#virtue signaling

[politijohn]

Source

Source

[elder-millennial-of-zion]

I never want to hear the phrase “collective liberation” from people who think the Israeli/Jewish hostages should have just been left to rot in literal captivity, ever again.

[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.

[nimrochan]

@ the “punch a Nazi” crowd, we’re still waiting for you to, I dunno, do something.

[twoelectrichearts]

Not even surprised at the way some people are acting right now with using the death of a celebrity to wish death upon Noah. The fact that it’s by people who consider themselves “humanitarians” is beyond laughable. This is exactly why I don’t take them seriously. The majority of them are fake and performative and don’t even realize how narcissistic, racist, bigoted, antisemitic, etc. they actually are. The people that accuse Noah of being a vile, hateful person who makes jokes out of people dying really need to take a look in the mirror. They won’t, though. They’ll keep living in their hypocrisy and believe that they’re such amazing, moral people when they’re the total opposite. You know what true humanitarians would want? Peace for EVERYONE. Not just certain groups of people, certain countries, certain religions, certain ethnicities, certain races, certain genders, etc.. It seems like that’s a crazy statement to say right now, which is beyond sad. Call me crazy, but I don’t think genuinely good people would harass, bully, threaten, and torment someone in person or online. Celebrity or not. Because believe it or not, celebrities are human beings just like me and you. They can read whatever you put on the internet about them. You don’t like them? Fine. The block button is right there to use. It’s extremely easy to use it, just a click or two. There’s tons of celebrities and people I don’t like. So what do I do about them? Oh yeah, block them! I don’t leave them hate comments, because what is that going to do? Nothing. And even if I don’t like them, part of me still feels guilty for the idea of leaving them a hateful message directly or indirectly. I don’t even truly know them to begin with. Seriously, just block or ignore. You don’t like or agree with what I say or believe in? Do us both a favor and block and ignore me! Because that means I also don’t agree with you. It’s a win for the both of us. I’d rather leave kind, supportive messages to people and celebrities that I like than put my energy and focus into being hateful towards celebrities and people that I don’t like. If someone with mental health issues gets triggered by something that I say about them and does something that they can’t undo, I don’t want to be responsible for them harming themselves or worse. That’s why I just block and ignore. Even if I don’t like them. Shocking to some of you, I know. As someone who struggles with mental illness, I know I wouldn’t be able to handle all the hateful, disgusting, abusive messages that Noah and so many other celebrities get. There’s no way I’d be able to deal with it. If I know I wouldn’t be able to handle it, why would I do it to others? Makes no sense.

Leaving kind messages to people and celebrities I like brings me joy. It makes me happy knowing that something I said can help someone feel better if they’re having a rough time. Leaving a hateful message instead wouldn’t make me feel good at all. I guess that works for some people, not for me, though. Again, the people you leave messages to will see them. Sometimes you might even get a reply. Just remember that when you’re sending a message to someone. Celebrity or not.

[critical-skeptic]

Distract. Divide. Desensitize.

For those just finding out about the destruction of the Georgia Guidestones in 2022: this is exactly how they keep you blind. The monument—designed to endure and provoke thought about humanity’s future—was quietly erased, just like countless other significant events that vanish beneath layers of noise. Why? Because you're meant to miss the real moves while they orchestrate chaos to keep you fixated on distractions.

Take the recent CEO assassination—a so-called act of “vigilantism” being spun to desensitize the public to oligarchs calling anyone who isn’t with them an enemy. Or Trump’s absurd strawman nomination of Matt Gaetz for AG, a spectacle that was never serious but designed to feed the outrage machine. These aren’t random—they’re calculated distractions, conditioning the masses to accept heightened division, alarmist rhetoric, and creeping authoritarian control.

The destruction of the Guidestones wasn’t just about wiping out a controversial monument; it’s part of the playbook. They erase history while feeding the public "heroes" and manufactured conflicts to keep you too distracted to notice the chessboard being reconfigured. So while everyone’s eyes are glued to the spectacle, the powerful move in silence, building the structures they’ll use to lock you out of the game entirely.

Wake up. If you’re only now learning about the Guidestones, ask yourself what you missed today while being fed your latest dose of chaos. This is how they operate: distraction, division, and silence over what truly matters. By the time the dust settles, it’ll be too late to stop what’s been quietly built around you.

[trans-wojak]

Either join their war or stfu I’m sick of y’all clogging up my feeds

[ephemerasnape]

Sebastian & Ominis Pre-Smut 🔞 NSFW

Ominis and Sebastian have a secret meeting in the Undercroft... with a surprise guest!

(Don't worry, they are "aged up")

(sound on, please!)

