We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I really think you believe everything you just wrote, which makes it kind of sad. The fact that you cannot see that you have put people into groups based on who is signaling and who is not (and the only ones who are not are minorities or MAGA lunatics) combined with the fact that those who are not are really just trying to signal to others that they are part of their tribe is beyond troubling. These are your words, not mine.

"If one wishes to demonstrate that he is cultured and smart, he must offer his anti-Trump bona fides early and loudly. Most of my upper middle class friends who wish to ensure you know they're well thought on issues offer that signal to each other and bond over it."

"If one wishes to demonstrate he is well-off, he lets you know he's turned off by Trump, but thinks Trump's policies are decent. This same person may have voted for Hillary out of concern that his portfolio would get killed by Trump's election, but is now happily surprised to the upside."

"The only people I see who aren't signalling are those falling into minority groups that are targeted by Trump and the Trumpkins in their #Maga hats."

• If you are white and want to show you're cultured or smart, you signal by saying you're against Trump.
• If you are rich and white and want to show that you have money, you signal by saying you're turned off by Trump.
• If you are a minority and you're scared of what he wants to do to you, you aren't signaling.
• If you are a MAGA looney, you embrace the substance--the bigotry--and, strangely, aren't signaling to other MAGA loonies that you are in their tribe.

Those of us who aren't minorities who express a distaste for Trump's policies and behavior are only doing so because they want to show they belong.

How the fuck else can what you wrote be read?

TM

Here is what I wrote, in full context, including the end of the third paragraph you omitted:

If one wishes to demonstrate that he is cultured and smart, he must offer his anti-Trump bona fides early and loudly. Most of my upper middle class friends who wish to ensure you know they're well thought on issues offer that signal to each other and bond over it.

If one wishes to demonstrate he is well-off, he lets you know he's turned off by Trump, but thinks Trump's policies are decent. This same person may have voted for Hillary out of concern that his portfolio would get killed by Trump's election, but is now happily surprised to the upside.

The only people I see who aren't signalling are those falling into minority groups that are targeted by Trump and the Trumpkins in their #Maga hats. The first group of people have serious concerns and are pissed and scared for good reason. The second group have no shame, as they've gotten behind a bigoted agenda and a coalition of voters that includes xenophobes, racists, know-nothings, and deluded fools. Those people are either confused, deluded, or hold deplorable views and goals.

That first paragraph cites an embarrassing phenomenon that is absolutely rampant. If I had a dollar for for every friend and acquaintance who uses Trump as a virtue signalling device, I could pick up a really nice bottle of wine. The portion of my social circle that is upper middle class to somewhat affluent engages in the most vocal of virtue signalling. Their propensity to do this on numerous issues makes me suspicious of their motives. They bang on Trump like a gong, I think, because he's like a giant virtue-signalling lever. Rather than having to signal on some mix of issues that would telecast one's virtue, which involves reading and actually thinking, you can just pull the Trump lever. "Have I mentioned how much I detest Trump? I'm a great guy... Total opposite of your brother in law who inherited a real estate business and loves Trump. He's a serious dick."

The second paragraph describes a person who wants to telecast that they have enough income to have benefited from Trump, but would never stoop to voting for Trump. They're double signalling: I'm rich but also principled. (Half of them are lying about not voting for Trump, as they're well heeled enough to have had one of those "smart wealth advisors" who knew, unlike the middle level guys, that Trump would actually be great for their portfolio.)

And now we come to the paragraph you misinterpret. When I say the "only people who aren't signalling are...," that does not mean 100% of all other groups are signalling. That is impossible. It means some portion of all other groups are signalling. Should I have used "groups" rather than "people"? Arguably. Particularly to a board full of lawyers with whom I'm disagreeing. But I expect reasonable people to understand I am not arguing (indeed no one could argue) that all people of a certain category are signalling.

Regarding people targeted by Trump, or wearing MAGA hats, however, I do believe 0.00 people are signalling. I see no way any Mexican person would be signalling - at all - in stating Trump hatred. He's flatly racist toward them and amassing troops at the border. I see no reason any person in a MAGA hat would be signalling because to embrace that know-nothingism is self-degradation. Quiet Trump voters may be acting out of greed, bigotry, religious motives, or belief in protectionism. But the MAGA hat crowd is acting out of desperation. Perhaps one could assert it is signalling to align ones self with even a "deplorable" movement, but the essence of signalling is insecurity and desire to be seen as better than somebody else. To align yourself with the bottom of the barrel is very strange signalling. For that reason, I have to say the MAGA hat people are earnest. Whether as a result of confusion, delusion, or simply because they hold really noxious views, they are "all in" on the crazy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I stand by this statement. I see no way any Mexican person would be signalling - at all - in stating Trump hatred.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/poll...ps-voted-2016/ Yet 28% of Hispanics voted for him?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/poll...ps-voted-2016/ Yet 28% of Hispanics voted for him?

