I'm surprised this premise isn't already common knowledge. From what I'm aware it was always a tongue in cheek term used to sarcastically accuse leftists of acting like their beliefs were virtuous.
I don't think that's really been the implication most of the time.
Mainstream "Conservatives" tend to be in favor of leftist causes. Lets use a generic example of a CEO who donates to some Feminist NGO. If a mainstream Republican is ridiculing a Leftist target, they aren't going to say, "We shouldn't donate to Feminist causes because we don't want women in the workplace. We want them raising families, not raising corporate profits at the expense of workers wages."
A mainstream critique would say, "This donation isn't significant," or, "They aren't doing this because they're sincere," but the fundamental value of the Feminist cause is not really critiqued.
"Normies" always dictate the definition. And that's why crafting rhetoric is important. Whatever nuance your rhetoric has needs to be clear when it's boiled down to the mass of low IQ supporters.
The rhetoric about "virtue signaling" to normies is just an indicator of hypocrisy. But it never challenges the fundamental premise. And Leftists are immune to accusations of hypocrisy (as demonstrated over ~a century) because they don't care about consistency, principles, or much of anything except gaining power & hurting their enemies.
For the simple reason that numbers do not equate to truth. If I take a screwdriver, reverse it and use the plastic handle to pound in a nail, does that make it a hammer? Of course not.
Even if I get a million people to do it, all it means is that there are lots of people using it wrong.
Second reason. Normies hold absolutely zero genuine convictions. If you speak authoritatively enough you can get most proles to agree that one equals two. They're sheep at heart and half or more of them are essentially retarded. The left's hucksterism doesn't work in a watchful and moral society, but those don't grow on trees.
No, it was always meant to be a mockery of people who feel the need to announce basic fuck morality as if it offers value to their position, and those who list off all their positive virtues before an opinion to grant it more power.
So if they open with "I'm against rape" or "I'm a feminist and" that's virtue signalling. Its something that offers nothing but making the person sound more virtuous to try and influence your opinion on what they say.
It was never tongue in check, it was a legitimate mockery of a behavior.
I'm surprised this premise isn't already common knowledge. From what I'm aware it was always a tongue in cheek term used to sarcastically accuse leftists of acting like their beliefs were virtuous.
I don't think that's really been the implication most of the time.
Mainstream "Conservatives" tend to be in favor of leftist causes. Lets use a generic example of a CEO who donates to some Feminist NGO. If a mainstream Republican is ridiculing a Leftist target, they aren't going to say, "We shouldn't donate to Feminist causes because we don't want women in the workplace. We want them raising families, not raising corporate profits at the expense of workers wages."
A mainstream critique would say, "This donation isn't significant," or, "They aren't doing this because they're sincere," but the fundamental value of the Feminist cause is not really critiqued.
While a fair point, I'd offer the rebuttal that people who are one step shy of normies really don't get to dictate a definition like that.
"Normies" always dictate the definition. And that's why crafting rhetoric is important. Whatever nuance your rhetoric has needs to be clear when it's boiled down to the mass of low IQ supporters.
The rhetoric about "virtue signaling" to normies is just an indicator of hypocrisy. But it never challenges the fundamental premise. And Leftists are immune to accusations of hypocrisy (as demonstrated over ~a century) because they don't care about consistency, principles, or much of anything except gaining power & hurting their enemies.
I disagree entirely, normies mean nothing.
For the simple reason that numbers do not equate to truth. If I take a screwdriver, reverse it and use the plastic handle to pound in a nail, does that make it a hammer? Of course not.
Even if I get a million people to do it, all it means is that there are lots of people using it wrong.
Second reason. Normies hold absolutely zero genuine convictions. If you speak authoritatively enough you can get most proles to agree that one equals two. They're sheep at heart and half or more of them are essentially retarded. The left's hucksterism doesn't work in a watchful and moral society, but those don't grow on trees.
No, it was always meant to be a mockery of people who feel the need to announce basic fuck morality as if it offers value to their position, and those who list off all their positive virtues before an opinion to grant it more power.
So if they open with "I'm against rape" or "I'm a feminist and" that's virtue signalling. Its something that offers nothing but making the person sound more virtuous to try and influence your opinion on what they say.
It was never tongue in check, it was a legitimate mockery of a behavior.