Virtue signalling: Difference between revisions

The point isn’t to criticize the sentiment — what kind of monster<ref>Well, obviously a member of Boko Haram, of course. But you get the point.</ref> could do that? — but to ask what practical good it does? Would a worldwide crush of hashtags lead a religious fundamentalist to the error of his ways?<ref>No, sayeth Wikipedia: “However, with limited action and success after initial protests in 2014, little has been accomplished through social 0/media regarding results. As of January 13, 2017, 195 of the 276 girls were still in captivity, close to three years after the kidnappings.” Nor does it seem to have dissuaded Boko Haram: In February 2018, they kidnapped a further 110 girls. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibok_schoolgirls_kidnapping Wikipedia article].</ref> Or was that not really the point, but to visibly, righteously, show concern in a costless but [[bragadocious]] way?

Since virtue signalling namechecks politically correct issues du jour it a natural [[bullshit detector]] bypass — and where it doesn’t ''bypass'' the bullshit detector, it certainly ''mutes'' it. Calling out bullshit is one thing; calling out a ''virtue signalling'' bullshitter risks challenging the signal — which may indeed be bullshit, but that’s not the point, is it?