Words/phrases I wish would go away

[Paul der Krake]

There are no words.

[GreenSheep]

Similar to "So..." or maybe a longer form of "so," I've noticed several interviewers prefacing a question with, "Let me ask you this." (Haha, and they often even say "So let me ask you this.") Just ask the question! The person is being interviewed, for heaven's sake! They expect to be asked questions! Just ask!

"Dad, can I ask you a question?"  My response shifts between "yes" and "you just did" depending on how much of a smart ass I'm feeling.

Somehow I manage to find this cute/endearing in kids, like they're tentatively trying to broach a difficult subject and are a little unsure of themselves. Maybe that's why it irritates me so much in adults -- just be an adult and spit it out! :-)

[Travis]

Similar to "So..." or maybe a longer form of "so," I've noticed several interviewers prefacing a question with, "Let me ask you this." (Haha, and they often even say "So let me ask you this.") Just ask the question! The person is being interviewed, for heaven's sake! They expect to be asked questions! Just ask!

"Dad, can I ask you a question?"  My response shifts between "yes" and "you just did" depending on how much of a smart ass I'm feeling.

Somehow I manage to find this cute/endearing in kids, like they're tentatively trying to broach a difficult subject and are a little unsure of themselves. Maybe that's why it irritates me so much in adults -- just be an adult and spit it out! :-)

Agreed. My son is 10 and turns on the snark much more often that I do so I consider him to be an acceptable target. I think I mentioned on this thread months ago that "to be honest" sets me off with adults. People saying it usually mean "I'm being really serious or dramatic to make my point," but I can't help but think "does this mean you weren't honest earlier?"

[GreenSheep]

Similar to "So..." or maybe a longer form of "so," I've noticed several interviewers prefacing a question with, "Let me ask you this." (Haha, and they often even say "So let me ask you this.") Just ask the question! The person is being interviewed, for heaven's sake! They expect to be asked questions! Just ask!

"Dad, can I ask you a question?"  My response shifts between "yes" and "you just did" depending on how much of a smart ass I'm feeling.

Somehow I manage to find this cute/endearing in kids, like they're tentatively trying to broach a difficult subject and are a little unsure of themselves. Maybe that's why it irritates me so much in adults -- just be an adult and spit it out! :-)

Agreed. My son is 10 and turns on the snark much more often that I do so I consider him to be an acceptable target. I think I mentioned on this thread months ago that "to be honest" sets me off with adults. People saying it usually mean "I'm being really serious or dramatic to make my point," but I can't help but think "does this mean you weren't honest earlier?"

I think that's the right of every dad everywhere. Comes with the dad license. :-) I think this is one of the ways people learn appropriate/efficient use of language. If he gets teased by Dad for this kind of thing, maybe he won't say it in the real world when he grows up.

Yes! When someone says "to be honest" or "truthfully" or "honestly" or (the worst) "notgonnalie," it makes me wonder if they're NOT being honest in every sentence they don't preface with one of those phrases.

[shelivesthedream]

I actually think "Can I ask you a question?" is a great thing for children to learn. Because what it really means is "Is now a good time to ask you a question that might take up a bit of time or should I come back later?" And that's a considerate habit to get into rather than assuming everyone is at your beck and call. I suppose you could teach them to say the long version, but just mocking them for the literal meaning of their polite conversation starter seems silly to me.

[FIRE Artist]

Virtue signalling.

It has infected this forum unfortunately.  What used to be accepted as a face punch is now being criticized as virtue signalling.  Crying “virtue signalling” is a lazy way to approach discourse and usually says more about the person crying it than the person whose opinion they were trying to dismiss.  It is a bully tactic. 

Guess what?  Everything MMM has ever written?  Virtue signals.  Every single thing everyone ever writes on the internet is a virtue signal.  Joining this forum in the first place? Virtue signal. 

Looking forward to when this fad passes.  Happy to signal my virtue that I find crying virtue signalling boring. 

[jinga nation]

apologies if it has been stated before by someone.

I wish the phrase "without further adieu" and quick adieu. Used too commonly by many YouTubers and bloggers/vloggers.

https://grammarist.com/phrase/without-further-ado-vs-without-further-adieu/

They state it in the beginning of the video/blog post, so I think they mean "without further ado". However, they pronounce/write it as "adieu".

[RetiredAt63]

apologies if it has been stated before by someone.

I wish the phrase "without further adieu" and quick adieu. Used too commonly by many YouTubers and bloggers/vloggers.

https://grammarist.com/phrase/without-further-ado-vs-without-further-adieu/

They state it in the beginning of the video/blog post, so I think they mean "without further ado". However, they pronounce/write it as "adieu".

Aah, the opposite of waala (or whatever weird spelling is floating around out there) when people mean voila.

[nessness]

I actually think "Can I ask you a question?" is a great thing for children to learn. Because what it really means is "Is now a good time to ask you a question that might take up a bit of time or should I come back later?" And that's a considerate habit to get into rather than assuming everyone is at your beck and call. I suppose you could teach them to say the long version, but just mocking them for the literal meaning of their polite conversation starter seems silly to me.

