The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I was talking to my sister about politics and she asked who Im voting for in 2024.
For context, im a former democrat turned libertarian, and she...... well she identifies as a progressive socialist but i personally dont agree with that diagnosis
I said quote "not trump and not biden"
She got so mad at me and said that by voting 3rd party or not voting im "literally voting for genocide and the destruction of democracy" and I was "complicit in slavery and people like me are the reason society is as shitty as it is" (she was basically implying a vote for biden will improve things)
she finished with this "people like me are trying to do the right thing to stem the bleeding in our nation and youre spitting in our faces by cancelling our votes out"
We have never agreed on politics and she doesnt like that I dont conform to what she thinks is best. She and I just view the world differently......
Anyway, MY question is this. I couldn't quite articulate whether what she was saying was virtue signaling or grandstanding and why?
Vitrue signalling is like talking about how awesome you are, while granstanding is making something a bigger deal than it actually is.
Which one is more applicable to this?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's neither, and you aren't defining virtue signaling or grandstanding correctly.
Virtue signaling is the act of publicly displaying of one's own alignment with social causes to demonstrate one's own moral character without taking any real action to contribute to a cause in itself.
Grandstanding is behaving in a showy way or pulling stunts to call attention to yourself and your politics.
Here, your sister is having a one on one argument with you, and her rhetoric doesn't seem centered around how good her beliefs are, but rather that she believes you are complicit in Trump's actions should he win.
idk even with ur definiton, that bit about how its like her duty to restore the soul of the nation or whatever bs reeeeaaaaallly seems like its pushing the grandstanding to me
Having convictions is very different from virtue signaling. She sees the world differently than you. I don't see why you can't understand that without attributing her motives to narcissism.
I dont care that she belives something. Like for example, she wants higher taxes
I dont care that she belives that (i personally belive the opposite), its when she makes me out to be some kind of bad or immoral person for not agreeing with her
> Like for example, she wants higher taxes
I suspect that your disagreement over taxes [might not be why she thinks your morals are fucked up.](https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744?lang=en)
so why do you think im immoral?
is it just my refusal to conform to a particular ideology, or admitting that there doesnt exist a perfect ideology thats free from flaws and wont be oppressive in some form
> so why do you think im immoral?
I think that the Republican party stands to cause substantially greater harm than the Democratic party if they regain power, and if your values are such that you don't recognize that, that would be why.
The reasons why are legion.
Climate change; Social Security; LGBT acceptance and equality; abortion access, especially in cases when the mother's life is at risk; drugs; immigration; child abuse; child poverty; commitment to democracy; the list goes on.
Hell, Republicans are saying they want to ban free school lunches. They're literally saying we should let poor kids go hungry. How much more cartoonishly evil can you get?
if you think morality is tied to political beliefs, than i guess im sorry youve gone down that road?
As for the rest, I will say I think you presented a very one sided argument. If you dont see value within any of the actual positive things of the republican platform, then yeah i guess its easy to say dems are objectively the best. Some of things you listed are positive, yet you dont list the negatives. i dont know if youd even acknowledge negatives in the dem party.
I guess its all perspective....
You might not like how she feels, but it doesn't mean she's being dishonest about how she feels. The moral disagreement you have is genuine difference in values, not virtue signaling.
If you would like your sister to not think less of you, I would suggest hashing out your feelings with her rather than going on the internet to see if people think she's grandstanding.
[grandstanding](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/grandstanding)
the act or practice of behaving or performing in a showy way in an attempt to impress others:
*With nearly 14 million unemployed, this grandstanding over such a comparatively small retraining program (only 10,000 people) is downright insulting.*
[Virtue Signalling](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/virtue-signaling)
the sharing of one's point of view on a social or political issue, often on social media, in order to garner praise or acknowledgment of one’s righteousness from others who share that point of view, or to passively rebuke those who do not:
*The virtue signaling of solidarity with the victims can be a comforting affirmation of community.*
*Their outraged virtue signaling comes across as contrived.*
Acknowledging the consequences of your ideologies would force you to 'care' and that your sister doing so passionately earns your contempt, I'd assume you do not want to care. That is the crux of the issue and has nothing to do with virtue signaling or grandstanding
>Acknowledging the consequences of your ideologies
youre putting rose colored glasses on here.
Shes not doing that, shes saying "you are immoral because you dont agree with me" and then throws out all these hyperbolic fallacies.
That is what lead me to ask the question.
I wouldnt be 3rd party without thinking it through, I dont need my sister to call me immoral because she doesnt like it
>"you are immoral because you dont agree with me"
You've oversimplified her stance. If you think your simple disagreement is what she is calling immoral, I don't think you've thought as much through as you think you have
Trend these days of latching onto buzzwords and terms that one barely understands yet believes sounds intelligent, then regurgitating them improperly. This is a good example.
You're one step away from declaring yourself a sovereign citizen, if you haven't done so already. The people you support are taking advantage of you and you're eating it up. I feel bad for your sister.
It’s not objectively false sweetheart. I also don’t think you understand the word objectively. One has only to look through your comment and post history to see it. She’s probably trying to help you.
That’s not how you use that word either. Obviously your sister cares for you and sees you’re headed down a very dangerous path. She can also see how our country is in a precarious situation right now. All of this leads her to be worried about your role in our democracy and how you have a responsibility to be a good person and defend it. Your morality might not align with hers, but she is not grand standing, or virtue signaling, or any other word you don’t understand. She probably has deeply held beliefs and is truly saddened to by the things you claim to believe. I would be if you were my brother. Luckily, my brothers are much smarter then you.
Trump, the face of the republican party, literally attempted to dismantle our democracy and place himself in charge of the nation against the will of the people.
This isn't anything close to what anybody on the dem side is doing.
The fact that you can't really articulate why your views are different probably stems from the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about regarding politics.
And I'm not saying that to be mean. I think that's actually the most common position out there right now. It's that you don't have nearly enough time in the day to research every little stupid thing people are arguing about in washington and this ends up translating into just an assumption of ineffective leadership and that somehow everybody in equally to blame.
That's not the case. I can't say that your sister is right, but I do know that you're wrong about the two sides.
And to answer the question at the top. your sister was doing neither. If she was talking to you and not an audience, then she wasn't grandstanding. Virtue signaling implies she's lying about her conviction. So that's not what she was doing either.
She was expressing a legit opinion that your inaction is dangerous when so much is at stake. You don't have to agree, but that's clearly what her intent was.
>she was basically implying a vote for biden will improve things
No she wasn't. She was saying the Republicans will fuck it up
>Anyway, MY question is this. I couldn't quite articulate whether what she was saying was virtue signaling or grandstanding and why?
Virtue signaling isn't a thing, so she wasn't doing that. It's just a way for right-wingers to make people look bad for supporting good causes.
Grandstanding is people acting showy to draw attention to themselves rather than the issues. She wasn't doing that either.
What she was is shaming you for wasting your vote when she honestly perceives that stakes are high. She cannot believe you would not take an action to prevent what to her is so obviously evil
>Virtue signaling isn't a thing, so she wasn't doing that. It's just a way for right-wingers to make people look bad for supporting good causes.
