Canadian Politics Today

This seems fairly apt, and I think could describe JT showing up to hug Syrian kids when they landed.  And it does take some of the objectivity out.  Or maybe not.   Hmmmm....

On a slightly larger scale, and I know this could be opening a can of worms, but someone suggesting saving the planet from global warming could likely be sighted by some as virtue signalling, but to date there are 194 countries signed onto the Paris Accord, and I would imagine many of those countries have differing opinions on many issues, but perhaps it's an example of how using actual data to weigh the pro's and con's of an issue can lead to decisions that are above and beyond virtue signalling. Of course we shall have to wait to see how successfuly this initiative plays out.   

Depends if there are facts to support the claim that the action/non-action does nothing or causes harm. If it can be shown (as in the case of most CO2 reduction policy) that the action at best accomplishes nothing then you can objectively say that people supporting such policies are virtue signalling. Simply believing that an action is useful is not enough.

In your view, carbon reduction policies are "virtue signalling" and you believe you have facts to back that up.

In the view of other people, carbon reduction policies are effective and useful, and they believe they have facts to back that up.

Still subjective.

"virtue signalling": a pejorative used by the usual suspects to denigrate/disapprove of empathetic actions/intent

Depends if there are facts to support the claim that the action/non-action does nothing or causes harm. If it can be shown (as in the case of most CO2 reduction policy) that the action at best accomplishes nothing then you can objectively say that people supporting such policies are virtue signalling. Simply believing that an action is useful is not enough.

That's the technocrat approach and the minute you and Waldo solve your differences, I'll be onboard that this would work. 

That is not data. That is simple stating that a lot of politicians in a lot countries feel compelled to make meaningless gestures. Actual data from IEA says that even if Paris commitments are met 94% of world energy needs will still be supplied by nuclear or fossil fuels in 2040. IOW, Paris objectively accomplishes nothing.

What is not data, are you saying those countries DIDN'T sign onto Paris? As I said, we shall have to wait and see how successful those countries are in upholding their intentions to reduce GHG emissions. Nuclear is a hot topic just now as we move closer to fusion. I'm all for nuclear. Just get the coal **** out of my air.

That is not data. That is simple stating that a lot of politicians in a lot countries feel compelled to make meaningless gestures. Actual data from IEA says that even if Paris commitments are met 94% of world energy needs will still be supplied by nuclear or fossil fuels in 2040. IOW, Paris objectively accomplishes nothing.

you're a godDamn lying virtue signaller! 

by 2040 per IEA (with Paris pledges met): energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increase at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent, down from 2.4 percent in a scenario without the pledges from the Paris Agreement; by 2040, the global renewable share of generation increases to 37 percent from 23 percent; IEA expects the fossil fuel share to be 74 percent in 2040, down from today's 81%; pledge reductions limit the rise in temperature to 2.7 degrees Centigrade according to U.N. IPCC models.

Yes, true.  That is exactly what I am saying.  Your facts are no better than anyone else's and so to accuse the other side of "virtue signalling" because you disagree with their facts makes the term subjective rather than objective.

I'd love to see some of this flat earth "data".

conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group.[1] The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue—especially piety among the religious.[2] In recent years, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as empty, or superficial support of certain political views, and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing outward appearance over substantive action.[3][4]

plagiarism. The opposite of virtue signalling.


A non-political example of virtue signalling:  Tim Tebow.  Many many football players are devoutly religious, but Tim Tebow was the guy who became a hero for American evangelicals because he was out there making a great production of his religiosity while on-field.  When the Broncos ditched Tebow to acquire Peyton Manning, Pat Robertson said he hoped that God would injure Manning's neck to punish the Broncos for what they did to poor Tim Tebow. Which is awful, and also ironic because Manning himself is a deeply religious man.

A lot of evangelical Christianity in general is virtue-signalling... making a great public show of their religiosity and devotion to Jesus while doing nothing to promote virtues that Jesus actually represented.  It's all for the benefit of their peers, so that they can be seen as fitting in.  It is, as Omni the Wikipedia entry says, to enhance their standing among their group.


A recent example of virtue signalling:  when the Toronto Hijab Girl story first broke, there was a massive outbreak of virtue signaling among politicians. A bunch of empty statements whose only value was to show everybody that they're not racists. Primary message of these tweets: "I'm a good person!"

A while back during the McGregor vs Mayweather thread somebody burst in to tell everyone that combat sports are barbaric. The point of that post?  "Everybody look at me, I'm sophisticated and civilized!"

That's virtue signaling.

 -k