Agreed. If I call or approach someone at work to have a discussion, I usually start with, "Do you have a few minutes?" I do that because nothing annoys me more than when someone just walks into my cube (pre-quarantine...) and immediately starts explaining a complex situation, and I have to interrupt them to explain that I have to leave for a meeting in 2 minutes.

"Can I ask you a question?" is basically the kids' version of that.

[Chaplin]

"the new normal"

[GreenSheep]

I actually think "Can I ask you a question?" is a great thing for children to learn. Because what it really means is "Is now a good time to ask you a question that might take up a bit of time or should I come back later?" And that's a considerate habit to get into rather than assuming everyone is at your beck and call. I suppose you could teach them to say the long version, but just mocking them for the literal meaning of their polite conversation starter seems silly to me.

Agreed. If I call or approach someone at work to have a discussion, I usually start with, "Do you have a few minutes?" I do that because nothing annoys me more than when someone just walks into my cube (pre-quarantine...) and immediately starts explaining a complex situation, and I have to interrupt them to explain that I have to leave for a meeting in 2 minutes.

"Can I ask you a question?" is basically the kids' version of that.

I like that. Very respectful of a person's time, which is always appreciated.

I also like even more specific openers like, "Do you have a few minutes to answer a question about X?" because I get nervous when someone asks if I have time without telling me how they plan to fill that time, so I can't come up with a quick excuse if it's something I don't want to do! :-) Like "Are you busy this weekend?" but for a shorter time frame. No, I don't have a few minutes to fix the printer because everyone seems to think I'm the only person capable of doing it! No, I don't want to help you move all weekend!

[DoubleDown]

"the new normal"

+1000

And you can add to that "These uncertain times" and These unprecedented times," especially in relation to trying to sell me something (as in, "In these uncertain times, it's more important than ever to stay connected, so buy Fios for $129.99/month..."

[Travis]

apologies if it has been stated before by someone.

I wish the phrase "without further adieu" and quick adieu. Used too commonly by many YouTubers and bloggers/vloggers.

https://grammarist.com/phrase/without-further-ado-vs-without-further-adieu/

They state it in the beginning of the video/blog post, so I think they mean "without further ado". However, they pronounce/write it as "adieu".

Or they use it in the correct spelling and context, but only after talking your ear off. It's supposed to mean "let's keep this short," but I hear it most often as part of the intro to a speech where the intro or the speaker's bio goes five minutes.

[marble_faun]

When people refer to their children as "assholes."

I think it is meant to be a fun/"edgy" mom kind of thing to say, but I truly wince.

[shelivesthedream]

When people refer to their children as "assholes."

I think it is meant to be a fun/"edgy" mom kind of thing to say, but I truly wince.

When I want to say ToddlerSLTD is being really really annoying, I whip out my favourite playground insults again. "ToddlerSLTD is being a really stinky pooface today." Somehow the tone seems more appropriate to refer to a small child than "asshole".

[marble_faun]

When people refer to their children as "assholes."

I think it is meant to be a fun/"edgy" mom kind of thing to say, but I truly wince.

When I want to say ToddlerSLTD is being really really annoying, I whip out my favourite playground insults again. "ToddlerSLTD is being a really stinky pooface today." Somehow the tone seems more appropriate to refer to a small child than "asshole".

Yeah. To me, "asshole" is the guy in an expensive car who cuts you off in traffic.

For kids, "brat" and "hellion" should suffice.

[slackmax]

'You got this.'   'I got this.'   'We got this.'   

Watching TV a few days ago, I saw it used in 3 different shows! Ugh....

[Morning Glory]

'You got this.'   'I got this.'   'We got this.'   

Watching TV a few days ago, I saw it used in 3 different shows! Ugh....

"I got this" was my son's favorite phrase when he was three, so I have fond memories of it. He must have gotten it from a cartoon.

I have found myself using the toddler style insults to refer to adults e.g. "(patient with behaviors) is being a butthead" or "a and b refused their hep B vaccines, those dum dums are going to cause an outbreak"

[frugalnacho]

'You got this.'   'I got this.'   'We got this.'   

Watching TV a few days ago, I saw it used in 3 different shows! Ugh....

"I got this" was my son's favorite phrase when he was three, so I have fond memories of it. He must have gotten it from a cartoon.

I have found myself using the toddler style insults to refer to adults e.g. "(patient with behaviors) is being a butthead" or "a and b refused their hep B vaccines, those dum dums are going to cause an outbreak"

Haha my 2 year old son also says "I got this" and it cracks me up.  I also don't know where he picked it up.  He uses it so matter of factly too.  Do you need me to help you ____?  No, I got this. 

[shelivesthedream]

Our two-year-old has started answering "Would you like to X?" with "That would be lovely!" Also don't know why he decided that was the thing to say! I hope he never realises there are other options.

[teen persuasion]

Getting tired of hearing  jump-roping. 

The verb is "jump", not "rope".  So it should be jumping-rope.

[mrmoonymartian]

'You got this.'   'I got this.'   'We got this.'   