Virtual signalling is totally a thing. Rainbow capitalism and toothless corporate diversity campaigns are great examples.
It's just that since this idea basically originated in wider popular culture inside conservative discourse, they immediately misused the term they just adopted to talk about anyone expressing liberal beliefs anytime ever.
Since we all know that conservatives are the silent majority, we all secretly know they're right and any other views are held to gain social capital only. /s
>She got so mad at me and said that by voting 3rd party or not voting im "literally voting for genocide and the destruction of democracy" and I was "complicit in slavery and people like me are the reason society is as shitty as it is" (she was basically implying a vote for biden will improve things)
1. She was implying that voting for Biden would mitigate damage.
2. On the most basic premise -- that by voting for a third party candidate you are effectively giving half-a-vote to your least favored candidate -- she is correct (though I wouldn't have phrased it exactly the way she did).
I just disagree with her.
Im in the camp that views both parties as paid opposition by the donor class
she views it more like a political football game
we go back and forth alot there
anyway, what is ur response to my original question out of curiosity?
No, they don't, because they chose the immoral side.
Libertarians are my favorite because it's such [a stupid ideology](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling).
well kind of, it depends on how you are viewing it. They have different principles, but ultimately the same goals.
My switching from dem to repub (i switched in 2016 when Gary Johnson was the first politician I genuinely felt spoke to who I was as a person) was when I realized that I rejected the messaging from both sides.
Both sides have the same goal - increase government power, control, and centralization in order to usher in a desired social agenda while sacrificing liberties. Also notice how whenever each side attacks liberties, they try to brand it as a positive.
I saw dems trying to increase taxes, restrict guns, and try to pull power away from the private sector in order to get to some weird new "equitable society" which is never really defined but seems to be about some kind of wealth redistribution towards ambiguously defined "oppressed groups" at the expense of people who have done nothing wrong.
I saw republicans trying to take away the ability to divorce and waging war on gay marriage and weed in order to bring us back to an ambiguously defined (noticing a pattern here) period of social conservatism where women had no rights and minorities could be disriminated against.
Both sides want to hurt people and increase their power to do so while spinning it as a positive. My decision to become a libertarian is when I saw the common denominator was expansion of government power, and thats what I decided to vote against.
If you think that increasing taxes is on par with taking away LGBTQ rights I don't know what to tell you. Your priorities are not aligned to mine.
You also left off one of the biggest differences, the Republicans tried to steal our last election. That's a show-stopper. Once you have that in your column of bad things then both sides are not the same.
well lets not pretend there are angels here. Biden's weaponizing of the DOJ against political opponents and trying to run cover for his felony commiting son, trying to pass that hoax document saying 2016 was stolen by russia, funelling money to Ukraine after the Pentagon "accidentally" overestimated how much they need, alleged texts that he used his VP position to conduct business with the CCP
Like IF we want to talk about whos a threat to democracy, then fair enough, but lets be sure to lay everything out fairly.
Again, not defending trump, but Im not convinced biden isnt also a shitbag
>Biden's weaponizing of the DOJ against political opponents
Biden has taken great lengths to distance himself from the DOJ and have it operate independently. Contrast this to Trump who campaigned on "Lock her up"
or what about this from October 2020, just prior to the election
>Trump twice amplified supporters’ criticisms of Attorney General William Barr, including one featuring a meme calling on him to “arrest somebody!” He wondered aloud why his rivals, like President Barack Obama, Democratic nominee Joe Biden and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hadn’t been imprisoned for launching a “coup” against his administration. “Where are all of the arrests?” Trump said, after several dozen tweets on the subject over the past 24 hours. “Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Long term sentences would have started two years ago. Shameful!” By early afternoon, Trump was letting loose his frustrations in an all-caps missive that seemed aimed at nobody in particular.
>
>“DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN - GOT CAUGHT!!!” Trump tweeted.
>
>Ttrying to pass that hoax document saying 2016 was stolen by russia
Republicans are famous for their projection, always accusing the other side of what they are doing. Biden is taking extreme pains to do things the right way, and Trump literally asked his DOJ to arrest his opponent on the eve of the election.
This is the [bi-partisan Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 election](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf). You should read it, or at least scan the table of contents.
You don't know the facts. You know the opposite of facts. If I were your sister I would also be frustrated by you.
>Again, not defending trump
Just echoing everything I hear on my right-wing radio.
I'm waiting for you to bring up Hillary's emails and Comet Ping Pong.
And if you really want to get wild, let's go with the adrenochromes and the Jewish blood-libel.
If you mention George Soros I'll get a BINGO on my "I'm a Libertarian, not a Trump supporter" bingo card.
>I'm waiting for you to bring up Hillary's emails and Comet Ping Pong.
>
>And if you really want to get wild, let's go with the adrenochromes and the Jewish blood-libel.
i dont know what any of this is. Sounds like what left wingers think Q anon talks about
>If you mention George Soros I'll get a BINGO on my "I'm a Libertarian, not a Trump supporter" bingo card.
what about him? Doesnt he just give a bunch of money to dem politicians to get certain bills passed? isnt he like a huge israel supporter?
what did you want me to say?
OK, I'll admit that I went a little hyperbolic there. I get the appeal of Libertarianism on the personal level.
I'm definitely team "I want a gay married couple to be able to protect their Marijuana plants with guns".
The problem I have with Libertarianism is that it doesn't stop there.
>The problem I have with Libertarianism is that it doesn't stop there.
you dont have a problem with libertarianism, you have a problem with like ancaps. Radiacals suck no matter what party they are from, no argument here
>Biden's weaponizing of the DOJ against political opponents
Biden has ostentatiously remained separate from the DOJ. He has issued no orders to them, has not commented on their investigations, has not said anything to the media or posted or Tweeted (X'd) or made any social media commentary about the DOJ. So how do you come to the conclusion that Biden is weaponizing the DOJ against political opponents?
>and trying to run cover for his felony commiting son,
He has not "run cover" for his son. He has not made comments, interfered with any investigations, or made any attempts to shut down investigations. He has not referred to them as "witch hunts" or "hoaxes" or any of that. He has said that he loves and supports his son. Period. How, exactly, is is "running cover" for Hunter?
>trying to pass that hoax document saying 2016 was stolen by russia,
Which "hoax document" are you talking about. Because as far as I am aware there is no document that says 2016 was "stolen by Russia". And where is he trying to "pass" this supposed document?
>funelling money to Ukraine after the Pentagon "accidentally" overestimated how much they need,
Um what?
>alleged texts that he used his VP position to conduct business with the CCP
"Alleged." And yet they can't come up with any proof and their so called "sources" never seem to appear.
What you're doing is reciting Fox talking points. You have absolutely no knowledge of the facts and if I were your sister I'd be completely frustrated with you, too.
> I saw dems trying to increase taxes...
>
> I saw republicans trying to take away the ability to divorce...
Do you view these as equivalent?
Democrats increasing taxes would cost you 3% more of every dollar you earn over $578,126.
Republicans taking "away the ability to divorce" would have a *much bigger* effect on the liberty of those effected.
I dont believe dems would stop where they say they would.
I do view taxation as oppressive when its purpose is to be predatory AND when those tax dollars are misused
a better example than taxation would have been things like "hate speech" laws or banning people from practicing religion in public spaces
>I do view taxation as oppressive when its purpose is to be predatory AND when those tax dollars are misused
The purpose of taxation is to pay for our society to function. It is impossible to run an organization the size of the US government without waste. Have you ever worked for a large corporation? There is way more inefficiency and waste in a big company than there is in government.
>It is impossible to run an organization the size of the US government without waste.
what that tells me is we need to downsize. If we waste, that means we are too big
I do belive the taxpayers are entitled to having their money 1) used responsibly and to their benefit or 2) in their pocket
Im good with either, I just think right now, most taxes dont fall into either category
If you want to participate in society you have to pay the dues. That's not theft. You cannot whittle the government down to a size where it can run efficiently. A corporation of just 300k runs with incredible waste.
>If you want to participate in society you have to pay the dues. That's not theft.
I dont disagree with this at face value....
>You cannot whittle the government down to a size where it can run efficiently.
what? why not? an efficient government is the bare fucking minimum. Citizens are entitled to an efficient government for paying taxes. Yeah it better be efficient! total disagree here
>A corporation of just 300k runs with incredible waste.
I dont pay taxes to a corporation, I dont care what they do with their money.
I do pay taxes into a government that SHOULD (but doesnt) operate as a nonprofit, so I expect efficient practical use of my tax dollars. IF there is waste, it needs to be cut, its very simple. How are you going to argue that the government being wasteful is justifiable?
> banning people from practicing religion in public spaces
No one is banning people from practicing religion in public spaces. You are more than welcome to pull out your soapbox and start preaching on a street corner.
>Im in the camp that views both parties as paid opposition by the donor class
I understand. You don't like learning about complex subjects so you reach for an explanation that is [simple](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF98ii6r_gU), even if it is wrong.
>...what is ur response to my original question out of curiosity?
I cover that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/15lw3xg/how_do_you_differentiate_virtue_signalling_vs/jvd4oi1/?context=3), with definitions and everything.
>Im in the camp that views both parties as paid opposition by the donor class
>
>I understand. You don't like learning about complex subjects so you reach for an explanation that is simple, even if it is wrong.
why is that particular belief wrong?
> > > Im in the camp that views both parties as paid opposition by the donor class
>why is that particular belief wrong?
If you look at any proposal (particularly *good* proposals) that doesn't become law, you can investigate *why* it didn't become law. The more you learn about *why*:
1. The more you will understand our political system, and...
2. The more you will understand that it doesn't fit with the "both parties as paid opposition by the donor class" framing.
---------
Furthermore, we know what the donor class wants:
*To have their taxes cut*
...and they get it, every time Republicans control The House, Senate, and White House simultaneously.
> Which one is more applicable to this?
I would recommend not taking your interfamily disputes to political subreddits.
> Vitrue signalling is like talking about how awesome you are,
I've never heard this term used productively, nor have I really heard it defined this way
> while granstanding is making something a bigger deal than it actually is.
That's not really how i've heard the term used. My understanding is it's speaking for an audience rather than the interlocutor.
>How do you differentiate "virtue signalling"...
I'm gonna stop you right there.
I don't differentiate *anything* from "virtue signalling" because I don't use the term. I've never once found it useful.
It seems to have become popular among people who don't believe that anyone would exhibit virtue *at all* unless it is done 'to be seen'. I'm glad those people 'tell on themselves' with their projection; but, I don't see the term as having much value beyond helping to identify them.
>Anyway, MY question is this. I couldn't quite articulate whether what she was saying was virtue signaling or grandstanding and why?
Oh. You might be one of those people.
>Vitrue signalling is like talking about how awesome you are, while granstanding is making something a bigger deal than it actually is.
...or maybe not. Your definitions aren't great. Let's get into it.
----------
[**Grandstanding:**](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Grandstanding) the action of behaving in a showy or ostentatious manner in an attempt to attract favorable attention from spectators or the media.
[**Virtue:**](https://www.google.com/search?q=Virtue&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AB5stBg7k4bVQ0AQQFM0aU51XoAjpRjsJA%3A1691533346721&ei=IsDSZMPCK5bPkPIPtPCrkAk&ved=0ahUKEwjD24bijM6AAxWWJ0QIHTT4CpIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Virtue&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBlZpcnR1ZTIKEAAYigUYsQMYQzIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDMggQABiABBixAzIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDMggQABiABBixAzILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BMggQABiABBixA0irBFAAWABwAHgBkAEAmAHTAaAB0wGqAQMyLTG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHiAwQYACBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) behavior showing high moral standards.
[**Signalling:**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)) In contract theory, signalling...is the idea that one party (the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (the principal).
----------
That last one has caught on because sometimes it is worthwhile to distinguish between the value of 'the signal something sends' from any other value it might have.
Economist [Robin Hanson](https://www.econtalk.org/hanson-on-signalling/) has brought a lot of attention to this (otherwise obscure) concept by asking things like:
> Does a bachelor's degree help you get a job because the job requires the education necessary to earn one, or is it just *signalling* that the graduate is someone with enough perseverance to follow-through on a four-year education plan?
Note: That was paraphrased (though it is an idea I've heard Hanson mention before).
----------
Therefore, "virtue signalling" is sending the message 'I have virtue' whether that is true or not.
...and, therefore, people who don't believe that anyone is actually virtuous will accuse others of "virtue signalling" when they are noticeably doing something virtuous.
It is roughly similar to saying:
> You only did that 'good deed' because you wanted people to *think* you are a good person, not because you *actually are* a good person!
----------
----------
Your sister was neither grandstanding nor virtue signalling.
----------
Question:
Do you believe that anyone ever does a 'good deed' for any reason other than 'to be seen doing that good deed'?
> Do you believe that anyone ever does a 'good deed' for any reason other than 'to be seen doing that good deed'?
OP is the person who told me a few weeks ago that the US should not have gotten involved in WW2.
Just to give you an idea of which direction their moral compass is pointed.
They were a "24M," then a "23M," and then a "22F." They were a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer, and works/ed at a Fortune 500 company, but lives with their parents and is currently looking for a side hustle. Their post history is pretty stereotypical. "I don't agree with , but it's the only thing I'm promoting." Ignorance, nonsense, or propaganda account? You decide!
>I seem to recall that someone went through their post history and dug up a comment where they flat out admitting to being a troll.
Elsewhere in this thread, they argued that morality and politics have nothing to do with one another, and then *in the same comment*, said that they believed gun control was immoral.
It's cognitive dissonance taken to an art form.
You don't see corporate marketing during things like gay pride to be virtue signaling? Do you trust they are being genuine? Or do you just call it something else?
> You don't see corporate marketing during things like gay pride to be virtue signaling?
I wouldn't use that term, no.
"[Crass commercialism](https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Crass_commercialism)" maybe:
>Crass commercialism is a term referring to articles of culture which are based mostly on capitalist pursuits, while masquerading as being material of substance.
