Virtue signaling

[seanD]

I've turned around on this, I think the concept can make sense. I still believe it tends to be applied a bit broadly to people talking about popular talking points, which I don't consider virtue signalling in and of itself. Thank you everyone.

It doesn't always have to be verbal though. When it's an act, it's harder to define.

[seer]

You might want to consider your very own sentence following the one just quoted:

So, you do not know but instead of not concluding you want to justify going for the least favourable interpretation.

Yep, after dealing with leftists for years.

Since you do not know the thought of those you claim are "jumping on the bandwagon" how do you even know they are doing so? You have just claimed you do not know. Now it seems you justify your aim for a certain conclusion on some claim to knowledge. If you have got this knowledge, it seems you contradict your claim just quoted in which you admit to not knowing.

As I have pointed out above your impressions based on those who you think just "talk the talk" is based either on a lack of knowledge (which you yourself state) or a knowledge that contradicts your statement of not having knowledge. In either case you have nothing.

Sorry Charles, talk is cheap.

[Mountain Man]

Here's a classic example of virtue signaling:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post692836

[Charles]

Here's a classic example of virtue signaling:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post692836

What you provide is a classical example of not adressing the points in a text but putting a term on it to avoid having to do so. You do not even try to argue why and how your description fits.

[Terraceth]

Here's a classic example of virtue signaling:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post692836

I don't see how that qualifies as virtue signaling at all.