Watching TV a few days ago, I saw it used in 3 different shows! Ugh....

But you can just train yourself to mentally insert the 've like they mumbled it or another noise drowned it out. IRL it's often hard to hear every bit of every word properly, so it should be an easy fix. You got this.

[mrmoonymartian]

Virtue signalling.

It has infected this forum unfortunately.  What used to be accepted as a face punch is now being criticized as virtue signalling.  Crying “virtue signalling” is a lazy way to approach discourse and usually says more about the person crying it than the person whose opinion they were trying to dismiss.  It is a bully tactic. 

Guess what?  Everything MMM has ever written?  Virtue signals.  Every single thing everyone ever writes on the internet is a virtue signal.  Joining this forum in the first place? Virtue signal. 

Looking forward to when this fad passes.  Happy to signal my virtue that I find crying virtue signalling boring.

I agree. Directly or indirectly bragging about good deeds produces the necessary cognitive and social rewards for practicing pro-social behaviour. If everyone did good entirely for its own sake - in complete anonymity - there would be a lot less good done in the world.

Is that what anti-signallers really want? Fewer good deeds done by others so that they don't have to feel bad for being selfish all the time? For shame.

[shelivesthedream]

Virtue signalling.

It has infected this forum unfortunately.  What used to be accepted as a face punch is now being criticized as virtue signalling.  Crying “virtue signalling” is a lazy way to approach discourse and usually says more about the person crying it than the person whose opinion they were trying to dismiss.  It is a bully tactic. 

Guess what?  Everything MMM has ever written?  Virtue signals.  Every single thing everyone ever writes on the internet is a virtue signal.  Joining this forum in the first place? Virtue signal. 

Looking forward to when this fad passes.  Happy to signal my virtue that I find crying virtue signalling boring.

I agree. Directly or indirectly bragging about good deeds produces the necessary cognitive and social rewards for practicing pro-social behaviour. If everyone did good entirely for its own sake - in complete anonymity - there would be a lot less good done in the world.

Is that what anti-signallers really want? Fewer good deeds done by others so that they don't have to feel bad for being selfish all the time? For shame.

I understood "virtue signalling" to not mean ostentatiously doing good deeds, but rather doing things which signal what a good person you are but are ineffective compared to similar but less obvious actions. Buying an obviously electric car vs just not driving very much. Have I misunderstood?

[mrmoonymartian]

Virtue signalling.

It has infected this forum unfortunately.  What used to be accepted as a face punch is now being criticized as virtue signalling.  Crying “virtue signalling” is a lazy way to approach discourse and usually says more about the person crying it than the person whose opinion they were trying to dismiss.  It is a bully tactic. 

Guess what?  Everything MMM has ever written?  Virtue signals.  Every single thing everyone ever writes on the internet is a virtue signal.  Joining this forum in the first place? Virtue signal. 

Looking forward to when this fad passes.  Happy to signal my virtue that I find crying virtue signalling boring.

I agree. Directly or indirectly bragging about good deeds produces the necessary cognitive and social rewards for practicing pro-social behaviour. If everyone did good entirely for its own sake - in complete anonymity - there would be a lot less good done in the world.

Is that what anti-signallers really want? Fewer good deeds done by others so that they don't have to feel bad for being selfish all the time? For shame.

I understood "virtue signalling" to not mean ostentatiously doing good deeds, but rather doing things which signal what a good person you are but are ineffective compared to similar but less obvious actions. Buying an obviously electric car vs just not driving very much. Have I misunderstood?

According to wikipedia, virtue signalling is a pejorative phrase for the conspicuous expression of moral values. A public act that is intended to inform others of one's socially acceptable alignment on an issue.

[FIRE Artist]

Virtue signalling.

It has infected this forum unfortunately.  What used to be accepted as a face punch is now being criticized as virtue signalling.  Crying “virtue signalling” is a lazy way to approach discourse and usually says more about the person crying it than the person whose opinion they were trying to dismiss.  It is a bully tactic. 

Guess what?  Everything MMM has ever written?  Virtue signals.  Every single thing everyone ever writes on the internet is a virtue signal.  Joining this forum in the first place? Virtue signal. 

Looking forward to when this fad passes.  Happy to signal my virtue that I find crying virtue signalling boring.

I agree. Directly or indirectly bragging about good deeds produces the necessary cognitive and social rewards for practicing pro-social behaviour. If everyone did good entirely for its own sake - in complete anonymity - there would be a lot less good done in the world.

Is that what anti-signallers really want? Fewer good deeds done by others so that they don't have to feel bad for being selfish all the time? For shame.

I understood "virtue signalling" to not mean ostentatiously doing good deeds, but rather doing things which signal what a good person you are but are ineffective compared to similar but less obvious actions. Buying an obviously electric car vs just not driving very much. Have I misunderstood?

According to wikipedia, virtue signalling is a pejorative phrase for the conspicuous expression of moral values. A public act that is intended to inform others of one's socially acceptable alignment on an issue.

