John Cleese is on the list, but Stephen Fry isn't.
I remember a debate he and Jordan B. Peterson had with a pair of leftoids. Stephen started off his talk by IIRC saying, "I'm not with this chappy, Peterson." The debate was about political correctness, and Fry was arguing against it (I guess), but the snake has finally showed his true colors.
The declaration makes the standard argument for free speech, but the fact that only the US has a constitutional guarantee that the government will not restrict speech makes it unlikely that those nations which don't will pay any attention to this symbolic declaration. It's also unlikely that those NGOs raking in the dollars for concocting ways to avoid that pesky First Amendment will consider this as anything but a sign that they're succeeding.
In short, this is a sort of virtue signal, but I suppose these days it helps to declare which side you're on.
Beside the point, but do you think politically incorrect sentiments can be virtue signals? You're not performing for or ingratiating yourself with the established government by making statements against it. I generally think leftists are the only ones who can virtue signal as they know the establishment protects them.
In part, I think I am. Leftists who virtue signal are not risking anything when they make performative "progressive" statements that they collectively pretend are brave. They know they won't be censored, they know they'll get positive attention and social support from likeminded people, and they know they won't lose their jobs. However, they also know that if they are threatened, they can turn to mainstream media, social media, a local leftist politician, the courts or humans rights boards etc. to rally behind them and clean things up.
"Right-wing" statements akin to virtue signaling don't have that security. "Brave" leftist statements are, therefore, emptier and less sincere than similar but opposite right-wing statements. For that reason, I don't think it's possible for a Westerner to make a right-wing statement analogous to leftist virtue signaling with the same motivation. The motivation for virtue signaling exists and is so performative and disingenuous because it's so completely safe.
do you think politically incorrect sentiments can be virtue signals?
Yes, but they're not as frequent as leftist ones because, as you point out, those are protected by the establishment.
For example, in order to score points with some conservatives, I could denounce Jews as the rulers of everything bent on enslaving everyone, something I don't really believe.
Generally, virtue signaling or the purity spiral refers to broadcasting an opinion in order to get praise or positive strokes..
John Cleese is on the list, but Stephen Fry isn't.
I remember a debate he and Jordan B. Peterson had with a pair of leftoids. Stephen started off his talk by IIRC saying, "I'm not with this chappy, Peterson." The debate was about political correctness, and Fry was arguing against it (I guess), but the snake has finally showed his true colors.
The declaration makes the standard argument for free speech, but the fact that only the US has a constitutional guarantee that the government will not restrict speech makes it unlikely that those nations which don't will pay any attention to this symbolic declaration. It's also unlikely that those NGOs raking in the dollars for concocting ways to avoid that pesky First Amendment will consider this as anything but a sign that they're succeeding.
In short, this is a sort of virtue signal, but I suppose these days it helps to declare which side you're on.
Beside the point, but do you think politically incorrect sentiments can be virtue signals? You're not performing for or ingratiating yourself with the established government by making statements against it. I generally think leftists are the only ones who can virtue signal as they know the establishment protects them.
In part, I think I am. Leftists who virtue signal are not risking anything when they make performative "progressive" statements that they collectively pretend are brave. They know they won't be censored, they know they'll get positive attention and social support from likeminded people, and they know they won't lose their jobs. However, they also know that if they are threatened, they can turn to mainstream media, social media, a local leftist politician, the courts or humans rights boards etc. to rally behind them and clean things up.
"Right-wing" statements akin to virtue signaling don't have that security. "Brave" leftist statements are, therefore, emptier and less sincere than similar but opposite right-wing statements. For that reason, I don't think it's possible for a Westerner to make a right-wing statement analogous to leftist virtue signaling with the same motivation. The motivation for virtue signaling exists and is so performative and disingenuous because it's so completely safe.
Yes, but they're not as frequent as leftist ones because, as you point out, those are protected by the establishment.
For example, in order to score points with some conservatives, I could denounce Jews as the rulers of everything bent on enslaving everyone, something I don't really believe.
Generally, virtue signaling or the purity spiral refers to broadcasting an opinion in order to get praise or positive strokes..
There's about to be a lot of unemployed university professors