People who accuse others of virtue signalling are trying to stigmatise empathy

The phrase “virtue signalling” is a slur and it is everywhere; it is part of the Trumpian scream. Empathy, fellowship, society, love? To the critic of the “virtue signaller”, they are all vanity, whether online, at a protest or at the ballot box. This is psychological projection, but still interesting: where did it come from?

It first appeared in print in the Spectator magazine, in a piece by James Bartholomew in 2015. Bartholomew was the Earhart Foundation senior fellow in social policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). The IEA is a neoliberal PR company disguised as a think tank. You will hear IEA men on the BBC arguing – while posing as impartial experts – against the plain packaging of tobacco, for instance.

The Earhart Foundation, meanwhile, was a neoliberal charitable trust, funded by oil money. It bankrolled Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek – the author of The Constitution of Liberty (1960), who also helped to set up the IEA – and many other neoliberal economists who want the state to shrink to the size of an ornamental golf ball.

First, the politics: in his jaunty, “guess-what-I’ve-noticed-y’awl-plain-folks” style, Bartholomew indicated he approves of privatising the NHS; that the minimum wage could be “absurdly high”, especially for the cretins who don’t deserve it; that the foreign aid budget is ineffective; that the Cameron and Osborne administration did too much for “the poor”. Then the slur: it is not enough to state your case; you must also debase your most powerful opponents. He does this, it seems to me, by imagining himself into a hellish parody of an Islington dinner party, and calmly unpicking – or rather inventing – the thoughts of those who inhabit this imaginary world.

So here came the virtue signaller, with his or her implicit affection for the minimum wage, the NHS, and the foreign aid budget. (He does not give much time to rebutting these real beliefs.) The virtue signaller is probably a member of the so-called liberal elite, which is yet another euphemistic slur. It means: an educated person of influence who disagrees with you.

—-
More at link

Oh great. Another thing that is wrong with me.

I wonder what we can do about all these nasty people.

I really don’t know. Somehow, being a selfish arsehole has become a noble virtue.

dv said:

I really don’t know. Somehow, being a selfish arsehole has become a noble virtue.

So much for genetic gain.

dv said:

I really don’t know. Somehow, being a selfish arsehole has become a noble virtue.

I’ve been thinking this for quite a while :( as I slowly lose my ability to empathise.

You want no healthcare? Fine. Die.

Don’t want your kids to get a good education? *shrug *

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Fb4K8pNmg

Bubblecar said:

I wonder what we can do about all these nasty people.

Stop calling them “neoliberals” would be a start.

triage is about logic and prioritising in the care sector and ordered from people whom should have a high level of genuine empathy

Not another Mr T discussion!

Put a coin in the swear jar every time you mention his name.
Or to put it another way, don’t feed the troll.

mollwollfumble said:

Not another Mr T discussion!

Put a coin in the swear jar every time you mention his name.
Or to put it another way, don’t feed the troll.

It’s actually nothing to do with TGWT.

I hadn’t heard the phrase before (which is excusable, because it’s fairly recent and was invented on the other side of the planet), but having now read an article by the Bartholomew who first used it, I think we are badly in need of a short and snappy phrase for “smug and self-righteous little cunt”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not another Mr T discussion!

Put a coin in the swear jar every time you mention his name.
Or to put it another way, don’t feed the troll.

It’s actually nothing to do with TGWT.

I hadn’t heard the phrase before (which is excusable, because it’s fairly recent and was invented on the other side of the planet), but having now read an article by the Bartholomew who first used it, I think we are badly in need of a short and snappy phrase for “smug and self-righteous little cunt”.

How about “Wanker”?

monkey skipper said:

triage is about logic and prioritising in the care sector and ordered from people whom should have a high level of genuine empathy

but you gotta be detached too.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not another Mr T discussion!

Put a coin in the swear jar every time you mention his name.
Or to put it another way, don’t feed the troll.

It’s actually nothing to do with TGWT.

I hadn’t heard the phrase before (which is excusable, because it’s fairly recent and was invented on the other side of the planet), but having now read an article by the Bartholomew who first used it, I think we are badly in need of a short and snappy phrase for “smug and self-righteous little cunt”.

Morning.

sarahs mum said:

monkey skipper said:

triage is about logic and prioritising in the care sector and ordered from people whom should have a high level of genuine empathy

but you gotta be detached too.

I think triage should be done dispassionately based entirely on the persons medical condition.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not another Mr T discussion!

Put a coin in the swear jar every time you mention his name.
Or to put it another way, don’t feed the troll.

It’s actually nothing to do with TGWT.