This is how I understand it as well.  It is also about signalling alignment with a specific sub group of people...like MMM followers are a sub group, we signal our shared virtue by belonging to this forum, and we also signal it any time we ever tell anyone about our frugality.  Virtue signalling is a way to find your tribe...kinda like back in university, you would look at people’s CD collections to see if they liked the same kind of music as you did. 

My biggest issue with this term is that it is more and more used as a way to dismiss and shut down dialog.  It usually plays out this way - Person A makes a statement that aligns with their value system - let’s use the example of someone who shares that they are a vegetarian because it is better for the environment, and they willingly put the environment ahead of their carnivorous instincts.  Person B is someone who likes to eat beef, and would never ever give it up.  Like the majority of people, Person B will usually take Person A’s statement as a personal attack (usually it isn’t a personal attack, but we all seem to think everything written on the internet is all about us as individuals).  So Person B feels butt hurt about Person A’s statement, and instead of engaging in a dialog, or heaven forbid, expand their understanding of a differing point of view, they will shut down the dialog by accusing Person A of the evil “virtue signalling”.  It really is strange to watch it catch on. 

[solon]

Virtue signalling.

It has infected this forum unfortunately.  What used to be accepted as a face punch is now being criticized as virtue signalling.  Crying “virtue signalling” is a lazy way to approach discourse and usually says more about the person crying it than the person whose opinion they were trying to dismiss.  It is a bully tactic. 

Guess what?  Everything MMM has ever written?  Virtue signals.  Every single thing everyone ever writes on the internet is a virtue signal.  Joining this forum in the first place? Virtue signal. 

Looking forward to when this fad passes.  Happy to signal my virtue that I find crying virtue signalling boring.

I agree. Directly or indirectly bragging about good deeds produces the necessary cognitive and social rewards for practicing pro-social behaviour. If everyone did good entirely for its own sake - in complete anonymity - there would be a lot less good done in the world.

Is that what anti-signallers really want? Fewer good deeds done by others so that they don't have to feel bad for being selfish all the time? For shame.

I understood "virtue signalling" to not mean ostentatiously doing good deeds, but rather doing things which signal what a good person you are but are ineffective compared to similar but less obvious actions. Buying an obviously electric car vs just not driving very much. Have I misunderstood?

According to wikipedia, virtue signalling is a pejorative phrase for the conspicuous expression of moral values. A public act that is intended to inform others of one's socially acceptable alignment on an issue.

This is how I understand it as well.  It is also about signalling alignment with a specific sub group of people...like MMM followers are a sub group, we signal our shared virtue by belonging to this forum, and we also signal it any time we ever tell anyone about our frugality.  Virtue signalling is a way to find your tribe...kinda like back in university, you would look at people’s CD collections to see if they liked the same kind of music as you did. 

My biggest issue with this term is that it is more and more used as a way to dismiss and shut down dialog.  It usually plays out this way - Person A makes a statement that aligns with their value system - let’s use the example of someone who shares that they are a vegetarian because it is better for the environment, and they willingly put the environment ahead of their carnivorous instincts.  Person B is someone who likes to eat beef, and would never ever give it up.  Like the majority of people, Person B will usually take Person A’s statement as a personal attack (usually it isn’t a personal attack, but we all seem to think everything written on the internet is all about us as individuals).  So Person B feels butt hurt about Person A’s statement, and instead of engaging in a dialog, or heaven forbid, expand their understanding of a differing point of view, they will shut down the dialog by accusing Person A of the evil “virtue signalling”.  It really is strange to watch it catch on.

So, how long have you been a vegetarian?

[Travis]

Virtue signalling.

It has infected this forum unfortunately.  What used to be accepted as a face punch is now being criticized as virtue signalling.  Crying “virtue signalling” is a lazy way to approach discourse and usually says more about the person crying it than the person whose opinion they were trying to dismiss.  It is a bully tactic. 

Guess what?  Everything MMM has ever written?  Virtue signals.  Every single thing everyone ever writes on the internet is a virtue signal.  Joining this forum in the first place? Virtue signal. 

Looking forward to when this fad passes.  Happy to signal my virtue that I find crying virtue signalling boring.

I agree. Directly or indirectly bragging about good deeds produces the necessary cognitive and social rewards for practicing pro-social behaviour. If everyone did good entirely for its own sake - in complete anonymity - there would be a lot less good done in the world.

Is that what anti-signallers really want? Fewer good deeds done by others so that they don't have to feel bad for being selfish all the time? For shame.

I understood "virtue signalling" to not mean ostentatiously doing good deeds, but rather doing things which signal what a good person you are but are ineffective compared to similar but less obvious actions. Buying an obviously electric car vs just not driving very much. Have I misunderstood?

According to wikipedia, virtue signalling is a pejorative phrase for the conspicuous expression of moral values. A public act that is intended to inform others of one's socially acceptable alignment on an issue.

This is how I understand it as well.  It is also about signalling alignment with a specific sub group of people...like MMM followers are a sub group, we signal our shared virtue by belonging to this forum, and we also signal it any time we ever tell anyone about our frugality.  Virtue signalling is a way to find your tribe...kinda like back in university, you would look at people’s CD collections to see if they liked the same kind of music as you did. 