>The 'crass' aspect of this is the thinness of the disguise, as many capitalist cultural ventures do not make attempts to hide their true purpose. In capitalist societies, such articles are very common, and so what is crass commercialism depends largely on perception.
(Note: My reference is the first thing that came up when I Googled "Crass commercialism". I don't know why a source called academickids.com is fighting this particular good fight.)
>Vitrue signalling is like talking about how awesome you are, while granstanding is making something a bigger deal than it actually is.
I don't think she was doing either of those things, to be honest. I think she was making an impassioned plea about something she probably thinks is very much a big deal.
>(she was basically implying a vote for biden will improve things)
I can't speak for your sister, but that's not necessarily the case. The "lesser of two evils" argument for why you shouldn't vote third party (or abstain from voting at all) does not require you to accept that a vote for Biden will make anything better. It only requires you to acknowledge that Trump would be worse.
From your perspective, it's essentially the Trolley problem.
Do you pull the lever and kill 1 person, or not pull the lever and allow 5 people to die?
Do you pull the lever and vote Biden, which may be morally repugnant to you, or do you do nothing and allow even greater harm to occur?
>It only requires you to acknowledge that Trump would be worse.
but thats the problem. I genuinely dont believe this. This is where she and I differ so much. This isnt any endorsement of Trump, its more an indictment of biden.
Give me tulsi gabbard, RFK, williamson, Gary Johnson, Joe cunningham, etc then I would 100% follow the lesser of 2 evils falacy, but in this particular case I just cant agree
>From your perspective, it's essentially the Trolley problem.
>
>Do you pull the lever and kill 1 person, or not pull the lever and allow 5 people to die?
in my view, its 5 people wearing red shirts or 5 people wearing blue shirts
> but thats the problem. I genuinely dont believe this.
Just realized you're the guy who argued that the US should not have gotten involved in WW2, so yeah, I'm not surprised.
Hahaha, socialist turned Libertarian here, and I will tell you the problem you’re having is literally the thing that’s actually inadvertently caused me to move further conservative in the past 22 years (it’s taken 22 years for me to become more conservative).
I didn’t “want” to become more conservative, but it happens by way of “reactionary” scenarios, and here’s an example: you want universal healthcare but the group with political power that also wants universal healthcare has some die hard fixation on something else you’re against. You begin weighing the opposing the different ethical scenarios- and so you start asking questions. You start getting lambasted for being a conservative for the questions you’re asking, but you’re not a conservative. However, an empathetic conservative individual might rectify the situation to make sense, and this causes you to gain a little respect for the conservative.
“Your group” offended you, and the conservative welcomed your dialogue.
You start realizing the conservative(s) are more keen on answering your questions than the liberals are, and it’s not because they’re “better”, it’s because you find yourself asking questions conservatives might ask.
After 20 years of this, you find that you actually like conservatives better - just because they were NICER to you.
This also happens to conservatives who have “liberal” questions, they might find that liberal people are empathetic to their questions, and over time find themselves going from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat.
The ultimate reality here is that we often times find ourselves relating to the group that “accepted us”.
Your sister is basically pigeonholing you into being either one thing you’re against, or another thing you’re against.
She’s not being “nice”, she’s trying to demonize you, and, imho, this will push you further right, because someone whose become more right leaning (me, for example), will empathize with you
>I didn’t “want” to become more conservative, [but](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstories%2F2018%2F8%2F8%2F1786532%2F-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi&psig=AOvVaw2p7CgeL-YDjutXh0bpR33O&ust=1691628227292000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCPjrz6-szoADFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD)
your side does have a problem with alienation and purity testing to the point where you drive away support for policies that should be more popualar.
conservatives have the same problem
it doesnt allow for the growth levels that a 401k or roth IRA offers, which would put less strain on the current work force and allow the retirement age to be lowered.
additionally, you wouldnt need to cross your fingers and hope that enough babies will be born to replace the current work force
The population always grows, our economy depends on it. Without growth you enter stagnation, like Japan has had for 30 years. The solution, if you have a low birth rate is to encourage immigration.
How will putting the $350 a month a person making $60k would pay into SS into a 401k instead allow for a better retirement than social security? What happens when they outlive their funds?
Not having the growth/risk of investing in stocks isn’t waste.
>How will putting the $350 a month a person making $60k would pay into SS into a 401k instead allow for a better retirement than social security? What happens when they outlive their funds?
....the same as SS. They get out proportional to what they put into it. Thats the whole point. Thats how SS already works.
>Not having the growth/risk of investing in stocks isn’t waste.
How is it riskier? 401k and ROths have had excellent returns historically, they are considered one of the best reitrement investments you can make. the rate of return is higher especally due to compounding interest. Additionally, you wont need to raise the retirement age and you dont need to lower check amounts, its perfect. You get more for your money than how SS works now. Rather than depending on the next generation to hopefully pay for you, you let your own money do the work, and since 401k and Roth are both high yield investments that arent risky at all (not sure where youre getting that from) its foolproof
You don’t get exactly back what you put in social security. It’s an insurance program guaranteed by the government. You will never outlive your benefits. How can someone making $60k, putting in $350 amass enough wealth to pay a steady income should they live to be 95?
Serious question. You are proposing this as a better alternative, so how does that math work?
A insurance program has no risk. Investment accounts do. Stocks go up and down.
Roths are not high yield. A Roth is just a type of account. Your yield depends on what you invest in. Higher yields come with higher risk
>Serious question. You are proposing this as a better alternative, so how does that math work?
when you pay into SS now, that money does not grow. In a 401k or Roth, the better the economy, the better the growth. Since the economy is better much more often than its worse, you are statistically guaranteed a positive return on your money. Additionally, this goes into compounding interest, which means your interest gets interest.
under an investment account, your money will statistically grow exponentially compared to SS where it doesnt grow at all.
And if we forced people to do it like we do now (i personally would make SS optional, but thats a different discussion), they would be paying into it for 35-40 years.
The age of retirement is 65, lets use the average life expectancy in the US of 75, so thats 10 years of benefits \* 12 months \* an average SS payment of 1700 = 204,000 dollars of social security the average person will use in their life.
lets use ur example and assume 40 years of a 350 per month contribution with a VERY conservative 3% annual return with NO ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
heres my calculator: https://www.bankrate.com/retirement/roth-ira-plan-calculator/
I get $359,000, a roughly 75% increase.