I hadn’t heard the phrase before (which is excusable, because it’s fairly recent and was invented on the other side of the planet), but having now read an article by the Bartholomew who first used it, I think we are badly in need of a short and snappy phrase for “smug and self-righteous little cunt”.

How about “Wanker”?

Maybe. Perhaps “neo-wanker”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It’s actually nothing to do with TGWT.

I hadn’t heard the phrase before (which is excusable, because it’s fairly recent and was invented on the other side of the planet), but having now read an article by the Bartholomew who first used it, I think we are badly in need of a short and snappy phrase for “smug and self-righteous little cunt”.

How about “Wanker”?

Maybe. Perhaps “neo-wanker”?

Yes. Neo-wanker would work.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

How about “Wanker”?

Maybe. Perhaps “neo-wanker”?

Yes. Neo-wanker would work.

OK, so how do we get it into the “selfie” league?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Maybe. Perhaps “neo-wanker”?

Yes. Neo-wanker would work.

OK, so how do we get it into the “selfie” league?

> Selfie stick > camera > photo > facebook

I think there are problems right off the bat with being hungry for motivational theories, or a motivational theory.

The hunger often is diminishing.

And I think it the case that a over-commitment to a motivation theory has the power to make it true, or more so.

People extend good will all the time, not with a view to getting it back necessarily, but just to preserve friendliness.

I’d have thought basic human needs and cooperation amongst us would come down to logic and no emotions (or very little) are required. Might is right leads to death and destruction and with our growing technology capabilities the aforementioned gives us the ability to wipe out our species.

Cymek said:

I’d have thought basic human needs and cooperation amongst us would come down to logic and no emotions (or very little) are required.

I think that ignoring emotions (or giving them little importance) is totally illogical.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I’d have thought basic human needs and cooperation amongst us would come down to logic and no emotions (or very little) are required.

I think that ignoring emotions (or giving them little importance) is totally illogical.

Yes but if people are anti empathy (which is an emotion) then you could use logic to show why caring for others makes sense, that way they can’t use emotions against you. Most of the nastiness and uncaring in the world comes down to emotional bias

I’d have thought basic human needs and cooperation amongst us would come down to logic and no emotions (or very little) are required

Co-operation would still involve the reward system.

Emotions are reactions to being continually a part of the environment. I dont think you can dismiss them.

Can you have a positive indifference?

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I’d have thought basic human needs and cooperation amongst us would come down to logic and no emotions (or very little) are required.

I think that ignoring emotions (or giving them little importance) is totally illogical.

Yes but if people are anti empathy (which is an emotion) then you could use logic to show why caring for others makes sense, that way they can’t use emotions against you. Most of the nastiness and uncaring in the world comes down to emotional bias

OK, but if you exclude empathy you would only support care for others to the absolute minimum extent required to reduce the risk of revolution to an acceptable level.

Which is I suppose the position taken by the neo-wankers.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think that ignoring emotions (or giving them little importance) is totally illogical.

Yes but if people are anti empathy (which is an emotion) then you could use logic to show why caring for others makes sense, that way they can’t use emotions against you. Most of the nastiness and uncaring in the world comes down to emotional bias

OK, but if you exclude empathy you would only support care for others to the absolute minimum extent required to reduce the risk of revolution to an acceptable level.

Which is I suppose the position taken by the neo-wankers.

I wouldn’t think of it that way but I imagine others would.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

I’d have thought basic human needs and cooperation amongst us would come down to logic and no emotions (or very little) are required.

I think that ignoring emotions (or giving them little importance) is totally illogical.

OTOH emotions can sometimes be not based on evidence.

Well informed emotions, that’s what should govern us.

You could look at it from the point of view that decent education and health care for all could mean some poor gay Muslim women could grow up and discover or invent something that greatly benefits all humanity

OK, but if you exclude empathy you would only support care for others to the absolute minimum extent required to reduce the risk of revolution to an acceptable level.

——-

strokes beard

A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing, don’t you think?

Ian said:

OK, but if you exclude empathy you would only support care for others to the absolute minimum extent required to reduce the risk of revolution to an acceptable level.

——-

strokes beard

A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing, don’t you think?

Yes otherwise the status quo becomes corrupt and benefits the few over the many, unfortunately revolutions often do lots of damage in the area of body counts and revenge for old hatreds.

there’s always be countermeasures to flush out sham sentiments, or determine what of them is real. Limit the value gotten from their over-extension.

like circumspection about moral and apparently good intentioned fluff

humans are the dissembling species

>The phrase “virtue signalling” is a slur and it is everywhere..”

looks a bit like (related) …..the road to hell was paved by good intentions…, well, of politics some on the right are wary this way.

have a tough view regards human motivation, of human nature even.