My biggest issue with this term is that it is more and more used as a way to dismiss and shut down dialog.  It usually plays out this way - Person A makes a statement that aligns with their value system - let’s use the example of someone who shares that they are a vegetarian because it is better for the environment, and they willingly put the environment ahead of their carnivorous instincts.  Person B is someone who likes to eat beef, and would never ever give it up.  Like the majority of people, Person B will usually take Person A’s statement as a personal attack (usually it isn’t a personal attack, but we all seem to think everything written on the internet is all about us as individuals).  So Person B feels butt hurt about Person A’s statement, and instead of engaging in a dialog, or heaven forbid, expand their understanding of a differing point of view, they will shut down the dialog by accusing Person A of the evil “virtue signalling”.  It really is strange to watch it catch on.

So, how long have you been a vegetarian?

And why do you feel the need to tell the rest of us? Can't you just be a quiet vegetarian?

[mrmoonymartian]

Virtue signalling.

It has infected this forum unfortunately.  What used to be accepted as a face punch is now being criticized as virtue signalling.  Crying “virtue signalling” is a lazy way to approach discourse and usually says more about the person crying it than the person whose opinion they were trying to dismiss.  It is a bully tactic. 

Guess what?  Everything MMM has ever written?  Virtue signals.  Every single thing everyone ever writes on the internet is a virtue signal.  Joining this forum in the first place? Virtue signal. 

Looking forward to when this fad passes.  Happy to signal my virtue that I find crying virtue signalling boring.

I agree. Directly or indirectly bragging about good deeds produces the necessary cognitive and social rewards for practicing pro-social behaviour. If everyone did good entirely for its own sake - in complete anonymity - there would be a lot less good done in the world.

Is that what anti-signallers really want? Fewer good deeds done by others so that they don't have to feel bad for being selfish all the time? For shame.

I understood "virtue signalling" to not mean ostentatiously doing good deeds, but rather doing things which signal what a good person you are but are ineffective compared to similar but less obvious actions. Buying an obviously electric car vs just not driving very much. Have I misunderstood?

According to wikipedia, virtue signalling is a pejorative phrase for the conspicuous expression of moral values. A public act that is intended to inform others of one's socially acceptable alignment on an issue.

This is how I understand it as well.  It is also about signalling alignment with a specific sub group of people...like MMM followers are a sub group, we signal our shared virtue by belonging to this forum, and we also signal it any time we ever tell anyone about our frugality.  Virtue signalling is a way to find your tribe...kinda like back in university, you would look at people’s CD collections to see if they liked the same kind of music as you did. 

My biggest issue with this term is that it is more and more used as a way to dismiss and shut down dialog.  It usually plays out this way - Person A makes a statement that aligns with their value system - let’s use the example of someone who shares that they are a vegetarian because it is better for the environment, and they willingly put the environment ahead of their carnivorous instincts.  Person B is someone who likes to eat beef, and would never ever give it up.  Like the majority of people, Person B will usually take Person A’s statement as a personal attack (usually it isn’t a personal attack, but we all seem to think everything written on the internet is all about us as individuals).  So Person B feels butt hurt about Person A’s statement, and instead of engaging in a dialog, or heaven forbid, expand their understanding of a differing point of view, they will shut down the dialog by accusing Person A of the evil “virtue signalling”.  It really is strange to watch it catch on.

So, how long have you been a vegetarian?

And why do you feel the need to tell the rest of us? Can't you just be a quiet vegetarian?

Funnily enough, I also put the envirusment ahead of my coronavirus instincts. Interesting.

[marble_faun]

Often people who use the phrase "virtue signalling" seem to think that others don't sincerely hold moral or ethical beliefs. The idea seems to be that taking a public stance on an issue (particularly those things flagged as "social justice" issues) is just a performance staged for brownie points.

[Kris]

Often people who use the phrase "virtue signalling" seem to think that others don't sincerely hold moral or ethical beliefs. The idea seems to be that taking a public stance on an issue (particularly those things flagged as "social justice" issues) is just a performance staged for brownie points.

For this reason, I consider people who use the phrase "virtue signaling" to be engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

Not to mention, accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is a form of virtue signaling in itself.

[frugalnacho]

Exactly.  I never use the phrase virtue signaling.  Does that make me better than most people? Yes.

[jambongris]

Is a lack of virtue signalling considered the new virtue signalling?

[FIRE Artist]

Virtue signalling.

It has infected this forum unfortunately.  What used to be accepted as a face punch is now being criticized as virtue signalling.  Crying “virtue signalling” is a lazy way to approach discourse and usually says more about the person crying it than the person whose opinion they were trying to dismiss.  It is a bully tactic. 

Guess what?  Everything MMM has ever written?  Virtue signals.  Every single thing everyone ever writes on the internet is a virtue signal.  Joining this forum in the first place? Virtue signal. 

Looking forward to when this fad passes.  Happy to signal my virtue that I find crying virtue signalling boring.

I agree. Directly or indirectly bragging about good deeds produces the necessary cognitive and social rewards for practicing pro-social behaviour. If everyone did good entirely for its own sake - in complete anonymity - there would be a lot less good done in the world.

