Friday, January 25, 2019

Virtue Signaling, Revisited

I have written before about this, and I urge you to consider Dr. Cross' clarifications carefully. As far as I understand the idea of virtue signaling, we are of one mind concerning the dangers of the accusation, offered without evidence.

For my part, you may assume that I believe whatever I say to be the truth as I see it. I have no D.C. cocktail circuit invitation waiting; there is no one I intend to impress. I am guilty of being stirred by passion frequently, and I may cause hurt that I may come to regret. I am not at the present time blessed with a superabundance of prudence, by any means. Yet if one definition of "virtue signaling" is to hide or obfuscate one's beliefs to curry favor, I have never been guilty of it, to my knowledge. Certainly not in a huge public forum like Facebook.

Some people who accuse others of "virtue signaling" just don't like being told that they are deficient in virtue.

The accusation without foundation or proof is only flourishing in the context of skepticism, where any assertion of truth is regarded merely as a statement of preference.

And we have arrived back at emotivism again. [I'm wondering if you'll finish this post, before you bash markets again.--ed.] Well... [Pete's sake, stahp!--ed.]

So, love me or my opinions, hate me or my opinions; it's up to you. Just please don't say that I don't really believe what I say. If I didn't believe something, I wouldn't say it.

No comments: