Ive given a lot to this discussion and you’ve offered very little. I’m pretty sure you’re just messing with me. Please engage with something worthwhile or disengage.
You’re not offering me anything. I dont over write in order to dominate, I am just very inefficient writer and tend to edit out 3 pages for every 5 that I write, on average. You put preachiness on me like you perceive I put things on you.
I’ve offered personal details and my own philosophy though, where you’ve typically mostly given one line snarky responses or questions. So to me you seem unserious and uncommitted to mutual understanding. Maybe that’s wrong but its all I have to work with.
If this isnt worth either of our time then what is the point?
It’s very simple: I was calling out the person I replied to for having a kneejerk reaction to seeing an article where a black person was arrested.
At best it’s vapid virtue-signaling, at worst it diminishes the real examples of systemic racial injustice that happen all too often.
You then chose to jump in, assume my views, and then chastise your own assumptions about me.
Of course I’m going to defensively insist that you point out examples of what you’re accusing me of. Why should I bother engaging with all your strawmen?
So that is interesting. What is wrong with signalling virtue? In your previous comment, you said that volume =/= value. To me it seems you don’t like when people try to be social and expressive, at least around certain topics.
You haven’t elaborated on what racial injustice looks like to you, you’re just gate keeping other people’s definitions. Those other definitions of racial injustice are vapid, but your own secret measure is beyond reproach. You ensure it is beyond reproach by never describing it or allowing it to be challenged. This implies a fear that you might be criticized.
Skepticism isn’t analysis. To me, it seems like you’re all too willing to diminish real examples of systematic racism. Again, by going after “virtue signallers” you imply that your own position is the real virtuous one. And since you won’t elaborate anything about it, then it is vapid, at least to me. As you can see I have no problem explaining my reasoning, and you won’t even really challenge it. So what’s the point?
You can’t or won’t prove your own ideas so they don’t exist outside your idealistic little thought cave. The most generous interpretation I can make based on our conversation is that you just dont really care about other people. That’s sort of normal, unfortunately, but it doesnt make you correct or even relevant.
I was playing games online a while back and a group of young people were in chat, and called one of the kids a “try hard”. The kid’s response: “I’ve never tried hard at anything in my life.” That is how your virtue signalling comment appears to me. I want people to signal virtue, and you clearly believe in virtue/value. Signalling it helps virtuous people to find one another, and together we might accomplish something. For some reason, youve internalized it as a bad thing and I really don’t understand why.
Please elaborate on who the victims are of that comment you originally responded to. Or is that another idealistic little hypothetical covering for your own lack of critical thought, as it appears?
The emphasis is on vapid. Do you really not understand why people respond negatively to someone interjecting with some hardly-relevant comment just to make themselves look good?
you said that volume =/= value. To me it seems you don’t like when people try to be social and expressive, at least around certain topics.
That was specifically about you saying that you had “given a lot”. Just because it’s “a lot” doesn’t mean it’s valuable.
You haven’t elaborated on what racial injustice looks like to you, you’re just gate keeping other people’s definitions.
Actually I haven’t done either. Because it’s not particularly relevant to my point.
Those other definitions of racial injustice are vapid
I didn’t say the definition was vapid. I said the act was vapid. Again, a wall of text about something I didn’t say or do.
Please elaborate on who the victims are of that comment you originally responded to.
Again: at best, the people who have to rifle through those inane comments, and at worst, the people who’s actual problems are diminished because the signal-to-noise ratio is out of whack.
When did I advocate for that?
Actions speak louder than words
Which actions?
Ive given a lot to this discussion and you’ve offered very little. I’m pretty sure you’re just messing with me. Please engage with something worthwhile or disengage.
Volume =/= value.
It’s clear you have no clue what my actual take or position is here and just want to post endless walls of preachy text.
Please engage with me instead of whatever shadow-boxing you’re doing or disengage.
You’re not offering me anything. I dont over write in order to dominate, I am just very inefficient writer and tend to edit out 3 pages for every 5 that I write, on average. You put preachiness on me like you perceive I put things on you.
I’ve offered personal details and my own philosophy though, where you’ve typically mostly given one line snarky responses or questions. So to me you seem unserious and uncommitted to mutual understanding. Maybe that’s wrong but its all I have to work with.
If this isnt worth either of our time then what is the point?
It’s very simple: I was calling out the person I replied to for having a kneejerk reaction to seeing an article where a black person was arrested.
At best it’s vapid virtue-signaling, at worst it diminishes the real examples of systemic racial injustice that happen all too often.
You then chose to jump in, assume my views, and then chastise your own assumptions about me.
Of course I’m going to defensively insist that you point out examples of what you’re accusing me of. Why should I bother engaging with all your strawmen?
So that is interesting. What is wrong with signalling virtue? In your previous comment, you said that volume =/= value. To me it seems you don’t like when people try to be social and expressive, at least around certain topics.
You haven’t elaborated on what racial injustice looks like to you, you’re just gate keeping other people’s definitions. Those other definitions of racial injustice are vapid, but your own secret measure is beyond reproach. You ensure it is beyond reproach by never describing it or allowing it to be challenged. This implies a fear that you might be criticized.
Skepticism isn’t analysis. To me, it seems like you’re all too willing to diminish real examples of systematic racism. Again, by going after “virtue signallers” you imply that your own position is the real virtuous one. And since you won’t elaborate anything about it, then it is vapid, at least to me. As you can see I have no problem explaining my reasoning, and you won’t even really challenge it. So what’s the point?
You can’t or won’t prove your own ideas so they don’t exist outside your idealistic little thought cave. The most generous interpretation I can make based on our conversation is that you just dont really care about other people. That’s sort of normal, unfortunately, but it doesnt make you correct or even relevant.
I was playing games online a while back and a group of young people were in chat, and called one of the kids a “try hard”. The kid’s response: “I’ve never tried hard at anything in my life.” That is how your virtue signalling comment appears to me. I want people to signal virtue, and you clearly believe in virtue/value. Signalling it helps virtuous people to find one another, and together we might accomplish something. For some reason, youve internalized it as a bad thing and I really don’t understand why.
Please elaborate on who the victims are of that comment you originally responded to. Or is that another idealistic little hypothetical covering for your own lack of critical thought, as it appears?
The emphasis is on vapid. Do you really not understand why people respond negatively to someone interjecting with some hardly-relevant comment just to make themselves look good?
That was specifically about you saying that you had “given a lot”. Just because it’s “a lot” doesn’t mean it’s valuable.
Actually I haven’t done either. Because it’s not particularly relevant to my point.
I didn’t say the definition was vapid. I said the act was vapid. Again, a wall of text about something I didn’t say or do.
Again: at best, the people who have to rifle through those inane comments, and at worst, the people who’s actual problems are diminished because the signal-to-noise ratio is out of whack.