Hacker News Reader

Comment by ineedasername | Hacker News Reader

You appear to be arguing that push back on the insult as untrue is in fact support for believing the insult is true. In essence this amounts to saying that disagreeing with you is proof that you are correct. That is very poor logic.

It's easy to see lies in people who disagree with you. To do so confirms your own world view without making you question it. It's much harder to look upon other views and say, "Some very intelligent people honestly believe something very different than me... some very intelligent people also believe as I do. What should I make of this?". I don't have an easy answer to that last question, but I'm also not looking for easy, convenient answers that require large portions of the population to be crazy, stupid, evil, etc.

View on HN

Instead of "trying to understand the other side", most people would be better served by playing devil's advocate against their own side. Would you know how to identify a virtue signaler if you found one?

I'd say a virtue signaler is someone who acts as though they're virtuous when they're not. So identifying one would entail things like examining the differences between what they say and what they do. But not all hypocrisy is cynical. There are people who honestly espouse high ideals, even while falling short of them. So I think there are distinctions to be made there as well.

I think that’s where the confusion is. A virtue signaler doesn’t necessarily have to be a hypocrite, they can just be someone who is motivated to make overt displays of virtue for personal gain.

So, anyone who makes "overt displays of virtue"? (What, you expect someone to go out of their way to ensure they don't have any appearance of personal gain?)

I expect someone to be virtuous because it's the right thing to do, not because of how many likes it gets them on Twitter.

I think that's a fair definition, but when the phrase is used in the context of current US politics I get the impression it's meant to say that the virtue is all display and no substance.

It seems to be used to dismiss the entire idea being talked about. For example a liberal saying they want relaxed immigration asylum criteria, and a conservative says they're just virtue signalling, and thereby dismisses the topic. In that way it has become a sort of ad hominem attack. In fact it does a disservice to both sides of the argument because there can be very good arguments for strict asylum thay deserve to be considered but get masked behind such dismissive language.

I don't see a problem using the phrase as long as it isn't used to justify a failure to engage in an actual discourse or debate on the topics at hand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com