[sparkling-pink-lemonade]

Morals are useless man. I wanna see your ethics.

You can be morally bankrupt, and ethically pure. Or morally pure, and ethically bankrupt. It's the difference between doing the wrong thing for the right reasons and the right thing for the wrong reasons.

That, and trying to be morally or ethically pure is bullshit. Unless you're the second coming of Christ, or the next Buddha, it ain't possible. You don't need to be a saint to be a good person. You may be a little reprehensible, as a treat.

[ottogatto]

I would like to submit two ideas because I think I'm poking something but not going in fully, so I would very much like your opinions and additions about it (of course, as long as they remain in good faith *side eyes possible antis viewing my post*).

Marauders and surface-level rebellion

I've finally put to words something that really bothered me with the Marauders, though I don't know the name for it.

It started when I read a reblog that said:

I remember Brennan saying “laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class” during an episode of D20 and we truly just had to stan immediately

This is something dear privileged white woman Rowling didn't realize/understand well, since she held a high socioeconomical status even during her """poverty""" stage. It's known that, despite seeming to be defending ideas of fighting against fascism and "pureblood" supremacy in favor of acceptance of the other, her books reek of colonialism/imperalism. The story of the Marauders, a gang of privileged boys like her, is an in-world replica of that problem where Rowling betrays yet again her actual mindset.

The Marauders adopt the "bad boys who break rules" to get style, while completely losing/staining the moral sense in it.

Let's take piracy.

Some people pirate stuff because they consider that the stuff they'd like to get comes from unethical companies that abuse their employees or use modern slavery, or people who spread harm against certain minorities (like Rowling against trans people and thus the LGBT+ community), so while they may want to access the content, they don't want to give them money and might even encourage pirating their stuff to make them lose money.

Some pirate stuff because otherwise it's lost due to unfortunate "terms of use" -- see video games companies like Ubisoft (deletes gaming account after a while), Nintendo (does not bring back old games), etc.

Others pirate stuff because they just don't have the money but they still want to try the stuff that might make them happy and forget that they're poor -- reasoning that the company isn't losing any money anyway, or not much, since they wouldn't have been able to pay for it in any case.

Others pirate stuff because they consider the price ridiculously high or they consider it shouldn't be something to pay for at all. (Like education stuff -- isn't education supposed to be free for all, so that it can actually uphold everyone's fundamental and unconditional ( = not conditioned by wealth...) right to have an education? Oh and before anyone asks: I've DEFINITELY bought the ~15 expensive books that's roughly worth 500€ in total and that my uni asked I buy to study and get my degree...)

Rowling's Marauders is a group that would pirate stuff just because they'd think it would give them an edge, because they'd think it would make them cool to be seen as "talented" hackers who "defy" companies. Companies... that their own friends and families would own, and as such, would find that kind of behavior funny and entertaining (while they would trash other people around for considering it).

Another example. In society, in history, it's been proven time and again that breaking rules -- going against the law -- is an eventuality that's important for everyone to consider, if they want to defend their rights. Anti-racism, feminism, LGBT Pride, etc, advanced because people broke rules. In USA states where abortion is currently being banned, women and minors (+ their close ones) must now consider breaking the rules to get an abortion. (Privileged people don't give a fuck about those people, and if they suddenly decide that (moral) rules don't apply to them and they will get an abortion, they will just take a plane ticket to a country where abortion is legal, fiddling with legal stuff if necessary thanks to the lawyers their fortunes can afford and the lobbies that they're instituting.)

Revolutions happened because people broke rules too. I particularly like the 1793 Constitution in France Because it asserts that the people have the right to break rules and riot if the power in place threatens their fundamental rights:

Article 35. - Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l'insurrection est, pour le peuple et pour chaque portion du peuple, le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs. Article 35. - When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of rights and the most essential of duties.

(Of course the power in place would state and enforce and make use of propaganda to say that it's completely illegal and illegetimate and that those who riot for legitimate rights are terrorists!)

Breaking rules is at the core of anti-fascism, anti-dictatorship, anti-totalitarianism. Breaking rules is essential when those rules are abusive. Too often, those who put those rules in place really are only setting their rules of the game to establish their power over the others. Or as the reblog says: "laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class".

Rowling's Marauders break rules because they are the socioeconomical class in power. As such, no one can do anything about it, no one will really tell them down for it. They get excused and justified and romanticized by their peers, just like billionaires & politicians are excused by their peers and notably mainstream media (which is owned... by other billionaires). They break rules -- not because they think it's necessary and the morally right thing to do despite the dangers it puts them in -- but because it makes them feel powerful, important, invincible, which for them is very fun. As Snape says: James and his cronies broke rules because they thought themselves above them:

“Your father didn’t set much store by rules either,” Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice. “Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch Cup-winners. [...]”