Srsly? You realize the meta group here is Trump critics. The only groups of Trump critics I would say have 0.00 signalers in them are those targeted by Trump.

I do not believe there is any demographic of Trump critics out there which does not contain a percentage of virtue-signallers except those targeted by the man.

I think this about almost every "movement' of the day. People start movements for the right reasons, and then glommers-on jump into them, looking for a purpose. You get a mix of truly committed people and people who just want something to commit to, among many other varieties. Fromm nailed it all in True Believer, which might be the most ironically titled book of all time.

ETA: It's nearly impossible to miss the "religious" element of these movements. We're wired to behave in a tribal manner. Recall how everyone was suddenly behind W after 9/11? You'd have been beaten up for saying, "Well, this is kind of a result of our failure to follow through on foreign aid to Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated." People were all suddenly aligned and there was a fervor, sort of a reverse of Melville's line that " genius all over the world stands hand in hand and a shock of recognition runs the circle round": "Righteous anger stands hand in hand and a shock of recognition causes all hands to eschew questioning and act as one."

You can see the religious element in the MAGA rallies, in Bernie's rallies. It popped up in that pipeline protest that attracted thousands of people, many of whom weren't even sure what they were protesting. You saw it in #MeToo, which erupted from an investigation of a rapist (Weinstein) into a hurricane of accusations that continues to grow. You see it in the resurgence of right wing political parties in Europe. You just saw it elect a right winger in Brazil. It exists in our environmental movements, in pro-life movements. All of these things, any movement, are comprised enormously of people looking for direction and people desiring to signal to others. It's both a feature of and bug in our socializing instincts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We didn't address that part of the text. The commentary there is unquestionably neutral, so I can't say it's biased.

In your view, then: If the media reports on the President's mental state, which it (the media) can't know, and repeats what the President says as if it is fact, it is "neutral." If the media reports on the President's mental state, which it (the media) can't know, and suggests that the President intends to deceive, it is "biased." This is so even when the President has been telling the same untruth for months, and even when news outlets report that there was a concerted effort by senior officials to tell the untruth. You have found "bias" where the media correctly points out that the President has been lying as part of a concerted effort by the Administration to push lies.

It's just moronic to say that if a reporter suggest that a Republican President -- especially this President -- might not mean to tell the truth, that shows that they are biased and trying to help Democrats. You can't think that. Many people, not all of whom are Democrats, believe that the Presidents sometimes lies. With this President, that's not exactly going out on a limb.

The other even more moronic thing you say is that it's "unquestionably neutral" to accept the White House's self-serving descriptions of what it is thinking and report it as the truth. If you really think that suggesting an intent to deceive shows one kind of bias, then the opposite obviously shows a different kind of bias. I think your narrow focus on bias is myopic, and that the much bigger problem is that reporters tend to accept official sources at face value for a variety of reasons that don't have anything to do with partisan affiliations. But trading reporter for stenography is not "unquestionably neutral." If you really think that reporting carries a "higher duty" than opinion, why does that duty disappear when it comes to stenography?

I don't want any type of media. I don't care what the media does. I was only noting that the media is biased against Trump. And that your argument that the effect of giving Trump so much attention, which works in Trump's favor, nullifies or undoes the media bias against Trump. (I don't really know your argument in total because you "flash around" quite a bit. One day, you assert the media is not biased against Trump. When that's contested, you shift to, "Well, the media may have some bias, but in terms of effect, it aids Trump.")

I think most reporters probably vote for Democrats, and that this has very little effect on media coverage. I think most executives at media companies probably vote for Republicans, and this also has little effect on most media coverage, except that there are some important exceptions, like Sinclair stations. When you talk about bias in the context of the media, you seem to mean only the sort of bias that involves the particular political views of an individual journalist or pundit. When I talk about bias, I am talking about about broader set of biases, most of which have more to do with the business imperatives of the press.

Your view of bias gets you to the f*cked-up world of Sunday morning political talk shows (e.g., Meet the Press), which typically have panels where conservative politicians are balanced out by (presumably liberal) journalists. Someone like you can call them neutral, since you have some kind of balance. It's a balance that predictable and systematically neglects and downplays what the left thinks, and provides a forum for conservative talking points to be pumped into the mainstream. In other words, the shows are biased, but it's a form of bias you don't even seem to be able to perceive.

