A Classic of Virtue Signaling


Do you dislike racism, anti-gay insults and stuff like that? Good. The left, I’ve learned, thinks you don’t. Take this section of an essay on hate speech here — which makes the classic error of advocating against free speech by pointing out that some speech is hateful. 

Ciara Hall:

The same thing applies to beliefs that are harmful towards specific groups of people. You can hold onto ideas that are transphobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever, but at the end of the day, you should understand that these are people who deserve rights and respect. They shouldn’t be invalidated, they have just as much of a right to take up space and be themselves as you do, and if you do make an active attempt to undermine their existence, then you should expect a response, just like you should expect a response if you actively walked up to someone and insulted them. In a society where free speech is allowed, you are free to hate as much as you want, but you should also expect to have it pointed out to you that what you are saying is hate, and you should respect their perspective just as much as you want your own to be.

Good gosh, people. I had no idea how folks have been willy-nilly undermining the existence of people. Don’t you know they deserve rights and respect? 

And apparently folks can still hold onto ideas that are transphobic, racist, sexist… I don’t hold these views, but it’s nice to know the parameters of ‘acceptable thought.’

The post is well-written and passionate. The writer thankfully avoids specifics about how we can enforce the undermining of the existence of people. 

As far as constitutional and human rights, I’m on board. Compared to this writer, I probably can be counted on more consistently to support the rights of minority groups in America, including transgender individuals, Amish bloggers, Republican sociology professors, ethnic minorities, people who stop at one or two piercings, women married to radical Muslim men, homosexuals, Lutherans, battered women, beer battered fish sticks and free thinkers. 

I support the rights of these folks to speak what they figure is the truth, without the hate-speech police accusing them of undermining the existence of people. I also support without reservation the right of this writer to type those ideas on the internet, without fear of reprisals (other than more words typed onto the internet.)

I don’t pine for a society which is more polite, if that politeness is bought with basic human rights.

This is just virtue signaling — the left-wing tactic of choosing to state support for things which sound nice in the abstract but which are impossible or terrible in actual application.

The whole essay is worth a read, if only to find out what strategies are being employed these days in the culture wars.

 

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “A Classic of Virtue Signaling

  1. writingmytaleblog

    I’m glad that my post inspired you to add on to it! 🙂 Perhaps ‘hate’ was an umbrella term that I used – comments such as these are born from a multitude of reasons, including peer influence or misinformation, but at the same time these are comments with the power to hurt people in unimaginable ways and I don’t think it’s wrong to say that we can try to do better.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Pablo

      Sure, we can try to do better but we are not and should not be compelled to. You are perfectly free to express your opinion, but the minute you try to impose it or enforce it as some sort of standard, you’re basically Hitler.

      Now, which is worse behavior, hyperbole or speech policing? I know where I stand. Evelyn Beatrice Hall settled it long ago (though this is often misattributed to Voltaire:) “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

      “Nice” speech doesn’t need defending. Our Founders specifically protected the right to be socially unacceptable.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
  2. Dave Alexander (formerly ukuleledave) Post author

    The basic problem is that there really ARE people who will be looking to take your free speech rights away. It will come as a way to curb “hate speech” or “fake news.” If they win, then we’re all in big trouble.

    The loudest calls for totalitarian speech codes come from the left.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Rain

      That’s because they believe they have the moral right to tell someone else who says something they dont like to shut up, and if they don’t shut up, then the left thinks they have the legal right to physically attack them, which is absurb.
      The really scary thing is NONE on the left ever think their shutuppery should ever be or will be used against them, while they may claim that Trump is a “tyrant” the reality is that THEY are the ones trying to strip rights from others (they dont agree with, that THEY hate).
      The Left ARE the Facists, in word and deed.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s