Is that what anti-signallers really want? Fewer good deeds done by others so that they don't have to feel bad for being selfish all the time? For shame.

I understood "virtue signalling" to not mean ostentatiously doing good deeds, but rather doing things which signal what a good person you are but are ineffective compared to similar but less obvious actions. Buying an obviously electric car vs just not driving very much. Have I misunderstood?

According to wikipedia, virtue signalling is a pejorative phrase for the conspicuous expression of moral values. A public act that is intended to inform others of one's socially acceptable alignment on an issue.

This is how I understand it as well.  It is also about signalling alignment with a specific sub group of people...like MMM followers are a sub group, we signal our shared virtue by belonging to this forum, and we also signal it any time we ever tell anyone about our frugality.  Virtue signalling is a way to find your tribe...kinda like back in university, you would look at people’s CD collections to see if they liked the same kind of music as you did. 

My biggest issue with this term is that it is more and more used as a way to dismiss and shut down dialog.  It usually plays out this way - Person A makes a statement that aligns with their value system - let’s use the example of someone who shares that they are a vegetarian because it is better for the environment, and they willingly put the environment ahead of their carnivorous instincts.  Person B is someone who likes to eat beef, and would never ever give it up.  Like the majority of people, Person B will usually take Person A’s statement as a personal attack (usually it isn’t a personal attack, but we all seem to think everything written on the internet is all about us as individuals).  So Person B feels butt hurt about Person A’s statement, and instead of engaging in a dialog, or heaven forbid, expand their understanding of a differing point of view, they will shut down the dialog by accusing Person A of the evil “virtue signalling”.  It really is strange to watch it catch on.

So, how long have you been a vegetarian?

And why do you feel the need to tell the rest of us? Can't you just be a quiet vegetarian?

I am going to give you both the benefit of assuming you are joking. 

This does highlight another problem with the whole “Virtue signalling” thing, people who claim it will often jump to conclusions about someone’s intent, and assuming veiled meaning where there probably isn’t one. 

I personally am not a vegetarian, but I don’t usually feel butt hurt when someone else tells me they are one either. 

[FIRE Artist]

Is a lack of virtue signalling considered the new virtue signalling?

Is that kind of like how atheism is actually a religion? 

[FIRE Artist]

Often people who use the phrase "virtue signalling" seem to think that others don't sincerely hold moral or ethical beliefs. The idea seems to be that taking a public stance on an issue (particularly those things flagged as "social justice" issues) is just a performance staged for brownie points.

For this reason, I consider people who use the phrase "virtue signaling" to be engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

Not to mention, accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is a form of virtue signaling in itself.

That is a very succinct way to describe why I dislike this term so much.  Thank you!

It really is a form of personal attack isn’t it?  If that were accepted to be true, accusing someone of virtue signalling goes against the rules of most forums that I am a part of.

[Travis]

Often people who use the phrase "virtue signalling" seem to think that others don't sincerely hold moral or ethical beliefs. The idea seems to be that taking a public stance on an issue (particularly those things flagged as "social justice" issues) is just a performance staged for brownie points.

For this reason, I consider people who use the phrase "virtue signaling" to be engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

Not to mention, accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is a form of virtue signaling in itself.

That is a very succinct way to describe why I dislike this term so much.  Thank you!

It really is a form of personal attack isn’t it?  If that were accepted to be true, accusing someone of virtue signalling goes against the rules of most forums that I am a part of.

Yes we were joking. Thank you for seeing it.

Calling someone out for virtue signaling as your go-to response just means you don't have anything useful to say in response.

Do I think some people highlight their actions to win some kind of "I'm better than you" competition? Absolutely. Usually they're pretty clear about that intention though.  I don't begrudge somebody for being proud of doing something they think was a good thing and sharing that news. 

[Bloop Bloop]

Often people who use the phrase "virtue signalling" seem to think that others don't sincerely hold moral or ethical beliefs. The idea seems to be that taking a public stance on an issue (particularly those things flagged as "social justice" issues) is just a performance staged for brownie points.

For this reason, I consider people who use the phrase "virtue signaling" to be engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

Not to mention, accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is a form of virtue signaling in itself.

That is a very succinct way to describe why I dislike this term so much.  Thank you!

It really is a form of personal attack isn’t it?  If that were accepted to be true, accusing someone of virtue signalling goes against the rules of most forums that I am a part of.

I think the reason people react to displays of virtue and call it "virtue signalling" is because it can often be tone deaf.

To me, saying something like "I am vegetarian because I think it's a more ethical choice" is a perfectly fine, in fact unimpeachable, proposition. But saying something like "I wish everyone could be vegetarian" strikes me as tone deaf because it is often harder or more expensive to live a healthy vegetarian lifestyle, or at the very least it takes some knowledge and getting used to.

