hetuzozaho wrote: » How? Like seriously, read what you are saying and then look at what Blindboy is doing and then think about it some more.. How does it equate? Who is "they"? Where are they sending them out to?
[Deleted User] wrote: » No, its an agenda being peddled by the leftist mainstream media. Most of the idiots they send out to bat are hypocrites who will be seen for that eventually
hetuzozaho wrote: » What virtue signalling is in the successful book?Is there a chance that virtue signalling isn't the thing he is producing that is being successful.
weldoninhio wrote: » Once reality bites and people see the virtue-signalling nonsense for what it is, the decline of Blindboy and his ilk will be extremely quick.
Sal Butamol wrote: » If you want to speak of American nonsense you can start with Blindboy recommending feminism to depressed young men
DickSwiveller Returns wrote: » Didn't you accuse someone of being alt right just a few posts ago?
The Moldy Gowl wrote: » Virtue signalling is such an awful word. It's a word for gowls
Brian? wrote: » So rather than debating what these people say, you simply shout "virtue signalling" to completely devalue everything they say. Makes life easy for you I suppose. I'll be honest Sal, I think you're spending far too much time reading American nonsense that leans alt right. I have encountered many people you'd consider to be virtue signalling, none have had purple hair.
Sky King wrote: » People do know this is a character right? And not an actual person? Does it strike anyone else as strange that a made-up persona with a fake voice, parody accent and a fking plastic bag on his head is treated like a normal, regular person in debates and current affairs TV shows? And given the same credibility and respect as an actual real person? Imagine Fr. Dougal Mcguire, Dustin the Turkey and Fortycoats appearing our incisive current affairs shows discussing mental health with Alan Partridge adjudicating. Or discussing the 8th amendment and feminism with Mrs Brown, The Bottler and Podge and Rodge? It would be treated like a joke (obviously), but when the prank phone call making, glue-huffing, spastic hawk-toting Blindboy talks serious we all suddenly have to sit up take it seriously. If I was asked to debate on the same show as a parody character I'd be more than a little pissed off. By all means share your story on mental health or offer an opinion on our education system. But for fk sake would you give us and the other people on the show the respect of doing it yourself, in a real voice? Without a fking bag on your head? Alternatively if you prefer holding on to the bag, you could try going back to... you know... being funny. And less preachy.
Dannyriver wrote: » He s a good guy and Im still good friends and see him out from time to time but I ve learned to keep politics out of it because he gets very serious and emotional on those subjects.
Brian? wrote: » Wasting my time? Not at all, I am wasting my employers time . Your mate has fallen foul of the bamboozlement fog. It happens.
Billy86 wrote: » I see the Louise O'Neill thread has slipped off the front page.
Brian? wrote: » I would have thought it was fairly self explanatory, yet numerous posters have explained it with anti left rants rather than a simple explanation. Which is why I was confused at the meaning. Why does signalling how virtuous you are invalidate everything you say? Why can't someone be correct and virtue signal at the same time? Why is it used to completely dismiss certain people's opinions without actually engaging in any meaningful debate on said opinion? It's a phrase that seems to be without meaning through overuse. A lazy generalistion that stifles debate. As someone pointed out, it's as bad as idiots calling slightly conservative people Nazis, racists, homophobes etc. . Wouldn't debate be better without it? It's basically an ad hominem argument, a complete cop out.
Dannyriver wrote: » Wasting your time Bro...There s friend of mine who idolised Bruce Springsteen Pink Floyd [specifically Roger waters] and rage against The machine growing up, hung on every word of every album, wore a dark side of the Moon T shirt for years. Doesn't rate any anymore, when I asked him why he said he wasn't 'woke' to the bull**** at the time and now sees them as just ''virtue signalers' and spokespersons for the lunatic left. Last seen looking for Ted Nugent and Kid rock CD s on ebay
weldoninhio wrote: » Virtue signalling is literally signalling how virtuous you are. It’s fairly self explanatory.
Brian? wrote: » Actually we don't. Some people on the left do that. Some people on the right do the other. Let's all try to avoid lazy generalisations lest we become hypocrites.
Brian? wrote: » "Saying the things people want to hear" - that's populism. You're describing groups of people. I want to actually know what "virtue signalling" means. I've seen it used in many contexts, most commonly used by posters as a lazy way to dismiss people they don't agree with. In order to debate whether someone is virtue signalling, I'd like a real definition of the term. Otherwise I'll file it under nonsense terms, like snowflake, libtard, loony left etc., i.e. terms that don't really mean anything.
jacksie66 wrote: » Just like the left calls everyone Nazi or fascist or racist when they don't want people questioning their beliefs..
Sal Butamol wrote: » Someone that kicks up a stink about some bull**** or other, feigning outrage about some trivial or frankly totally irrelevant non-issue, capitalising on whatever the latest trend is, all in the name of illustrating their own moral superiority to the rest of us. Mostly done to advance their own career and line their own pockets, with their concern frequently being disingenuous and hypocritical. See: Blindboy, Una Mullally, Louise O'Neill etc etc Favourite buzzwords: Toxic Masculinity, "Problematic", The Patriarchy, The Gender Wage Gap, Gender Neutral Toilets, Manspreading, Mansplaining How to spot one: Purple Hair, Oversized glasses, Permanent sour-puss, bag on head etc etc Most usual diagnosis: Feminism, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Lefty.
Brian? wrote: » Sorry, but I'm not getting it. What are you defining as virtue signalling? Someone who talks about doing good but takes no action? Is that a close approximation?
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » Truly good people don't seek validation for their kind deeds. Although the online 'virtue signallers' which we're referring to here tend to be all talk and no action.
weldoninhio wrote: » Saying the things that people want to hear. There’s a small but very vocal and currently influential group of people who can’t see that the emperor has no clothes on. They want/need to be part of the group and feel validated by faux-intellects like Blindboy and Russell Brand. They peddle this myth of how the world should be and if this changed, or that changed, how the world would be a better place. Simplistic bull**** notions for hugely complex social, economic and worldwide issues.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/33ff51e6843dec62476295b286496533.svg)
