Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

FormulaNova said..
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?

The google definition seems pretty accurate, a good example is the carbon tax, it showed support for acting to combat global warming but it would have actually achieved nothing in terms of reducing global warming.

It's more about just feeling that "you really do care" as compared to actually producing an outcome. Its a signal of your virtue to the world.

Its good that you brought up that example. I think that one is open to interpretation. You think its virtue signalling because they are not directly reducing the temperature of the earth. I think its an actual attempt as it is increasing the cost of non-renewables and making renewables more cost effective. It may not be directly reducing the temperature of the earth, but it is trying to attack the problem from the economics side, which is probably more likely to end up in a result.

I wonder what a good example of virtue signalling would be in this realm? "We are worried about global warming, so we will conduct a 12month investigation into it"? or "We are worried about the effect of carbon pollution on the global temperatures, isn't that a bad thing, and things MUST be done about it..."? Of the two, the first is potentially doing something, even if you think it might be ineffective, but the second one is just saying that its a bad thing, but not actually doing anything at all.

Yep, as you said the carbon tax was introduced to increase the cost of non-renewables, thus forcing companies to adopt renewables, which would become relatively cheaper. The tax would go toward the development of renewables.

An analogy is increasing speeding fines and putting the money toward education about road safety.

The carbon tax was a stick, not a carrot.

here is my example
A lot of times where there is some type of accident some people in a crowd will yell "quick, someone save them, you have to do something..."
instead they should say
"hold my fcking beer please"

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..Actually, I take that back. Can you provide and example of that

holy guacamole said..
the label is used particularly to dismiss valid ideas and denigrate opinions that do not align with one's very biased views.

Naturally. /sarcasm

Sure, there's heaps. Just watch Sky News and it's just about all they bang on about 24/7.

The right side of politics prefer to achieve things with pragmatic, reasonable and thought through policies.

The left likes symbolic gestures towards achieving things. They like to signal their virtue to their friends and wider world.

Many examples, one would be K_rudds apology to the aboriginals. It is marked as a great historical event of enormous importance. But it achieved little to nothing in real terms. It was just a symbolic gesture.

Another is Australia's carbon policy. It is almost universally accepted that even if Aust was to go to zero carbon emissions and be in the stone age it would have no impact on global climate. We are too small. The idea is to allow the virtue signalling Australia's regression to the green utopia to the rest of the world in the hope they will regress to the stone age too.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
The right side of politics prefer to achieve things with pragmatic, reasonable and thought through policies.

The left likes symbolic gestures towards achieving things. They like to signal their virtue to their friends and wider world.

Many examples, one would be K_rudds apology to the aboriginals. It is marked as a great historical event of enormous importance. But it achieved little to nothing in real terms. It was just a symbolic gesture.

Another is Australia's carbon policy. It is almost universally accepted that even if Aust was to go to zero carbon emissions and be in the stone age it would have no impact on global climate. We are too small. The idea is to allow the virtue signalling Australia's regression to the green utopia to the rest of the world in the hope they will regress to the stone age too.

this is the same knob that went crazy when people wanted to change the date of australia day...........a symbolic day that achieves little or nothing in real terms.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..


Another is Australia's carbon policy. It is almost universally accepted that even if Aust was to go to zero carbon emissions and be in the stone age it would have no impact on global climate. We are too small. The idea is to allow the virtue signalling Australia's regression to the green utopia to the rest of the world in the hope they will regress to the stone age too.

By using the same reasoning, everyone in the world can ignore taking any responsibility for many major problems. Littering? Hey, what does it matter if I throw a Maccas wrapper around when everyone else does it too. Welfare fraud? Hey, what does it matter if someone does it when the welfare budget is so big it won't make a difference. By using the same reasoning I will stop paying taxes because even if I did, it would have too small an impact on the budget deficit.

By using the same reasoning, I would jump every long queue because it won't make much difference if I did.