Vegetarianism is a bad example maybe because it's something that I think is universally difficult to criticise. But with other things like electric vehicles and bicycling to work etc I can see a much easier counter-argument. Not everyone is lucky enough to live within biking range to work and not everyone has the physical capacity or energy to bike a long commute. Likewise, many EVs are just more expensive than the rest. So people saying tone deaf and smug things about biking to work, etc, can rub a lot of people up the wrong way.

[js82]

Often people who use the phrase "virtue signalling" seem to think that others don't sincerely hold moral or ethical beliefs. The idea seems to be that taking a public stance on an issue (particularly those things flagged as "social justice" issues) is just a performance staged for brownie points.

To me, what defines "virtue signaling" is the intent - asserting one's beliefs for the sake of tribal identification without the expectation of creating change is virtue signaling.  Attempting to create change is not, as the primary purpose is more than to "signal".  To that end:  Almost all bumper stickers(except for the ones that are just intended to be funny) are some form of virtue signaling.  Most things more consequential than a bumper sticker you can't really render a judgement without knowing someone's intent(was the fact that it's an EV a factor in someone's decision to buy a Tesla, or was it just a great car according to their personal criteria?  You don't know without being inside their head).

Commonly, those who decry others as "virtue signalling" tend to be of a certain political persuasion(See Kris' comment about how accusing others of virtue signaling can, in itself be a form of virtue signaling).  However both ends of the political spectrum engage in it - however the conservative and liberal "flavors" of it look very different.

[zolotiyeruki]

I think the reason people react to displays of virtue and call it "virtue signalling" is because it can often be tone deaf.

To me, saying something like "I am vegetarian because I think it's a more ethical choice" is a perfectly fine, in fact unimpeachable, proposition. But saying something like "I wish everyone could be vegetarian" strikes me as tone deaf because it is often harder or more expensive to live a healthy vegetarian lifestyle, or at the very least it takes some knowledge and getting used to.

This is fascinating to me, because I had exactly the opposite reaction as you did to those two phrasings.  My instinctive reaction to "More ethical choice" is that the phrase implies that the speaker is morally superior to the listener, while "I wish everyone could be vegetarian" strikes me as more of an invitation to share the happiness the speaker gets from being vegetarian.

I'm not saying that my interpretation is right and you're wrong, I'm just intrigued by the fact that there's such a disparity of reaction.

[bluebelle]

right now "pivot" is annoying me.....seems like we're all 'pivoting'....one company town hall, the talking heads said it so often I felt like we were spinning in place! 

[mrmoonymartian]

I think the reason people react to displays of virtue and call it "virtue signalling" is because it can often be tone deaf.

To me, saying something like "I am vegetarian because I think it's a more ethical choice" is a perfectly fine, in fact unimpeachable, proposition. But saying something like "I wish everyone could be vegetarian" strikes me as tone deaf because it is often harder or more expensive to live a healthy vegetarian lifestyle, or at the very least it takes some knowledge and getting used to.

This is fascinating to me, because I had exactly the opposite reaction as you did to those two phrasings.  My instinctive reaction to "More ethical choice" is that the phrase implies that the speaker is morally superior to the listener, while "I wish everyone could be vegetarian" strikes me as more of an invitation to share the happiness the speaker gets from being vegetarian.

I'm not saying that my interpretation is right and you're wrong, I'm just intrigued by the fact that there's such a disparity of reaction.

The statement "I wish everyone could be vegetarian", though clear, is ambiguous in this internet age where precise communication is infrequently encountered.

The literal interpretation is that it is a statement of one's desire for a possibility to exist. It makes no comment on whether the speaker also desires for the possibility to be realised. If they had said "I wish everyone (would be/were/became) vegetarian", then that would be a much stronger position worthy of debate. As it stands, they appear to be claiming that not everyone can be, but they would like everyone to have that option. If they already thought that everyone could be, then continuing to wish for that possibility would be redundant/nonsensical. So if they are logical enough to have this meaningful conversation, which they are, then they mustn't think everyone could be. Their motive for wishing for everyone to have the option to be vegetarian remains unknown.

You could argue that they meant more than the literal interpretation, or that their motive could somehow be divined. That is possible, but remains unsupported without further information. Otherwise whatever is ascribed beyond the most basic interpretation is at best a random guess, and at worst a biased projection.

"There is nothing outside the text" - Jacques Derrida

[Morning Glory]

The topic of vegetarians has made me think about how I hate the term "plant based"  because it is so misleading. When I see it I think it should mean a Micheal Pollan/ flexitarian/ mostly plants diet, but instead people have started saying"plant based" to mean "vegan".

[shelivesthedream]

The topic of vegetarians has made me think about how I hate the term "plant based"  because it is so misleading. When I see it I think it should mean a Micheal Pollan/ flexitarian/ mostly plants diet, but instead people have started saying"plant based" to mean "vegan".

Agree. Plant-based diet = flexitarianish. Vegan = ...plant diet, I guess!

[GreenSheep]

The topic of vegetarians has made me think about how I hate the term "plant based"  because it is so misleading. When I see it I think it should mean a Micheal Pollan/ flexitarian/ mostly plants diet, but instead people have started saying"plant based" to mean "vegan".

Agree. Plant-based diet = flexitarianish. Vegan = ...plant diet, I guess!