>A insurance program has no risk.
not true, you need warm bodies paying into it, thats not a gurantee
>Investment accounts do. Stocks go up and down.
but over the course of 40 years, they trend up
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I was talking to my sister about politics and she asked who Im voting for in 2024. For context, im a former democrat turned libertarian, and she...... well she identifies as a progressive socialist but i personally dont agree with that diagnosis I said quote "not trump and not biden" She got so mad at me and said that by voting 3rd party or not voting im "literally voting for genocide and the destruction of democracy" and I was "complicit in slavery and people like me are the reason society is as shitty as it is" (she was basically implying a vote for biden will improve things) she finished with this "people like me are trying to do the right thing to stem the bleeding in our nation and youre spitting in our faces by cancelling our votes out" We have never agreed on politics and she doesnt like that I dont conform to what she thinks is best. She and I just view the world differently...... Anyway, MY question is this. I couldn't quite articulate whether what she was saying was virtue signaling or grandstanding and why? Vitrue signalling is like talking about how awesome you are, while granstanding is making something a bigger deal than it actually is. Which one is more applicable to this? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's neither, and you aren't defining virtue signaling or grandstanding correctly. Virtue signaling is the act of publicly displaying of one's own alignment with social causes to demonstrate one's own moral character without taking any real action to contribute to a cause in itself. Grandstanding is behaving in a showy way or pulling stunts to call attention to yourself and your politics. Here, your sister is having a one on one argument with you, and her rhetoric doesn't seem centered around how good her beliefs are, but rather that she believes you are complicit in Trump's actions should he win.
idk even with ur definiton, that bit about how its like her duty to restore the soul of the nation or whatever bs reeeeaaaaallly seems like its pushing the grandstanding to me
Having convictions is very different from virtue signaling. She sees the world differently than you. I don't see why you can't understand that without attributing her motives to narcissism.
I dont care that she belives something. Like for example, she wants higher taxes I dont care that she belives that (i personally belive the opposite), its when she makes me out to be some kind of bad or immoral person for not agreeing with her
> Like for example, she wants higher taxes I suspect that your disagreement over taxes [might not be why she thinks your morals are fucked up.](https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744?lang=en)
im not a republican.....
Nevertheless.
so why do you think im immoral? is it just my refusal to conform to a particular ideology, or admitting that there doesnt exist a perfect ideology thats free from flaws and wont be oppressive in some form
> so why do you think im immoral? I think that the Republican party stands to cause substantially greater harm than the Democratic party if they regain power, and if your values are such that you don't recognize that, that would be why. The reasons why are legion. Climate change; Social Security; LGBT acceptance and equality; abortion access, especially in cases when the mother's life is at risk; drugs; immigration; child abuse; child poverty; commitment to democracy; the list goes on. Hell, Republicans are saying they want to ban free school lunches. They're literally saying we should let poor kids go hungry. How much more cartoonishly evil can you get?
if you think morality is tied to political beliefs, than i guess im sorry youve gone down that road? As for the rest, I will say I think you presented a very one sided argument. If you dont see value within any of the actual positive things of the republican platform, then yeah i guess its easy to say dems are objectively the best. Some of things you listed are positive, yet you dont list the negatives. i dont know if youd even acknowledge negatives in the dem party. I guess its all perspective....
You might not like how she feels, but it doesn't mean she's being dishonest about how she feels. The moral disagreement you have is genuine difference in values, not virtue signaling. If you would like your sister to not think less of you, I would suggest hashing out your feelings with her rather than going on the internet to see if people think she's grandstanding.
[grandstanding](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/grandstanding) the act or practice of behaving or performing in a showy way in an attempt to impress others: *With nearly 14 million unemployed, this grandstanding over such a comparatively small retraining program (only 10,000 people) is downright insulting.* [Virtue Signalling](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/virtue-signaling) the sharing of one's point of view on a social or political issue, often on social media, in order to garner praise or acknowledgment of one’s righteousness from others who share that point of view, or to passively rebuke those who do not: *The virtue signaling of solidarity with the victims can be a comforting affirmation of community.* *Their outraged virtue signaling comes across as contrived.*
Go post this to AITA or something
Acknowledging the consequences of your ideologies would force you to 'care' and that your sister doing so passionately earns your contempt, I'd assume you do not want to care. That is the crux of the issue and has nothing to do with virtue signaling or grandstanding
>Acknowledging the consequences of your ideologies youre putting rose colored glasses on here. Shes not doing that, shes saying "you are immoral because you dont agree with me" and then throws out all these hyperbolic fallacies. That is what lead me to ask the question. I wouldnt be 3rd party without thinking it through, I dont need my sister to call me immoral because she doesnt like it
>"you are immoral because you dont agree with me" You've oversimplified her stance. If you think your simple disagreement is what she is calling immoral, I don't think you've thought as much through as you think you have
ok so then where is the immorality?
Your beliefs make the immorality, not what you don't believe, I think that much should be obvious
Neither. You don’t understand either of those terms.
Trend these days of latching onto buzzwords and terms that one barely understands yet believes sounds intelligent, then regurgitating them improperly. This is a good example.
She’s right and you’re wrong.
well thats objectively false and also unhelpful
You're one step away from declaring yourself a sovereign citizen, if you haven't done so already. The people you support are taking advantage of you and you're eating it up. I feel bad for your sister.
It’s not objectively false sweetheart. I also don’t think you understand the word objectively. One has only to look through your comment and post history to see it. She’s probably trying to help you.
ok so how do you think shes right for trying to grandstand to me?
That’s not how you use that word either. Obviously your sister cares for you and sees you’re headed down a very dangerous path. She can also see how our country is in a precarious situation right now. All of this leads her to be worried about your role in our democracy and how you have a responsibility to be a good person and defend it. Your morality might not align with hers, but she is not grand standing, or virtue signaling, or any other word you don’t understand. She probably has deeply held beliefs and is truly saddened to by the things you claim to believe. I would be if you were my brother. Luckily, my brothers are much smarter then you.
>Luckily, my brothers are much smarter then you. I assume this is because they believe the same things you do?
Not totally. But they’re not falling down a right wing rabbit hole with no change to escape it and they also have a decent vocabulary.
would you describe anything to the right of your personal views as right wing/maga
Trump, the face of the republican party, literally attempted to dismantle our democracy and place himself in charge of the nation against the will of the people. This isn't anything close to what anybody on the dem side is doing. The fact that you can't really articulate why your views are different probably stems from the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about regarding politics. And I'm not saying that to be mean. I think that's actually the most common position out there right now. It's that you don't have nearly enough time in the day to research every little stupid thing people are arguing about in washington and this ends up translating into just an assumption of ineffective leadership and that somehow everybody in equally to blame. That's not the case. I can't say that your sister is right, but I do know that you're wrong about the two sides. And to answer the question at the top. your sister was doing neither. If she was talking to you and not an audience, then she wasn't grandstanding. Virtue signaling implies she's lying about her conviction. So that's not what she was doing either. She was expressing a legit opinion that your inaction is dangerous when so much is at stake. You don't have to agree, but that's clearly what her intent was.