I addressed this already, many post ago. It's nastier to brand a person as having bad intent than as merely hapless.

That's your own bias. I personally think it's nastier to suggest that a person is too stupid to understand what he is doing than to suggest that he is smart and is trying to deceive for a purpose, as most politicians do. Moreover, I think most Trump voters would disagree with you. They think their guy is smart, and that if he says things that aren't true it's just a sign of his acumen and willingness to rock the boat. Fact-checking is for suckers, they would say.

And we both know that if a CNN reporter went on the air and said, the President said a lot of things that aren't true today, but we don't think he was lying because he's too dim to get stuff like that wrong, people would see that as biased too. And you wouldn't disagree. You would say, I bet, that the CNN reporter can't really know that the President is stupid, and is reflecting his Democratic leanings by calling the President dim. If it's biased to presume that the President is lying because you can't know what's in his head, it's also biased to presume that he is stupid, because you can't know that either.

Really, what you're saying is that the press is biased to report facts that contradict the White House line. Your "bias" is a dressed-up version of "Fake News."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Whoa, I totally called this one wrong!

Daily funk, please.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I see no reason any person in a MAGA hat would be signalling because to embrace that know-nothingism is self-degradation. Quiet Trump voters may be acting out of greed, bigotry, religious motives, or belief in protectionism. But the MAGA hat crowd is acting out of desperation. Perhaps one could assert it is signalling to align ones self with even a "deplorable" movement, but the essence of signalling is insecurity and desire to be seen as better than somebody else. To align yourself with the bottom of the barrel is very strange signalling. For that reason, I have to say the MAGA hat people are earnest. Whether as a result of confusion, delusion, or simply because they hold really noxious views, they are "all in" on the crazy.

Perhaps they are "virtue-signaling," whatever that means, but they are signaling other virtues.

Not sure what you mean by the term, but it sounds like a pejorative way of suggesting that people express views in order to be understand by others as being the sort of person who expresses such views, rather than because they hold them sincerely.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Perhaps they are "virtue-signaling," whatever that means, but they are signaling other virtues.

Not sure what you mean by the term, but it sounds like a pejorative way of suggesting that people express views in order to be understand by others as being the sort of person who expresses such views, rather than because they hold them sincerely.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/...ue-signalling/

https://acculturated.com/virtue-signaling/

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...tue_signalling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2701...igin-examples/

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...e%20Signalling

https://simplicable.com/new/virtue-signaling

Pro Tip: Check out the Wikipedia entry. It will give you a single line quote that allows you to assert that this term is used by right-wingers. You can then call me a right winger. (Figured I'd save you some time and Ctrl+F scanning.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I had a dollar for for every friend and acquaintance who uses Trump as a virtue signalling device, I could pick up a really nice bottle of wine.

As I've said before, you've got to run in better circles, man.

They bang on Trump like a gong, I think, because he's like a giant virtue-signalling lever.

Or because he's horrid and does horrid things.

"Have I mentioned how much I detest Trump? I'm a great guy... Total opposite of your brother in law who inherited a real estate business and loves Trump. He's a serious dick."

You gotta run in better circles.

By which I mean, "I hate Trump" is a statement I've literally never heard where not closely connected to a specific terrible thing he did.

I see no reason any person in a MAGA hat would be signalling because to embrace that know-nothingism is self-degradation.

Whether or not an expressed opinion is "signalling" is nearly a worthless thing to discuss, but have you considered that they might be signalling who they dislike? Because they are.

But the MAGA hat crowd is acting out of desperation.

No. They are acting out of hatred of brown people, immigrants, trans people and "elites."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/...ue-signalling/

https://acculturated.com/virtue-signaling/

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...tue_signalling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2701...igin-examples/

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...e%20Signalling

https://simplicable.com/new/virtue-signaling

Pro Tip: Check out the Wikipedia entry. It will give you a single line quote that allows you to assert that this term is used by right-wingers. You can then call me a right winger. (Figured I'd save you some time and Ctrl+F scanning.)

