#virtue signal

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Feb 4, 2025

Like many of the new clichés, ‘virtue signalling’ has its pros and cons. On the one hand, it neatly encapsulates a tendency - particularly common among politicians - to endorse ideas solely for publicity purposes. On the other hand, when we accuse our opponents of virtue signalling, are we not guilty of arrogantly claiming a kind of telepathic insight?

But how else can we account for the behaviour of Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, whose every gesture appears to be an advertisement of his own moral worth? During London’s New Year’s Eve firework display in 2021, Khan had lit the bridges over the Thames in the EU’s yellow and blue colouring as a protest against Brexit. Also during that year’s celebrations, drones took to the skies to form the raised fist of the Black Lives Matter movement. Khan may as well have ‘right side of history’ tattooed on his forehead.

This is why nobody was surprised when, a number of years ago, Khan added pronouns to his social media profile.

This is the very definition of virtue signalling, given that the declaration of pronouns is typically a display of allegiance to an ideological tribe. After all, it is unlikely that anyone was under the impression that Khan might be a ‘she’. Yet for all his posturing, a few days ago the ‘he/him’ pronouns magically disappeared.

One might have been tempted to assume that he never really believed in the cause of genderism at all, except that by yesterday the pronouns had returned. One of Khan’s spokespeople claimed that it had been a ‘technical error’, but many remain suspicious. What kind of ‘technical error’ deletes words at random from Twitter bios? A far more plausible explanation is that Khan was hoping that his pronoun removal would go unnoticed, but then the backlash forced him to revert.

We saw a similar drama play out last November when the Democratic politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez removed her pronouns from X. She later claimed that she did this ‘for reasons of space’, but this kind of excuse naturally invites our scepticism. At least Pete Buttigieg, the US secretary of transportation, has removed his pronouns without reinstating them or trying to shift the blame.

One of the chief features of virtue signalling is that it is laughably easy to spot. Perhaps the most egregious example was the campaign which began after the Brexit referendum in which people were invited to show solidarity with ethnic minorities by wearing safety pins, usually on lapels or somewhere similarly prominent. This trend never caught on and was widely mocked at the time, even by those who supported the cause of anti-racism.

After Donald Trump’s victory a few months later, an attempt to resurrect the trend occurred in America, and the response was likewise contemptuous. Activist Christopher Keelty wrote a piece for The Huffington Post entitled ‘Dear white people, your safety pins are embarrassing’, and offered numerous other suggestions of how to be ‘a better ally’. Although himself white, Keelty could not see racial groups as anything other than homogenous monoliths of identical tendencies and collective responsibility. ‘Let me explain something, white people,’ he wrote, with all the certainty and dogmatism we have come to expect from identitarian homilists. ‘We just fucked up. Bad. We elected a racist demagogue who has promised to do serious harm to almost every person who isn’t a straight white male, and whose rhetoric has already stirred up hate crimes nationwide.’ That many ethnic minority individuals supported Trump and many white people opposed him seems to have escaped his notice.

So much for virtue signalling through the medium of safety pins. More recently, we’ve seen the appearance of rainbow lanyards and badges as a method of displaying one’s tolerance for sexual minorities. In 2018, the Evelina Children’s Hospital in London implemented the NHS ‘rainbow badge’ scheme, by which staff who wished to show their support for the ‘LGBT+’ patients could be more visible. By 2019, the scheme had been rolled out to sixty-one per cent of NHS trusts. Of course, very few of those who wore the badges will have done so out of a genuine faith in genderism. Rather than acting as a symbol of solidarity, it was more likely to be an apotropaic gesture to keep angry activists at bay.

Surely our default assumption must be that medical staff are not homophobic or prepared to discriminate on the basis of how one choses to identify? Why must activists insist on the unfounded generalised expectation that tolerance is an aberration rather than the norm? Why, for instance, did Google start adding notes to results for restaurants in late 2024 to specific whether they were ‘LGBTQ+ friendly’? It is difficult to imagine any business turning potential customers away on the basis of their sexual orientation, so the necessity for these details seems highly dubious. From a restaurateur’s point of view, the only discriminating factor is whether or not you can afford to pay for your grub.

We have grown so accustomed to virtue signalling from politicians that many of us now assume dishonesty as the default. One thinks of the shallowness of David Lammy, who had previously dismissed Donald Trump as a ‘woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath’, only to congratulate him warmly on his election last November. It’s not uncharitable to interpret such an extreme volte-face as proof of virtue signalling. The only other explanation is that Lammy has suddenly developed neo-Nazi sympathies, which I’m sure cannot be the case.