They break rules because they're allowed to.

Which is why, in reality, the Marauders aren't really breaking rules or defying anything or opposing an actual big threat. They're a bunch of jocks who are having fun in the playground that's been attributed to them thanks to their status and family heritage (others wouldn't get the same indulgence because they don't get that privilege).

They break rules because they want to look cool, to be the "bad boys". The message has been compleyely botched. Especially with Lily actually finding this hot.

Because Rowling finds this hot:

[...] I shook hands with a woman who leaned forward and whispered conspiratorially, 'Sirius Black is sexy, right?' And yes, of course she was right, as the Immeritus club know. The best-looking, most rebellious, most dangerous of the four marauders... and to answer one burning question on the discussion boards, his eyes are grey.

(Anyone has an eyes washing station?)

Another quote:

"Sirius was too busy being a big rebel to get married."

(Nevermind the eyes washing, anyone's got some bleach instead?)

Stanning James Potter for being the leader of a gang that prides itself on breaking rules and always getting away with it -- it feels like stanning Elon Musk for being "innovative" and "a daring entrepreneur" despite being a manchild who exploits workers and modern-world slavery to play with his billions while always getting away with it.

They're not being "rebels" -- they're being bullies and flexing the fact they can get away with it thanks to abundance of privilege. Those are the tastes of a posh British white woman. She wanted the facade -- not the substance (that is, if she ever understood it).

You might say that they did oppose a big threat, the Death Eaters, but again, it's botched because:

they target a lonely, unpopular boy who's best friends with a Muggleborn Gryffindor, rather than baby Death Eaters like Mulciber, Lucius, Rosier, Avery, Regulus, etc.

The leader sexually harasses the Muggleborn Gryffindor because he's sexually jealous of the unpopular boy who dared not take the insult about his chosen House and shut up. Lily is treated as an object, they don't listen to her, and they barely speak about her later. (Lots to say to show that, which I won't do here because this is not the main subject.)

When the Marauders do join the Order, they do it... because they primarily want to adopt a rock-n-roll style and play the "bad boys" again. Or at least that's the message that's given to the reader:

They seemed to be in their late teens. The one who had been driving had long black hair; his insolent good looks reminded Fisher unpleasantly of his daughter's guitar-playing, layabout boyfriend. The second boy also had black hair, though his was short and stuck up in all directions; he wore glasses and a broad grin. Both were dressed in T-shirts emblazoned with a large golden bird; the emblem, no doubt, of some deafening, tuneless rock band.

(God, the Prequel is so cringy.)

They don't choose Dumbledore as the Secret Keeper, they don't tell him they changed to Pettigrew -- even though he literally was their war leader -- James uses the Cape to fuck around even though he was supposed to be hiding with Lily and then Harry (until Dumbledore takes the Cape from him)... and eventually, their group exploded, with James killed off, Sirius thrown to Azkaban, Peter (the traitor) hiding as a rat and Lupin going off to find jobs to survive.

Why did that happen? Because they thought of playing their part in the Order like going on a teenage adventure rather than engaging in a resistance organization. It was, first and foremost, about playing "the bad boys" and having fun.

(Harry half-inherits this. While he doesn't break rules just to look cool, and actually has several moments where he does break rules because it's the right thing to do -- like under Umbridge or, of course, when Voldemort takes power -- he does often get pampered when he breaks them in his earlier years. By Dumbledore, but also McGonagall, however much Rowling tries to sell her as a "strict but fair" teacher. Or by Slughorn, now that I think about it. That's something that enraged Snape, as it brought up memories of Harry's father -- Snape's own bully -- getting the same treatment.)

It's not a coincidence that Rowling not only failed to properly convey through the Marauders the true value of breaking rules, but also lusted over them for adopting that "bad boys" trope. It speaks to her own privilege -- she who never had to put herself in danger and go against the law in a risky attempt to protect herself or other less privileged people.

(Here's a useful read to expand on those worldbuilding issues.)

2. Dark Magic, obscurantism and conservatism

For context: Opinion: The Dark Magic/Light Magic Dichotomy is Nonsense (by pet_genius).

The idea of "Dark Magic" as something that's repeatedly told to be "evil" magic and where you cross the line of the forbidden, while hardly putting in question that notion that was (for some reason) enforced by wizard society, is another blatant example of Rowling betraying her mindset of privileged British white woman.