By using the same reasoning, every volunteer firefighter would stay at home because if 1.3% won't make a difference, nor would 1/7000th.

Virtue signalling at its finest, including the classic line "You should probably do it; he drives a Prius".

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..


By using the same reasoning, everyone in the world can ignore taking any responsibility for many major problems. Littering? Hey, what does it matter if I throw a Maccas wrapper around when everyone else does it too. Welfare fraud? Hey, what does it matter if someone does it when the welfare budget is so big it won't make a difference. By using the same reasoning I will stop paying taxes because even if I did, it would have too small an impact on the budget deficit.

By using the same reasoning, I would jump every long queue because it won't make much difference if I did.

By using the same reasoning, every volunteer firefighter would stay at home because if 1.3% won't make a difference, nor would 1/7000th.

I suppose its the same reasoning that lets you (or people I know like you)
- Get on a plane, or even have any holidays away at all; no optional travel should be permitted on that basis.
- Run a home pool/ spa/Japanese bath
- Own a car. No an EV is not an escape since you're charging it from coal powered electricity overnight.
- Heat or cool your home
- Own a boat with an engine

Basically unless you're willing to live the life of a rural resident of India (who you are determined to deprive of a first world life) you are making exactly the same argument to justify your own lifestyle

The dangers of virtue signalers, who have effectively become murderers. Bit late to be deleting their posts. Will they now cancel themselves.

www.news.com.au/national/dangers-of-a-twitter-mob-pileon-the-tragic-outcome-of-the-cancelling-of-wilson-gavin/news-story/50d3f7d84e2df6b2c8fe5a64af4de8e4

Prehaps this is the real essence of virtue signalling...

"....some academics believe the motivation for attacking is sometimes more selfish than the lofty goal of holding people to account.In an article for Psychology Today last month, Cambridge University PhD student and research scholar Rob Henderson wrote about the motives of "cancel culture".Mr Henderson cited research that shows respect and admiration from peers is more important to a sense of wellbeing than socio-economic status.Boosting one's social status is "the most powerful motive underpinning cancel culture," he said, adding: "For social strivers, cancel culture has created new opportunities to move up by taking others down."

On top of that, cancel culture is an easier way of elevating "the status of oneself or one's group" than the alternative - doing something good."But doing something good requires effort and the possibility of failure," Mr Henderson wrote. "Fortunately, another option exists: Broadcasting the bad behaviour of others . Indeed, research shows that people engage in moral grandstanding to enhance their social rank."

In short, those unwilling to earn social credit in any more useful or demanding way then taking down others.

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..

Chris 249 said..


By using the same reasoning, everyone in the world can ignore taking any responsibility for many major problems. Littering? Hey, what does it matter if I throw a Maccas wrapper around when everyone else does it too. Welfare fraud? Hey, what does it matter if someone does it when the welfare budget is so big it won't make a difference. By using the same reasoning I will stop paying taxes because even if I did, it would have too small an impact on the budget deficit.

By using the same reasoning, I would jump every long queue because it won't make much difference if I did.

By using the same reasoning, every volunteer firefighter would stay at home because if 1.3% won't make a difference, nor would 1/7000th.

I suppose its the same reasoning that lets you (or people I know like you)
- Get on a plane, or even have any holidays away at all; no optional travel should be permitted on that basis.
- Run a home pool/ spa/Japanese bath
- Own a car. No an EV is not an escape since you're charging it from coal powered electricity overnight.
- Heat or cool your home
- Own a boat with an engine

Basically unless you're willing to live the life of a rural resident of India (who you are determined to deprive of a first world life) you are making exactly the same argument to justify your own lifestyle

Gawd this idea that if you want to do something about co2 emissions then you have to live like a third world refugee is fricken mad. We need to reduce not eliminate emissions. We don't have to collapse the whole global economy........we need to wind back our Co2 emissions.sheeeesh!!!

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..
The dangers of virtue signalers, who have effectively become murderers.

Yeah, nah.

The guy has to answer for his bigoted, hateful "protest".......and he has to be held to account.

His death is tragic and unnecessary and probably has more to do with his personal identity.

Select to expand quote

Gawd this idea that if you want to do something about co2 emissions then you have to live like a third world refugee is fricken mad. We need to reduce not eliminate emissions. We don't have to collapse the whole global economy........we need to wind back our Co2 emissions.sheeeesh!!!

Note I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who want Australia to trash its economy, even though our global emissions are negligible and would make no difference what so ever, while not being willing to trash their own lifestyle in an application of the same principle.

But, if that is your view of the world, then you need to wind them back to a level that the rest of humanity can catch up with you while complying with the CO2 emission standards that the climate alarmists impose. Sorry, on present (non nuclear) technology, that's pretty close to third world. But in any case there's some specific examples I've given which I've seen some determined climate warriors fail to see the hypocrisy of their lifestyle. They are the real deniers, not those who want to discuss the realities of CO2 reductions.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

The guy has to answer for his bigoted, hateful "protest".......and he has to be held to account.

Sorry, your bigotry and hatefulness are on display. zDo you need to be held to account to?

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..

log man said..

The guy has to answer for his bigoted, hateful "protest".......and he has to be held to account.

Sorry, your bigotry and hatefulness are on display. zDo you need to be held to account to?

Well, what have I said?

Really, that's pretty lame, just saying....."NO....YOU ARE!!" just doesn't really cut it

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Tamble said..
The dangers of virtue signalers, who have effectively become murderers.

Yeah, nah.

The guy has to answer for his bigoted, hateful "protest".......and he has to be held to account.

His death is tragic and unnecessary and probably has more to do with his personal identity.

Care to explain that?

Kinda sounds like it is coming from somewhere equally-hate filled...

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Tamble said..

log man said..

The guy has to answer for his bigoted, hateful "protest".......and he has to be held to account.

Sorry, your bigotry and hatefulness are on display. zDo you need to be held to account to?

Well, what have I said?

Really, that's pretty lame, just saying....."NO....YOU ARE!!" just doesn't really cut it

Because simply disagreeing with the current gender fluidity approach to bringing up children is not bigotry and hatefulness.
It is typical leftist behavior to classify as a bigot and hateful anyone who doesn't agree with every aspect of your distorted SJW agenda. Which of course, by its very extremity and intolerance is bigoted and hateful. Plus the guys dead. Is that enough of an 'answer' for you, just to reinforce your inhumanity.

I don't agree with his over the top approach, but I certainly have some doubts about what he was objecting to.

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..


Care to explain that?

Kinda sounds like it is coming from somewhere equally-hate filled...

There are precedents for badgering someone to suicide being criminally responsible for their deaths

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..

log man said..

Tamble said..

log man said..

The guy has to answer for his bigoted, hateful "protest".......and he has to be held to account.

Sorry, your bigotry and hatefulness are on display. zDo you need to be held to account to?

Well, what have I said?

Really, that's pretty lame, just saying....."NO....YOU ARE!!" just doesn't really cut it

Because simply disagreeing with the current gender fluidity approach to bringing up children is not bigotry and hatefulness.
It is typical leftist behavior to classify as a bigot and hateful anyone who doesn't agree with every aspect of your distorted SJW agenda. Which of course, by its very extremity and intolerance is bigoted and hateful. Plus the guys dead. Is that enough of an 'answer' for you, just to reinforce your inhumanity.

I don't agree with his over the top approach, but I certainly have some doubts about what he was objecting to.

you can disagree all you like. it's a free country. you can think what you like..........but

you can't make people behave the way you want them to......just because you have some ideas about the world should be. you can't stand outside abortion clinics telling women they're going to hell. you can't beat gay people up anymore because you think they're satanists.

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..

log man said..

Tamble said..
The dangers of virtue signalers, who have effectively become murderers.

