this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
344 points (96.5% liked)
Not The Onion
12727 readers
1710 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, it's saying they're doing something mostly superficial and useless because they think it will make people see them as virtuous, where they wouldn't have done it if it wasn't a highly visible act, not that the actions are actually virtuous. So like someone volunteers for one day for some charitable cause, but spends the whole time taking selfies and not actually helping much.
That said I'm not sure what the logic is that quitting facebook counts as this
Alright but the highly superficial act is seen as virtuous. The act we oppose when we use this phrase. That act. It is virtuous. Therefor we in this hypothetical stand against virtue and goodness.
It generally means that we don't believe they'd be taking that action if there weren't a camera rolling or trending hashtag to follow. It's not criticizing the actual action, but the context around the action.
Yeah cool but that doesnt argue any of my points whatsoever.
We're agreeing that the individual act is virtuous. You're not understanding that complaints of virtue signaling are not criticizing the individual act. They're criticizing the unspoken lack of other acts.
Yeah cool cool cool, its an admission to fault to use the term we agree.