This drives me nuts, too. I am technically vegan, but I hate that word because it's so ethically/morally charged, and I don't want to give the impression that I think I'm better than anyone, or judging anyone, by being vegan. Also, I do it for my health, and just any old vegan diet is not necessarily healthy.

Fries and a Coke are vegan. There are vegan burgers that are nearly as unhealthy as cow burgers. There's vegan ice cream. Donuts. Any junk you want is out there somewhere in vegan form. "Whole food plant based" sort of captures it, but that still leaves room for some things that don't come from plants, and you also get people who want to split hairs about what, exactly, is a whole food. And there are even a handful of plant foods that I don't eat.

Really, the best thing would be if we could all just do away with these labels. It's so rude to look down your nose at someone while they're eating and ask, "So... what ARE you? Vegan or something?" I'm not the vegan who announces my "status" to the whole table, but people notice, and then they want to know what box to put me in. It really doesn't matter unless you're cooking for me.

[imadandylion]

"the new normal"

Glad I'm not the only one. It's like during the 2008 recession when people were constantly saying, "in this economy."

Also, I hate, "triggered." People don't know what it means, then use it in instances where someone disagrees with them and because they deem them to be too passionate, they must be "triggered."

And since I'm here, "Everything in moderation." Literally no one understands what that is. Usually meant to make people feel better about themselves for eating junk food, sweets, fast food, or other unhealthy indulgences multiple times a week.

[GreenSheep]

"the new normal"

Glad I'm not the only one. It's like during the 2008 recession when people were constantly saying, "in this economy."

Also, I hate, "triggered." People don't know what it means, then use it in instances where someone disagrees with them and because they deem them to be too passionate, they must be "triggered."

And since I'm here, "Everything in moderation." Literally no one understands what that is. Usually meant to make people feel better about themselves for eating junk food, sweets, fast food, or other unhealthy indulgences multiple times a week.

I agree with all of these. As for "moderation," I heard a good take on that recently. Someone said that bad things should be minimized, not moderated, and GOOD things should be done in moderation rather than in excess. "Moderation" of heroin, for example, is a terrible idea. But exercising or eating kale or spending time with your children... those are all great things that people should do, but they shouldn't do any of them 24 hours a day. You don't want to hurt yourself over-exercising, you can't get enough calories eating only kale, and your children need to learn to spend time with other people sometimes. So... moderation for good things, but not for bad things.

[mrmoonymartian]

"the new normal"

Glad I'm not the only one. It's like during the 2008 recession when people were constantly saying, "in this economy."

Also, I hate, "triggered." People don't know what it means, then use it in instances where someone disagrees with them and because they deem them to be too passionate, they must be "triggered."

And since I'm here, "Everything in moderation." Literally no one understands what that is. Usually meant to make people feel better about themselves for eating junk food, sweets, fast food, or other unhealthy indulgences multiple times a week.

I agree with all of these. As for "moderation," I heard a good take on that recently. Someone said that bad things should be minimized, not moderated, and GOOD things should be done in moderation rather than in excess. "Moderation" of heroin, for example, is a terrible idea. But exercising or eating kale or spending time with your children... those are all great things that people should do, but they shouldn't do any of them 24 hours a day. You don't want to hurt yourself over-exercising, you can't get enough calories eating only kale, and your children need to learn to spend time with other people sometimes. So... moderation for good things, but not for bad things.

If it is good, then it should be done in moderation.
Doing good things in moderation is good.
Therefore doing good things in moderation should be done in moderation.

[Dicey]

"the new normal"

Glad I'm not the only one. It's like during the 2008 recession when people were constantly saying, "in this economy."

Also, I hate, "triggered." People don't know what it means, then use it in instances where someone disagrees with them and because they deem them to be too passionate, they must be "triggered."

And since I'm here, "Everything in moderation." Literally no one understands what that is. Usually meant to make people feel better about themselves for eating junk food, sweets, fast food, or other unhealthy indulgences multiple times a week.

I agree with all of these. As for "moderation," I heard a good take on that recently. Someone said that bad things should be minimized, not moderated, and GOOD things should be done in moderation rather than in excess. "Moderation" of heroin, for example, is a terrible idea. But exercising or eating kale or spending time with your children... those are all great things that people should do, but they shouldn't do any of them 24 hours a day. You don't want to hurt yourself over-exercising, you can't get enough calories eating only kale, and your children need to learn to spend time with other people sometimes. So... moderation for good things, but not for bad things.

If it is good, then it should be done in moderation.
Doing good things in moderation is good.
Therefore doing good things in moderation should be done in moderation.

Heh heh, I like the way you think.

[GreenSheep]

"Cover your assets" might have been a cute play on words the first time it was used, but now it's just... tired.

Also, I came across this article that might interest those who are following this thread. Uptalk drives me insane, but I do have to acknowledge that I say "I mean" and "you know" entirely too often. Since reading this article, I've really been working on monitoring and adjusting my speech patterns!

https://www.debbiegrattan.com/blog/the-most-annoying-speech-patterns-you-hear-all-the-time-now/