Read on Twitter
Let& #39;s talk about virtue signalling.
The phrases& #39;s full meaning highlights a serious issue: the performative allegiance with an important cause, done solely with the motive to improve one& #39;s own image (or satisfy conscience), rather than to take action/change things.
But over the last few weeks, an awful lots of campaigns and public figures have been dismissed as & #39;virtue signalling& #39; - most notably, Marcus Rashford.
Many left-oriented campaigns are aimed at large-scale things that are difficult to change (not impossible, just difficult). Individual direct action can be difficult to measure.
It& #39;s here that the insidious label of & #39;virtue signalling& #39; benefits right-wing politics. It brings a false binary and straw man argument: if you can& #39;t personally bring about change on an issue, discussion of it can be written off as mere signalling to make yourself look better.
It silences debate. A similar thing was said around the 2011 Occupy protests (where protestors still drank coffee from Starbucks): i.e. & #39;you can& #39;t criticise a system if you& #39;re still within it& #39;, despite that the fact that we live in a society and economy.
It also betrays callousness on the person using the term dismissively: & #39;I dismiss your good will as mere selfishness& #39;. It shows that the & #39;virtuous& #39; character trait (i.e. high moral standards) is something that they do not value.
To be clear: everyone who praises a cause should be taking some action to support it (just sharing on social media isn& #39;t enough). But that can be easily (and privately done): donating to legal funds/charities, pressure on MPs and councillors, and street protest.