Yeah, nah.

The guy has to answer for his bigoted, hateful "protest".......and he has to be held to account.

His death is tragic and unnecessary and probably has more to do with his personal identity.

Care to explain that?

Kinda sounds like it is coming from somewhere equally-hate filled...

Didn't think you'd explain, log man... we all know what you meant though... what a truly vile person

Select to expand quote

log man said..
you can disagree all you like. it's a free country. you can think what you like..........but

you can't make people behave the way you want them to......just because you have some ideas about the world should be.

O RLY

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..

Gawd this idea that if you want to do something about co2 emissions then you have to live like a third world refugee is fricken mad. We need to reduce not eliminate emissions. We don't have to collapse the whole global economy........we need to wind back our Co2 emissions.sheeeesh!!!

Note I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who want Australia to trash its economy, even though our global emissions are negligible and would make no difference what so ever, while not being willing to trash their own lifestyle in an application of the same principle.

But, if that is your view of the world, then you need to wind them back to a level that the rest of humanity can catch up with you while complying with the CO2 emission standards that the climate alarmists impose. Sorry, on present (non nuclear) technology, that's pretty close to third world. But in any case there's some specific examples I've given which I've seen some determined climate warriors fail to see the hypocrisy of their lifestyle. They are the real deniers, not those who want to discuss the realities of CO2 reductions.

Ok, I get where you're coming from.

















and that place is Loonville

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..

Pugwash said..

log man said..

Tamble said..
The dangers of virtue signalers, who have effectively become murderers.

Yeah, nah.

The guy has to answer for his bigoted, hateful "protest".......and he has to be held to account.

His death is tragic and unnecessary and probably has more to do with his personal identity.

Care to explain that?

Kinda sounds like it is coming from somewhere equally-hate filled...

Didn't think you'd explain, log man... we all know what you meant though... what a truly vile person

What!!!..... jeez, you're so needy.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Pugwash said..

Pugwash said..

log man said..

Tamble said..
The dangers of virtue signalers, who have effectively become murderers.

Yeah, nah.

The guy has to answer for his bigoted, hateful "protest".......and he has to be held to account.

His death is tragic and unnecessary and probably has more to do with his personal identity.

Care to explain that?

Kinda sounds like it is coming from somewhere equally-hate filled...

Didn't think you'd explain, log man... we all know what you meant though... what a truly vile person

What!!!..... jeez, you're so needy.

Jeez, you're so hypocritical.

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..
The dangers of virtue signalers, who have effectively become murderers. Bit late to be deleting their posts. Will they now cancel themselves.

www.news.com.au/national/dangers-of-a-twitter-mob-pileon-the-tragic-outcome-of-the-cancelling-of-wilson-gavin/news-story/50d3f7d84e2df6b2c8fe5a64af4de8e4

What a load of rubbish. The guy was a prize F wit.
And he followed in the grand Liberal drama queen tradition of NSW leader John Brogden. He got called out for making some racist and sexist jokes about NSW Premier Bob Carr. He couldn't take it on the chin, like he expects working class people to, so all of a sudden it's "look at me, look at me, I'm killing myself" making sure to issue a press release just to ensure he got rescued.
Then there is that idiot Troy Buswell over in the west making a great show of sniffing a bicycle seat as a demonstration of his sexual peculiarities and having to exit politics as a result.

If you can't stand the heat....

Select to expand quote

Tamble said..

Chris 249 said..


By using the same reasoning, everyone in the world can ignore taking any responsibility for many major problems. Littering? Hey, what does it matter if I throw a Maccas wrapper around when everyone else does it too. Welfare fraud? Hey, what does it matter if someone does it when the welfare budget is so big it won't make a difference. By using the same reasoning I will stop paying taxes because even if I did, it would have too small an impact on the budget deficit.

By using the same reasoning, I would jump every long queue because it won't make much difference if I did.

