Obviously this argument is fallacious — plenty of people have legitimate concerns about these subjects, especially the people affected by them.
I’m sure some do. All of them? Highly unlikely. No shortage of personal agendas at work, at all times.
“Virtue signaling” is simply a linguistic trick to push back against social change, something conservatism has been deploying for centuries.
Mentioning something which actually exists can’t be a linguistic trick.
And, btw, conservativism itself doesn’t push back against social change; what it does is prefer to see that change occur organically, to avoid social upheaval, which is one of the lessons of history, it should be added. To the social justice warriors (and their fellow travelers) who wish to rush headlong into “change” and ignore the blowback, this is always perceived as “pushing back”, but that perception is erroneous.
It’s been observed that the core policy of Trump’s support base is incoherent animus at best — some are hardcore libertarians who believed that as President he’d cut regulations and legalize weed, while others are midwestern Evangelicals lusting for him to criminalize abortion and homosexuality.
Very true. Except for the other, oh, 95% of his base that just wanted a good job and a good economy for their kids. I mean, how crazy do you have to be to want THAT, right?
What unites these people beyond ideology is their shared interest in speaking the unspeakable. It’s a strictly reactionary philosophy based on inflicting as much suffering as possible onto those outside of their group.
Nobody outside of an insane asylum would think that paragraph made any sense whatsoever.
Trump’s campaign was an extended bleat of blatant vice signaling. “Muslims are terrorists. Mexicans are criminals. Women want to be sexually assaulted.”
As I’m sure you’re aware, Trump never stated any of those things. But honesty is not to be expected in a propaganda piece.
All of the opinions that this group of Americans have been dying to say out loud as their white country eroded away from underneath them, broadcast on cable TV by a guy allegedly richer than Croesus. Trump’s vice signal struck a chord amongst people who felt they couldn’t express these opinions publicly.
That’s an odd comment, since precisely none of us on the right feel like anything is eroding away from us. It’s an interesting straw man that the left keeps bringing up, but entirely untrue.
In the intervening years, we’ve seen a cottage industry of vice signaling in academia and media spring up, from Bret Weinstein at Evergreen to the New York Times’ inceasingly lunkheaded contrarian op-ed writers. Their adoption by the online Right doesn’t come with any interest in their actual scholarly work. Instead, it’s simply their willingness to torment their political opponents that makes them relevant.
Hm. Bret Weinstein was physically threatened, something that his university de facto admitted when they settled with him. Federal law requires employers to provide a workplace that is safe and free from harassment, which I’m sure you, as an expert virtue signaler, would remind us if Bret was actually Barbara and the “threats” were construction workers whistling at her legs.
And, precisely none of the Times writers I am aware of traffic in the tormenting of their political opponents; I suppose what you’re saying is that the statement of facts which dispute leftist narratives is tormenting to you.
But vice signaling says that the health of others is less important than your own individual comforts. It’s an expression of true selfishness, which in a world rapidly screeching towards total collapse is the ultimate vice.
Which is precisely the opposite of the subject of Peterson’s discourse.