So perhaps the removal of pronouns from high-profile social media accounts is a sign that the culture war in its current form is almost at an end. The inchmeal demise of the woke movement seems to have spurred many of its former disciples to distance themselves from the absurd rituals of the past few years. There will be many former zealots who are now seeking a dignified withdrawal. These warriors have suddenly found themselves unhorsed, and are in need of a golden bridge.

Sadiq Khan, of course, will not give up so easily. Virtue signalling is seemingly hardwired into his DNA. In 2023, for instance, Khan had banned his staff from saying ‘ladies and gentlemen’. Perhaps he was concerned that human evolution might suddenly throw up a third sex, and that a reference to the binary of men and women would cause needless offence to the newcomers. Khan had also prevented civil servants from describing migrants as ‘illegal’, favouring instead the term ‘undocumented’, as though this euphemism would be sufficient to win over hearts and minds.

It is reassuring that such gestures now seem strangely antiquated. Consider the way in which Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida, recently corrected a reporter who had used the term ‘undocumented immigrants’ at a press conference.

Such an interaction would have been unthinkable only a year ago. The woke movement, in other words, seems to be perishing as quickly as it was birthed. Let’s hope that the practice of virtue signalling dies along with it.

==

Virtue signalling is religious conformity, no different from visibly wearing a crucifix.

[aerikvon]

[politijohn]

Source

Source

[robertfg13]

The Virtue Signal

Another sign had appeared in the yard next door.  With the 2024 election only a year away, it was important to broadcast your political views to the other seven houses in the cul de sac.  Not to be outdone, another neighbor had also filled his lawn with a cardboard army of signs.  All I had to offer were grass and shrubs.  I was beginning to feel inadequate. In Our America Love Wins! How was I…

[aterabyte]

General litmus test: if you can take the thing you are going to say about transmascs, and replace transmascs with women, and it is obviously misogynistic? Literally just shut up it's entirely free.

[unlimitedbutchworks]

while we’re at it one thing we NEED to leave behind in last year is the assumption/perspective that not transitioning re: wardrobe, hormones, anything else physical etc, is “more” nonbinary or more radical than transitioning, you don’t have to just try to bear it if you’d be happier otherwise, you can change. it’s genuinely insane how many people have stuck themselves in the closet for far longer than they needed just because they felt like they weren’t allowed to identify how they want while still changing their body or presentation

[vroomvroomthings]

Nico waiting for the McLaren driver swap so that the Safety Car can be deployed so he doesn't get run over:

[teaboot]

Hey! Bamboo toilet paper person here. Your response was very thoughtful-- I want to apologize for placing the onus of climate issues on individual action, haha. I work at a zoo that bills itself as being very heavy on conservation messaging, but as a non-partisan organization we're obviously not allowed to talk about the evils of capitalism. This means that in our programming, we MUST place the responsibility of stopping climate change on individual guests, encouraging them to make more environmentally conscientious decisions like buying reef safe sunscreen or reducing carbon emissions by driving less. The most "political" we're allowed to get is telling people to stay educated and vote in favor of laws that will have a positive impact on the environment. I think I've been drinking the Zoolaid a little TOO much recently, because you're totally right-- the vast, VAST majority of damage to the environment is caused by major corporations, not random people working around their own unique needs. It was also low key a little ableist of me to take issue with that ngl.

Obviously no obligation to respond to this publicly (though it's fine if you choose to do so), but I did want to thank you for your response and mention that it did get through the nonprofit mission-based-organization propaganda living rent free in my head haha. Cheers!

Hey, you work at a zoo? That is SO cool, aadsdggjjg@!!!

And hey, no worries, you totally had a good point about endless waste and trying to counter it where possible- Just from personal experience involved in the barest edge of the fashion industry, I really, really, REALLY hate the idea that, like... people can't access simple shit like plastic straws, even if they're the best, most practical, least-harmful option for them.... because a 12 year old made up some random number for a school project about plastic waste

Where, as a zoo person, I imagine you're already aware that the average sea turtle is WILDLY more likely to die from abandoned plastic fishing nets or ocean-dump grocery bags than accidentally get a straw inside it

So here we are, using paper straws!- which may be an improvement, or may not, I don't have that data, and construction emissions are their own thing- BUT WE STILL HAVE OCEANS FULL OF ABANDONED NETS

WHICH ARE OBJECTIVELY WORSE, but MUCH harder to get rid of, and as the average person doesn't USE fishing nets, it'd much harder to market as a "You, not me" sort of issue.