By using the same reasoning, every volunteer firefighter would stay at home because if 1.3% won't make a difference, nor would 1/7000th.

I suppose its the same reasoning that lets you (or people I know like you)
- Get on a plane, or even have any holidays away at all; no optional travel should be permitted on that basis.
- Run a home pool/ spa/Japanese bath
- Own a car. No an EV is not an escape since you're charging it from coal powered electricity overnight.
- Heat or cool your home
- Own a boat with an engine

Basically unless you're willing to live the life of a rural resident of India (who you are determined to deprive of a first world life) you are making exactly the same argument to justify your own lifestyle

I didn't see this earlier, but I may as well say now that you're wrong. We don't need to adopt a third world lifestyle. We can get on a plane and pay extra so our carbon is offset (which we do). We can have a pool. We can own an ICU car etc as long as we offset the carbon use (which we do by growing dozens of trees on our property). We can stop eating meat, which we did decades ago. All of that significantly reduces our impact; in fact we (my wife and I) are having a positive impact by growing dozens of trees.

Modern technology allows us to do many things without living a third world lifestyle. Even cutting down our purchasing of new cars, new boats etc can cause a dramatic reduction in our personal greenhouse gas emissions, and driving a 10 year old 4 cylinder instead of a 2020 6 cylinder is not like living in the third world.

Words being used now, by people from all points of the political spectrum. I think it's pretty much talking the talk without actually walking any part of the walk - sub text - "hear my words !..., aren't I so virtuous ?"

I've been wondering about driving around with multiple Aussie flags hanging off the vehicle. I guess it's a case by case thing, but I bet a lot of it qualifies

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

I didn't see this earlier, but I may as well say now that you're wrong. We don't need to adopt a third world lifestyle. We can get on a plane and pay extra so our carbon is offset (which we do). We can have a pool. We can own an ICU car etc as long as we offset the carbon use (which we do by growing dozens of trees on our property). We can stop eating meat, which we did decades ago. All of that significantly reduces our impact; in fact we (my wife and I) are having a positive impact by growing dozens of trees.

Modern technology allows us to do many things without living a third world lifestyle. Even cutting down our purchasing of new cars, new boats etc can cause a dramatic reduction in our personal greenhouse gas emissions, and driving a 10 year old 4 cylinder instead of a 2020 6 cylinder is not like living in the third world.

But isn't there an argument to be made that offsetting by planting trees is just virtue signalling in itself? Those trees are only replacing trees that were existing there 100 or so years ago. The carbon that they lock up as they grow is the carbon that was released when the previous trees were removed and will itself be released when the new trees mature, die and rot, or get harvested and turned into timber which might last a while but eventually rot. It doesn't affect the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuels in the long run.
And rich people using land to grow lifestyle crops like carbon offsets tends to force 3rd world people to grow food on ever more marginal land.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
I've been wondering about driving around with multiple Aussie flags hanging off the vehicle. I guess it's a case by case thing, but I bet a lot of it qualifies

Yeah. It says look at me, I'm so farking Australian I need to cover the joint with flags to prove it!

The reality is, to be Australian is being laid back, not too serious and self deprecating. If you have to signal your pride so blatantly you're probably way to serious and insecure about your "Australianness" !

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

But isn't there an argument to be made that offsetting by planting trees is just virtue signalling in itself? Those trees are only replacing trees that were existing there 100 or so years ago. The carbon that they lock up as they grow is the carbon that was released when the previous trees were removed and will itself be released when the new trees mature, die and rot, or get harvested and turned into timber which might last a while but eventually rot. It doesn't affect the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuels in the long run.
And rich people using land to grow lifestyle crops like carbon offsets tends to force 3rd world people to grow food on ever more marginal land.

Yeah, I think this is where the argument breaks down. Growing trees is admirable, but its only a short term thing and unless you could guarantee that these trees or their replacements would be around forever, its not really offsetting the carbon we are releasing from fossil fuels.