When I said, "I'm not sure what you mean ...", I meant, I'm not sure what *you* mean. I am familiar with the term. As you used it, it sounded to me like you were describing the state of mind of a wide range of other people, making slapdash generalizations about their views and their reasons for sharing them, and I know that you wouldn't want to be accused of some kind of bias. I mean, it seems conceivable to me that some people criticize Trump because they actually really don't like Trump, not because they want others to see them as virtuous. And that some people wearing MAGA hats chant "Lock her up" at Trump rallies because they really believe that locking Hillary Clinton up will help make America great again, not because they want to impress other rally-goers.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can see the religious element in the MAGA rallies, in Bernie's rallies. It popped up in that pipeline protest that attracted thousands of people, many of whom weren't even sure what they were protesting. You saw it in #MeToo, which erupted from an investigation of a rapist (Weinstein) into a hurricane of accusations that continues to grow. You see it in the resurgence of right wing political parties in Europe. You just saw it elect a right winger in Brazil. It exists in our environmental movements, in pro-life movements. All of these things, any movement, are comprised enormously of people looking for direction and people desiring to signal to others. It's both a feature of and bug in our socializing instincts.

It's fascinating that you include the exposure of a long history of documented sexual assault and violence (and really, whom among us was not aware the world was that way) on this list.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

It's funny for Sebby to say that when a journalist suggests the President is lying, that is a matter of opinion. It's not a matter of opinion. The President is lying, or he isn't. It's not like the truth of that depends on who you ask. It's a fact that is hard to determine, but that doesn't make it a question of opinion.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And now we come to the paragraph you misinterpret. When I say the "only people who aren't signalling are...," that does not mean 100% of all other groups are signalling. That is impossible. It means some portion of all other groups are signalling. Should I have used "groups" rather than "people"? Arguably. Particularly to a board full of lawyers with whom I'm disagreeing. But I expect reasonable people to understand I am not arguing (indeed no one could argue) that all people of a certain category are signalling.

This is a complete dodge. I quoted you (and wasn't cherry picking your words to mislead) because I wanted to point out the way you think. I'm not arguing about the generalities. People never mean every single person when they make a blanket statement--at least not the ones I would actually engage in discussion.

What I'm pointing out is how you categorize things--your attempt to try to explain what is important to which people and who sends signals and who doesn't. White people signal to belong to groups, and their bleeding heart concerns are presumed false and only spoken in order to fit in. Minorities are genuinely afraid and do not signal, making their feelings genuine. The fact that it doesn't occur to you that white people can be genuinely afraid (for themselves or people who do not share their race) is telling.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When I said, "I'm not sure what you mean ...", I meant, I'm not sure what *you* mean. I am familiar with the term. As you used it, it sounded to me like you were describing the state of mind of a wide range of other people, making slapdash generalizations about their views and their reasons for sharing them, and I know that you wouldn't want to be accused of some kind of bias. I mean, it seems conceivable to me that some people criticize Trump because they actually really don't like Trump, not because they want others to see them as virtuous. And that some people wearing MAGA hats chant "Lock her up" at Trump rallies because they really believe that locking Hillary Clinton up will help make America great again, not because they want to impress other rally-goers.

I'm totally biased. I embrace it. I think virtue-signalling is rampant and embarrassing in our culture. It's a cheap currency for all sorts of needy and insecure people who in the past would have found sources of belonging in things like organized religion.

Nietzsche might've been right in fearing what men would become if organized religion ever faded away. In the Western World, we're just pinballing through endless "secular religions" to get behind. One fades in fashionability, another appears. And they all fuse people together temporarily in very impassioned activities.

It's sold as progress, and partly it is. But it's also frivolous, like an endless litany of "awareness marches."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is a complete dodge. I quoted you because of the way you think. I'm not arguing about the generalities. People never mean every single person. What I'm pointing out is how you categorize things--your attempt to try to explain what is important to which people. And who sends signals and who doesn't. White people signal to belong to groups. Minorities are genuinely afraid. The fact that it doesn't occur to you that white people can be genuinely afraid (for themselves or people who do not share their race) is telling.

TM

Telling about what? I'm not hiding anything. It's pretty fucking obvious if you're white in Trump's America, you have very little to fear. If you're not, you've got good reason to be scared. And I am highly suspect of the self-aggrandizing political statements I hear from loads of white people.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's funny for Sebby to say that when a journalist suggests the President is lying, that is a matter of opinion. It's not a matter of opinion. The President is lying, or he isn't. It's not like the truth of that depends on who you ask. It's a fact that is hard to determine, but that doesn't make it a question of opinion.

It is a fact that is undetermined and cannot be determined. Lying requires intent.

past tense lied
past participle lied
to deliberately say something that is not true

So if you say something about it, that statement would fall into the categories of argument or opinion. Does that make it a question of fact, or one of opinion? Well, you can email that question to any number of 1L gunners. Seems quite immaterial to me.

(And I'm not even sure I called it a question of opinion. Maybe I did, but I think that's your term.)