Rowling couldn't put herself in the minds of a society of "outcasts (witches & wizards) deeply enough to consider they would not see any magic as "Dark" at all (being a ""Muggle"" concept), or that Dark magic is only magic that requires something unvaluable to be traded off -- like one's soul or health or life or sanity. Instead, she has Dark Magic defined as "evil" magic, even though her own books show that you can do evil stuff with normal magic, and that you can do morally good stuff with Dark magic. This thing happened because Rowling could not think past her own little world and instead she poured a conservatist mentality (+ typical "Muggle", anti-witch prejudice) into the HP (wizard society) worldbuilding without considering that there could, in fact, be fundamental differences between the two worlds that include thinking of magic differently. (This has a lot to do with Rowling's wizard world being a pro-imperalism fest.)

"Dark Magic" feels like a lazy, badly-executed plot device to tell the reader who's a good guy and who is not. Because of course, that's how things work in real-life, huh… (Did she ever hear of "don't tell, show"?) It's used as an excuse to define who's evil (teen Severus) or not (James), who's worthy or not -- not how their magic was used. Which is a BIG problem:

“I’m just trying to show you they’re not as wonderful as everyone seems to think they are.” The intensity of his gaze made her blush. “They don’t use Dark Magic, though.” / “Scourgify!” Pink soap bubbles streamed from Snape’s mouth at once; the froth was covering his lips, making him gag, choking him —

Even worse, Rowling doesn't follow her own in-world moral framework. Dark magic is acceptable for some people (Rowling's partial self-inserts: Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione to Marietta...) but not for those that Rowling hates (Snape, who ironically represents the closest thing to rebelling by unapologetically obsessing over the Dark Arts). Again, this is at best unadressed in-world hypocrisy, at worst an expression of in-world and out-universe privilege (I get to do this and stay a good guy, but you don't).

There could have easily been rightful criticism of whatever could be defined as "Dark Magic". What if Dark magic was just something defined as "Dark" usually because the power in place doesn't want the people to touch it? Is abortion or contraception or a sex-altering or a goverment-threatening spell, Dark Magic? Is foreign or ethnicity-specific or female-centered or queer-centered magic, "Dark"? How about showing why (Muggle-raised but also neurodivergent) Severus thought Dark magic was so great, showing his point of view, while also establishing where the true limits are? If Lily can't be the one who sees past the "fear-mongering anti-intellectualism/propaganda", how about Harry being the one who does, thanks to him relating to Snape on a personal level? How about making Hermione go from someone who condems Dark Magic, to someone who entirely changes her point of view and understands that this is all bullshit -- effectively showing the dangers of only following what the books say, without putting them into question or thinking by yourself? How about a nuanced view of Dark magic as something that requires a significant sacrifice, which is conceivable for something they see as equally or even more important [Lily's life for Harry; Snape's soul integrity for Dumbledore]? How about making the Death Eaters, people who deviate that legitimate interest, rather than just evil guys who thrive in Dark magic for its supposed added evilness? How about showing that Dark magic was just a notion invented by Muggles to throw "witches" (real or not) to the burning stakes -- later taken by the witches and wizards in power to define, in the magical community, what was okay or definitely forbidden because it's the trademark of those who represent a threat to the magical community (understand: people who riot or strike or protest against the ruling socioeconomical class' politics)?

But there was none of that.

"Dark" magic in HP merely seems to be a weird concept that at best accidentally takes the form of an in-world obscurantism, at worst is just the trademark of someone who cannot imagine a "hunted, ostracized" community with a different culture and mindset than her own. Aggravating is the fact that she used "Dark magic" as a plot device to magically cast some people as good and others as never bad – again, probably reflecting her own questionable mentality.

The fact Rowlnig invented the notion of Dark Magic and had her world consider it seriously as an evil thing instead of being open-minded seems to be less telling of her wishes to show a wizard society that can be as prejudiced as the muggle one, and more of her own bizarre world where you must be evil if you are knowledgeable in or interested in certain "taboo" things (RIP neurodivergents).

Rowling glorifies the Trio and the Marauders for breaking rules. Yet when it comes to actually breaking expectations and norms, notably in the wizarding society -- like the use of another magical species as slaves, or the blatant anti-Muggle prejudice held by everyone including "good guys" (or anti-centaur while we're at it), or stupid anti-knowledge prejudice like "Dark magic is evil" -- there is none of that. At best, it's surface-level opposition that comes out as white savior syndrome. At worst, the protagonists make it their noble code to enforce those norms, and "sinful" characters (Snape, for one) are punished for not conforming. Too often, those sinful characters are punished by the "good guys" with the very thing that they apparently oppose so fervently.

Without ever adressing the fact that those characters were ("morally") allowed to do that because it was just, in the end, a matter of who gets the privilege to do that, and who does not.