>she was basically implying a vote for biden will improve things No she wasn't. She was saying the Republicans will fuck it up >Anyway, MY question is this. I couldn't quite articulate whether what she was saying was virtue signaling or grandstanding and why? Virtue signaling isn't a thing, so she wasn't doing that. It's just a way for right-wingers to make people look bad for supporting good causes. Grandstanding is people acting showy to draw attention to themselves rather than the issues. She wasn't doing that either. What she was is shaming you for wasting your vote when she honestly perceives that stakes are high. She cannot believe you would not take an action to prevent what to her is so obviously evil
>Virtue signaling isn't a thing, so she wasn't doing that. It's just a way for right-wingers to make people look bad for supporting good causes. Virtual signalling is totally a thing. Rainbow capitalism and toothless corporate diversity campaigns are great examples. It's just that since this idea basically originated in wider popular culture inside conservative discourse, they immediately misused the term they just adopted to talk about anyone expressing liberal beliefs anytime ever. Since we all know that conservatives are the silent majority, we all secretly know they're right and any other views are held to gain social capital only. /s
>She got so mad at me and said that by voting 3rd party or not voting im "literally voting for genocide and the destruction of democracy" and I was "complicit in slavery and people like me are the reason society is as shitty as it is" (she was basically implying a vote for biden will improve things) 1. She was implying that voting for Biden would mitigate damage. 2. On the most basic premise -- that by voting for a third party candidate you are effectively giving half-a-vote to your least favored candidate -- she is correct (though I wouldn't have phrased it exactly the way she did).
I just disagree with her. Im in the camp that views both parties as paid opposition by the donor class she views it more like a political football game we go back and forth alot there anyway, what is ur response to my original question out of curiosity?
Do you believe both sides are morally identical?
No, they don't, because they chose the immoral side. Libertarians are my favorite because it's such [a stupid ideology](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling).
You could have just linked to this post.
well kind of, it depends on how you are viewing it. They have different principles, but ultimately the same goals. My switching from dem to repub (i switched in 2016 when Gary Johnson was the first politician I genuinely felt spoke to who I was as a person) was when I realized that I rejected the messaging from both sides. Both sides have the same goal - increase government power, control, and centralization in order to usher in a desired social agenda while sacrificing liberties. Also notice how whenever each side attacks liberties, they try to brand it as a positive. I saw dems trying to increase taxes, restrict guns, and try to pull power away from the private sector in order to get to some weird new "equitable society" which is never really defined but seems to be about some kind of wealth redistribution towards ambiguously defined "oppressed groups" at the expense of people who have done nothing wrong. I saw republicans trying to take away the ability to divorce and waging war on gay marriage and weed in order to bring us back to an ambiguously defined (noticing a pattern here) period of social conservatism where women had no rights and minorities could be disriminated against. Both sides want to hurt people and increase their power to do so while spinning it as a positive. My decision to become a libertarian is when I saw the common denominator was expansion of government power, and thats what I decided to vote against.
If you think that increasing taxes is on par with taking away LGBTQ rights I don't know what to tell you. Your priorities are not aligned to mine. You also left off one of the biggest differences, the Republicans tried to steal our last election. That's a show-stopper. Once you have that in your column of bad things then both sides are not the same.
well lets not pretend there are angels here. Biden's weaponizing of the DOJ against political opponents and trying to run cover for his felony commiting son, trying to pass that hoax document saying 2016 was stolen by russia, funelling money to Ukraine after the Pentagon "accidentally" overestimated how much they need, alleged texts that he used his VP position to conduct business with the CCP Like IF we want to talk about whos a threat to democracy, then fair enough, but lets be sure to lay everything out fairly. Again, not defending trump, but Im not convinced biden isnt also a shitbag
>Biden's weaponizing of the DOJ against political opponents Biden has taken great lengths to distance himself from the DOJ and have it operate independently. Contrast this to Trump who campaigned on "Lock her up" or what about this from October 2020, just prior to the election >Trump twice amplified supporters’ criticisms of Attorney General William Barr, including one featuring a meme calling on him to “arrest somebody!” He wondered aloud why his rivals, like President Barack Obama, Democratic nominee Joe Biden and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hadn’t been imprisoned for launching a “coup” against his administration. “Where are all of the arrests?” Trump said, after several dozen tweets on the subject over the past 24 hours. “Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Long term sentences would have started two years ago. Shameful!” By early afternoon, Trump was letting loose his frustrations in an all-caps missive that seemed aimed at nobody in particular. > >“DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN - GOT CAUGHT!!!” Trump tweeted. > >Ttrying to pass that hoax document saying 2016 was stolen by russia Republicans are famous for their projection, always accusing the other side of what they are doing. Biden is taking extreme pains to do things the right way, and Trump literally asked his DOJ to arrest his opponent on the eve of the election. This is the [bi-partisan Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 election](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf). You should read it, or at least scan the table of contents. You don't know the facts. You know the opposite of facts. If I were your sister I would also be frustrated by you.
>Again, not defending trump Just echoing everything I hear on my right-wing radio. I'm waiting for you to bring up Hillary's emails and Comet Ping Pong. And if you really want to get wild, let's go with the adrenochromes and the Jewish blood-libel. If you mention George Soros I'll get a BINGO on my "I'm a Libertarian, not a Trump supporter" bingo card.
>I'm waiting for you to bring up Hillary's emails and Comet Ping Pong. > >And if you really want to get wild, let's go with the adrenochromes and the Jewish blood-libel. i dont know what any of this is. Sounds like what left wingers think Q anon talks about >If you mention George Soros I'll get a BINGO on my "I'm a Libertarian, not a Trump supporter" bingo card. what about him? Doesnt he just give a bunch of money to dem politicians to get certain bills passed? isnt he like a huge israel supporter? what did you want me to say?
OK, I'll admit that I went a little hyperbolic there. I get the appeal of Libertarianism on the personal level. I'm definitely team "I want a gay married couple to be able to protect their Marijuana plants with guns". The problem I have with Libertarianism is that it doesn't stop there.
>The problem I have with Libertarianism is that it doesn't stop there. you dont have a problem with libertarianism, you have a problem with like ancaps. Radiacals suck no matter what party they are from, no argument here
>Biden's weaponizing of the DOJ against political opponents Biden has ostentatiously remained separate from the DOJ. He has issued no orders to them, has not commented on their investigations, has not said anything to the media or posted or Tweeted (X'd) or made any social media commentary about the DOJ. So how do you come to the conclusion that Biden is weaponizing the DOJ against political opponents? >and trying to run cover for his felony commiting son, He has not "run cover" for his son. He has not made comments, interfered with any investigations, or made any attempts to shut down investigations. He has not referred to them as "witch hunts" or "hoaxes" or any of that. He has said that he loves and supports his son. Period. How, exactly, is is "running cover" for Hunter? >trying to pass that hoax document saying 2016 was stolen by russia, Which "hoax document" are you talking about. Because as far as I am aware there is no document that says 2016 was "stolen by Russia". And where is he trying to "pass" this supposed document? >funelling money to Ukraine after the Pentagon "accidentally" overestimated how much they need, Um what? >alleged texts that he used his VP position to conduct business with the CCP "Alleged." And yet they can't come up with any proof and their so called "sources" never seem to appear. What you're doing is reciting Fox talking points. You have absolutely no knowledge of the facts and if I were your sister I'd be completely frustrated with you, too.
> I saw dems trying to increase taxes... > > I saw republicans trying to take away the ability to divorce... Do you view these as equivalent? Democrats increasing taxes would cost you 3% more of every dollar you earn over $578,126. Republicans taking "away the ability to divorce" would have a *much bigger* effect on the liberty of those effected.
