Federal government coordinating with private corporations (NGOs, "news stations/journalists," banks, etc.) to stamp out dissent through censorship, asset freezing, and propaganda. It literally does not get more fascistic than that.
For "court of public opinion," I guess I mean when I see it used like this:
"It doesn't matter if Kyle Rittenhouse won his case, he's guilty in the court of public opinion."
Something like that, although that's a bit more forced then how I generally see it written. You'll see it in every case on Reddit where rape charges are dropped etc.
I think it's generally a leftist thing to say because right wingers tend to latch onto evidence that wasn't given as much credence as we think it should (e.g., George Floyd's tox report) rather than presume to represent some imaginary collective opinion.
Yahoo comments are retarded. They don't even know the contents of the texts and they've already sided with the girls. If only there were a false accusation for every dipshit who doesn't favour presumption of innocence.
Also, anyone who unironically uses the phrase "court of public opinion" is fucking inbred.
You misunderstood. If that's how the left behaves -- no bad actions, just bad actors -- then they must accept their own behaviour, so you are also free to behave like they do. That means you can use leftist tactics while not compromising your principles even if your principles generally preclude leftist tactics.
I suggest a different interpretation that doesn't make you a hypocrite and allows you a clear conscience.
Treat your enemy as they would treat you. If your ideological enemy abandons fairness, integrity, honesty, or humanity in how they treat you, then they also abandon any expectation of being treated with those principles when roles are reversed. You can't honour the dishonourable. Maintain your principles for dealing with the intellectually honest and sincere.
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.
I'll apply this question to Canada: I'd be able to go to the biggest theatre in the city without half the movies being in fucking Punjabi.
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.
I will never, ever vote for the Liberals or NDP in my entire lifetime. I don't care if the parties eventually "reform" themselves. I know these despicable anti-egalitarian sentiments will linger in the shadows until they're allowed to creep forward after being sufficiently Overton'd again. Fuck leftists.
I also think he fucked up, but for different reasons. He's somewhat betrayed or undermined the value of his position by using deception instead of the position's inherent legitimacy. You don't want to develop habits where you give others openings to dismiss you because you undermined or shortchanged yourself.
The Quebecois are worse than the Newfies, it's true.