There.

Do you have anything to say to develop on those ideas? I feel like I'm reaching my knowledge limit and I'd like to see if those ideas can be expanded.

[elder-millennial-of-zion]

It occurred to me, I haven’t had Starbucks or McDonald’s since before October 7, and during that “global strike week” in January I didn’t go to work because I hadn’t started my new job yet. So if you think about it, I’m doing just as much to free Palestine as any “anti Zionist” activist.

And work was busy today so I had a late lunch, which is basically like the Harvard hunger strike.

Now all I have to do is yell at some cancer patients.

[icedsodapop]

Sad that the phrase "virtue-signalling" is used to accuse people who have leftist/progressive/"woke" beliefs and are vocal about them, and not religious types on high horses believing that they are morally superior to people different from them.

[sawbuckplus]

[planesofdelusion]

friendly reminder that you don't actually need to do the right things for the right reasons. just doing the right things is enough. it's okay if you do the right thing because you want attention or an applause break. you still did the right thing. you put good out into the world. thought crimes are not real crimes.

[critical-skeptic]

Does Democracy Have a Chance Or Is This America's Epilogue?

The fact that Democratic leaders are still clashing over who gets to run where, while the entire system teeters, should tell you everything you need to know: they’re too distracted to prioritize survival. We are watching a slow-motion collapse, and they’re backstage arguing about who deserves top billing in a dying show. The world isn’t just metaphorically burning; it’s openly smoldering on every front—authoritarian power grabs, oligarchic entrenchment, and populist fanatics are tearing down our civic infrastructure. Instead of shoring up defenses, Democrats obsess over which identity group to appease next, as though chanting different verses of “Kumbaya” at each other will somehow hold back the tide.

This is what passes for strategy: endless purity tests, virtue signals, and factional infighting. Ironically, the only consensus they seem to reach is on the need to prove how morally superior they are, as if righteousness alone can stop an actual coup. Meanwhile, those who prefer the world in ashes—authoritarians, demagogues, and billionaires whose wealth has quadrupled—are more than happy to watch the left’s self-immolation. Every progressive ritual that excludes potential allies or demonizes pragmatic solutions only strengthens those who thrive on chaos. Look hard at this pattern: the paralysis, the obsession with optics, the refusal to excise the extremists on the left’s own fringes. It’s a gift to the right’s war machine.

Let’s be blunt: this insistence on ideological purity is killing any real chance at countering the onslaught. The movement has become so terrified of offending its own fringe elements that it stifles legitimate criticism, lets crucial battles go unfought, and alienates both moderates and the millions trapped between two dysfunctional extremes. What’s the result? Resentment from centrists, disillusionment among would-be allies, and a public image of a party too busy with ego contests to mount an effective defense against the very real threat of authoritarian rule. Instead of building a broad, disciplined coalition, Democrats play theater, as if moral posturing alone can halt the steady erosion of democracy.

This isn’t a plea for centrism, nor a capitulation to the status quo. It’s a demand for backbone and disciplined action. Ideals mean nothing if we can’t secure the structural integrity of the system long enough to implement them. There is no point in preaching progressive values while extremists and oligarchs set about dismantling the very framework needed to enact those values. Without a stable foundation, justice is impossible; without a functional government, ideals remain slogans on placards, easily swept away when stronger forces kick down the door.

If the left wants to outmaneuver the extremism consuming our institutions, it must learn to prioritize. It must stop pretending that endless internal rituals of moral one-upmanship lead anywhere but ruin. Dumping the dead weight of performative purity and facing the hard truth—yes, that means telling some factions “no”—is the only way to stand firm. Embrace strategic pragmatism. Form alliances that, while imperfect, get the job done. Focus on immediate existential threats rather than fighting over who’s the purest progressive in the room.

The stakes could not be higher. Our institutions are under siege by forces that thrive on division, and every minute spent in self-indulgent squabbling grants them another inch. Morality without strategy is self-sabotage. If Democrats—and anyone who values an open, stable society—want to survive this era, they need to step off their soapboxes, kick out the elements that corrode cohesion, and line up behind a ruthless pragmatism that prioritizes lasting stability.

Stop performing and start governing. The time for elegant speeches and tribal ceremonies ended long ago. If the left can’t bring itself to mature beyond these theatrics, then it’s simply inviting the collapse that its enemies are counting on. The world needs action, not another round of self-righteous pageantry. It needs leaders who can confront threats head-on, who understand that protecting a future worth having requires getting their hands dirty now. It needs a movement ready to fight fires, not argue over who holds the hose.

[eretzyisrael]

Source