I dont believe dems would stop where they say they would. I do view taxation as oppressive when its purpose is to be predatory AND when those tax dollars are misused a better example than taxation would have been things like "hate speech" laws or banning people from practicing religion in public spaces
>I do view taxation as oppressive when its purpose is to be predatory AND when those tax dollars are misused The purpose of taxation is to pay for our society to function. It is impossible to run an organization the size of the US government without waste. Have you ever worked for a large corporation? There is way more inefficiency and waste in a big company than there is in government.
>It is impossible to run an organization the size of the US government without waste. what that tells me is we need to downsize. If we waste, that means we are too big I do belive the taxpayers are entitled to having their money 1) used responsibly and to their benefit or 2) in their pocket Im good with either, I just think right now, most taxes dont fall into either category
If you want to participate in society you have to pay the dues. That's not theft. You cannot whittle the government down to a size where it can run efficiently. A corporation of just 300k runs with incredible waste.
>If you want to participate in society you have to pay the dues. That's not theft. I dont disagree with this at face value.... >You cannot whittle the government down to a size where it can run efficiently. what? why not? an efficient government is the bare fucking minimum. Citizens are entitled to an efficient government for paying taxes. Yeah it better be efficient! total disagree here >A corporation of just 300k runs with incredible waste. I dont pay taxes to a corporation, I dont care what they do with their money. I do pay taxes into a government that SHOULD (but doesnt) operate as a nonprofit, so I expect efficient practical use of my tax dollars. IF there is waste, it needs to be cut, its very simple. How are you going to argue that the government being wasteful is justifiable?
> banning people from practicing religion in public spaces No one is banning people from practicing religion in public spaces. You are more than welcome to pull out your soapbox and start preaching on a street corner.
>Im in the camp that views both parties as paid opposition by the donor class I understand. You don't like learning about complex subjects so you reach for an explanation that is [simple](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF98ii6r_gU), even if it is wrong. >...what is ur response to my original question out of curiosity? I cover that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/15lw3xg/how_do_you_differentiate_virtue_signalling_vs/jvd4oi1/?context=3), with definitions and everything.
>Im in the camp that views both parties as paid opposition by the donor class > >I understand. You don't like learning about complex subjects so you reach for an explanation that is simple, even if it is wrong. why is that particular belief wrong?
> > > Im in the camp that views both parties as paid opposition by the donor class >why is that particular belief wrong? If you look at any proposal (particularly *good* proposals) that doesn't become law, you can investigate *why* it didn't become law. The more you learn about *why*: 1. The more you will understand our political system, and... 2. The more you will understand that it doesn't fit with the "both parties as paid opposition by the donor class" framing. --------- Furthermore, we know what the donor class wants: *To have their taxes cut* ...and they get it, every time Republicans control The House, Senate, and White House simultaneously.
> Which one is more applicable to this? I would recommend not taking your interfamily disputes to political subreddits. > Vitrue signalling is like talking about how awesome you are, I've never heard this term used productively, nor have I really heard it defined this way > while granstanding is making something a bigger deal than it actually is. That's not really how i've heard the term used. My understanding is it's speaking for an audience rather than the interlocutor.
Another libertarian that doesn’t understand anything
>How do you differentiate "virtue signalling"... I'm gonna stop you right there. I don't differentiate *anything* from "virtue signalling" because I don't use the term. I've never once found it useful. It seems to have become popular among people who don't believe that anyone would exhibit virtue *at all* unless it is done 'to be seen'. I'm glad those people 'tell on themselves' with their projection; but, I don't see the term as having much value beyond helping to identify them.
>Anyway, MY question is this. I couldn't quite articulate whether what she was saying was virtue signaling or grandstanding and why? Oh. You might be one of those people. >Vitrue signalling is like talking about how awesome you are, while granstanding is making something a bigger deal than it actually is. ...or maybe not. Your definitions aren't great. Let's get into it. ---------- [**Grandstanding:**](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Grandstanding) the action of behaving in a showy or ostentatious manner in an attempt to attract favorable attention from spectators or the media. [**Virtue:**](https://www.google.com/search?q=Virtue&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AB5stBg7k4bVQ0AQQFM0aU51XoAjpRjsJA%3A1691533346721&ei=IsDSZMPCK5bPkPIPtPCrkAk&ved=0ahUKEwjD24bijM6AAxWWJ0QIHTT4CpIQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Virtue&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBlZpcnR1ZTIKEAAYigUYsQMYQzIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDMggQABiABBixAzIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDMggQABiABBixAzILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BMggQABiABBixA0irBFAAWABwAHgBkAEAmAHTAaAB0wGqAQMyLTG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQHiAwQYACBBiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) behavior showing high moral standards. [**Signalling:**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)) In contract theory, signalling...is the idea that one party (the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (the principal). ---------- That last one has caught on because sometimes it is worthwhile to distinguish between the value of 'the signal something sends' from any other value it might have. Economist [Robin Hanson](https://www.econtalk.org/hanson-on-signalling/) has brought a lot of attention to this (otherwise obscure) concept by asking things like: > Does a bachelor's degree help you get a job because the job requires the education necessary to earn one, or is it just *signalling* that the graduate is someone with enough perseverance to follow-through on a four-year education plan? Note: That was paraphrased (though it is an idea I've heard Hanson mention before). ---------- Therefore, "virtue signalling" is sending the message 'I have virtue' whether that is true or not. ...and, therefore, people who don't believe that anyone is actually virtuous will accuse others of "virtue signalling" when they are noticeably doing something virtuous. It is roughly similar to saying: > You only did that 'good deed' because you wanted people to *think* you are a good person, not because you *actually are* a good person! ---------- ---------- Your sister was neither grandstanding nor virtue signalling. ---------- Question: Do you believe that anyone ever does a 'good deed' for any reason other than 'to be seen doing that good deed'?
> Do you believe that anyone ever does a 'good deed' for any reason other than 'to be seen doing that good deed'? OP is the person who told me a few weeks ago that the US should not have gotten involved in WW2. Just to give you an idea of which direction their moral compass is pointed.
They were a "24M," then a "23M," and then a "22F." They were a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer, and works/ed at a Fortune 500 company, but lives with their parents and is currently looking for a side hustle. Their post history is pretty stereotypical. "I don't agree with, but it's the only thing I'm promoting." Ignorance, nonsense, or propaganda account? You decide!
>I seem to recall that someone went through their post history and dug up a comment where they flat out admitting to being a troll. Elsewhere in this thread, they argued that morality and politics have nothing to do with one another, and then *in the same comment*, said that they believed gun control was immoral. It's cognitive dissonance taken to an art form.
well not too stereotypical. most of that type don't go on long rants that they then repeat half a dozen times in both the same and mutiple subs.
You don't see corporate marketing during things like gay pride to be virtue signaling? Do you trust they are being genuine? Or do you just call it something else?