Cleaning up fishing nets isn't trendy. It isn't sexy. You can't troubleshoot a cute little trendy solution for it that you can market to upwardly-mobile tweens.

But a reusable water bottle? A cute canvas tote? A metal straw? That's a solution you can buy and feel good about.

Never mind that you need to use a single cotton reusable bag somewhere like a million times before the cost of its construction counterbalances the cost of a single grocery bag every time you shop- which, hey, some of us were reusing as trash liners for their wastebaskets, or bundle bags for donating clothes, or lining for our leaky winter boots!

If a better option is available, I'll take it. But as ZERO HARM is next to impossible at this time, I personally am gonna aim for MINIMAL HARM as long as I can.

...sorry, I didn't mean to ramble off again.

But hey, if your nonprofit is doing good things, feel free to shoot me a link! I can post it on my blog :D

(Link to original post for context lol)

[xiaq]

Good morning. It seems a lot of Democrats who didn’t vote as “protest” are now entering their Find Out era.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

BMW openly admitting they don't do it to actually make a difference, they brand themselves to conform to the law of the land. Including the unwritten cultural rainbow law of June in the USA.

Gay men and women put themselves and everything on the line to fight for what is right. A giant, multi-national corporation won't put anything on the line for what is right. Instead, they'll silently sit back and watch while gay people living under oppressive Islamic regimes fight for their lives. If and only when they win the day, the corporation will swoop in, exploit their blood for a marketing opportunity and congratulate themselves for being "allies."

[myfandomrealitea]

so do antis ever have an actual argument for why writing noncon, incest, abuse, etc. is bad and condoning those behaviors IRL, but media glorifying graphic violence is fine? bc all the antis I’ve asked tend to deflect or treat it like a bad faith question.

Because that would then force them to acknowledge that they don't actually care about mainstream media and simply find it easier to target and harass individual people with moral flag waving and threats over massive corporations who would either outright ignore them or smash them with the legal hammer.

What's easier; hounding a teenager online with death threats because they write incest fanfic or forcing international censorship of Game of Thrones and prosecuting George R. R. Martin as an incestuous murdering rapist who creates child pornography?

What's easier; needing no argument other than; "I think its gross and immoral" as defence for your virtue signalling or needing very extensive knowledge of the law, sociology and psychology in order to accurately formulate and prove that creating and/or consuming content relative to specific subjects is more harmful than beneficial and has direct action consequences?

And thus, the answer. Option A is indefinitely easier and more manageable, and more outcome-effective. Antis then real like they're "empowering real change" because if they successfully bully someone off of a platform, they were Right All Along and their activism is Working.

(Whereas if they went after Universal Studios, for example, they would probably be sued into oblivion and laughed at for generations to come. Not very empowering or uplifting.)

[thatweirdtranny]

imagine being one of the clowns comparing the star of david to the nazi swastika and truly believing in yourself being on the “right side of history”

[nastyalover123]

My dear friend got me into the 1980s Soviet Sherlock and so now I'm here to spread the word, enjoy

[lackadaisycal-art]

When I say "I like Richard III", I'm not saying I condone or absolve the real historical figure. What I love is the Trinity of Richard III the fictionalised villain, Richard III the fictionalised hero and Richard III, the unknowable approximation of a real person that can be scraped together from historical records. Three separate entities often at total odds with one another and yet conceptually one person. It's the multi-faceted, contradictory, vague idea of him that finds a new way back into the Zeitgeist again and again that I love. He's become folklore.

[al-kol-eleh]

Yossi Goldstein

[geekthefreakout]

A reminder to the Good Omens fandom:

1. Paused doesn't mean canceled.

2. It actually IS normal to be upset at the prospect that you may not get to see this story concluded (even if I think it will be).

Don't let people virtue signal at you and make you feel guilty for caring about Good Omens despite the accusations against Gaiman. People have been caring an unhinged amount about their comfort characters since Sherlock Holmes in the 1890s.

You are allowed to be upset at things that affect you. It does not mean that you don't care about victims. It does not mean that you're endorsing sexual violence. It just means that Good Omens matters to you.

That said, maybe don't post shit like 'i wish these women hadn't spoken out' because THAT is a shitty thing to say and a shitty thing to think.

That is all.