely good actions but virtue signaling is real.
A recent example, can't find link but an FM radio group was going thru their playlists to remove any song with the word fire in it so as not to offend bushfire victims.
Individual virtue signalling is pretty harmless and kinda fun to watch in some ways. Like those kardashian fools bangin on about climate change while flying private jets to go shopping for more stuff. Hilarious right?
When governments and large corporations do it though it takes on a more sinister slant as it allows them to capture the kudos and votes by taking a stand on an issue while doing very little to actually deal with the underlying cause.
The end result is very little actually gets done to tackle the root causes and we get effective policy paralysis.