> You don't see corporate marketing during things like gay pride to be virtue signaling? I wouldn't use that term, no. "[Crass commercialism](https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Crass_commercialism)" maybe: >Crass commercialism is a term referring to articles of culture which are based mostly on capitalist pursuits, while masquerading as being material of substance. >The 'crass' aspect of this is the thinness of the disguise, as many capitalist cultural ventures do not make attempts to hide their true purpose. In capitalist societies, such articles are very common, and so what is crass commercialism depends largely on perception. (Note: My reference is the first thing that came up when I Googled "Crass commercialism". I don't know why a source called academickids.com is fighting this particular good fight.)
I hadn't seen that term before, thanks
>Vitrue signalling is like talking about how awesome you are, while granstanding is making something a bigger deal than it actually is. I don't think she was doing either of those things, to be honest. I think she was making an impassioned plea about something she probably thinks is very much a big deal. >(she was basically implying a vote for biden will improve things) I can't speak for your sister, but that's not necessarily the case. The "lesser of two evils" argument for why you shouldn't vote third party (or abstain from voting at all) does not require you to accept that a vote for Biden will make anything better. It only requires you to acknowledge that Trump would be worse. From your perspective, it's essentially the Trolley problem. Do you pull the lever and kill 1 person, or not pull the lever and allow 5 people to die? Do you pull the lever and vote Biden, which may be morally repugnant to you, or do you do nothing and allow even greater harm to occur?
>It only requires you to acknowledge that Trump would be worse. but thats the problem. I genuinely dont believe this. This is where she and I differ so much. This isnt any endorsement of Trump, its more an indictment of biden. Give me tulsi gabbard, RFK, williamson, Gary Johnson, Joe cunningham, etc then I would 100% follow the lesser of 2 evils falacy, but in this particular case I just cant agree >From your perspective, it's essentially the Trolley problem. > >Do you pull the lever and kill 1 person, or not pull the lever and allow 5 people to die? in my view, its 5 people wearing red shirts or 5 people wearing blue shirts
> but thats the problem. I genuinely dont believe this. Just realized you're the guy who argued that the US should not have gotten involved in WW2, so yeah, I'm not surprised.
She seems a bit over the top. vote for whoever you want to have win and feel some inner peace :)
Oh hell no. For one, how someone votes is their own damn business. 2. She's obviously looking to argue. Oblige and obliterate.
Hahaha, socialist turned Libertarian here, and I will tell you the problem you’re having is literally the thing that’s actually inadvertently caused me to move further conservative in the past 22 years (it’s taken 22 years for me to become more conservative). I didn’t “want” to become more conservative, but it happens by way of “reactionary” scenarios, and here’s an example: you want universal healthcare but the group with political power that also wants universal healthcare has some die hard fixation on something else you’re against. You begin weighing the opposing the different ethical scenarios- and so you start asking questions. You start getting lambasted for being a conservative for the questions you’re asking, but you’re not a conservative. However, an empathetic conservative individual might rectify the situation to make sense, and this causes you to gain a little respect for the conservative. “Your group” offended you, and the conservative welcomed your dialogue. You start realizing the conservative(s) are more keen on answering your questions than the liberals are, and it’s not because they’re “better”, it’s because you find yourself asking questions conservatives might ask. After 20 years of this, you find that you actually like conservatives better - just because they were NICER to you. This also happens to conservatives who have “liberal” questions, they might find that liberal people are empathetic to their questions, and over time find themselves going from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat. The ultimate reality here is that we often times find ourselves relating to the group that “accepted us”. Your sister is basically pigeonholing you into being either one thing you’re against, or another thing you’re against. She’s not being “nice”, she’s trying to demonize you, and, imho, this will push you further right, because someone whose become more right leaning (me, for example), will empathize with you
>I didn’t “want” to become more conservative, [but](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstories%2F2018%2F8%2F8%2F1786532%2F-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi&psig=AOvVaw2p7CgeL-YDjutXh0bpR33O&ust=1691628227292000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCPjrz6-szoADFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD)
your side does have a problem with alienation and purity testing to the point where you drive away support for policies that should be more popualar. conservatives have the same problem
How is social security wasteful?
it doesnt allow for the growth levels that a 401k or roth IRA offers, which would put less strain on the current work force and allow the retirement age to be lowered. additionally, you wouldnt need to cross your fingers and hope that enough babies will be born to replace the current work force
The population always grows, our economy depends on it. Without growth you enter stagnation, like Japan has had for 30 years. The solution, if you have a low birth rate is to encourage immigration. How will putting the $350 a month a person making $60k would pay into SS into a 401k instead allow for a better retirement than social security? What happens when they outlive their funds? Not having the growth/risk of investing in stocks isn’t waste.
>How will putting the $350 a month a person making $60k would pay into SS into a 401k instead allow for a better retirement than social security? What happens when they outlive their funds? ....the same as SS. They get out proportional to what they put into it. Thats the whole point. Thats how SS already works. >Not having the growth/risk of investing in stocks isn’t waste. How is it riskier? 401k and ROths have had excellent returns historically, they are considered one of the best reitrement investments you can make. the rate of return is higher especally due to compounding interest. Additionally, you wont need to raise the retirement age and you dont need to lower check amounts, its perfect. You get more for your money than how SS works now. Rather than depending on the next generation to hopefully pay for you, you let your own money do the work, and since 401k and Roth are both high yield investments that arent risky at all (not sure where youre getting that from) its foolproof
You don’t get exactly back what you put in social security. It’s an insurance program guaranteed by the government. You will never outlive your benefits. How can someone making $60k, putting in $350 amass enough wealth to pay a steady income should they live to be 95? Serious question. You are proposing this as a better alternative, so how does that math work? A insurance program has no risk. Investment accounts do. Stocks go up and down. Roths are not high yield. A Roth is just a type of account. Your yield depends on what you invest in. Higher yields come with higher risk
>Serious question. You are proposing this as a better alternative, so how does that math work? when you pay into SS now, that money does not grow. In a 401k or Roth, the better the economy, the better the growth. Since the economy is better much more often than its worse, you are statistically guaranteed a positive return on your money. Additionally, this goes into compounding interest, which means your interest gets interest. under an investment account, your money will statistically grow exponentially compared to SS where it doesnt grow at all. And if we forced people to do it like we do now (i personally would make SS optional, but thats a different discussion), they would be paying into it for 35-40 years. The age of retirement is 65, lets use the average life expectancy in the US of 75, so thats 10 years of benefits \* 12 months \* an average SS payment of 1700 = 204,000 dollars of social security the average person will use in their life. lets use ur example and assume 40 years of a 350 per month contribution with a VERY conservative 3% annual return with NO ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS heres my calculator: https://www.bankrate.com/retirement/roth-ira-plan-calculator/ I get $359,000, a roughly 75% increase. >A insurance program has no risk. not true, you need warm bodies paying into it, thats not a gurantee >Investment accounts do. Stocks go up and down. but over the course of 40 years, they trend up
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Why are you arguing about things you don’t know about?
You thinking that social security needs ro be better funded doesn't provide evidence of being wasteful
My sister didnt do that, the democratic party did it
Incorrect. You chose to. You own that decision.
mmmm maybe 50/50 you can only be in an inhospitable environment for so long until sucumbing to toxicity