Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
binocular
Posts: 4408
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by binocular » Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:58 pm

All DW posters are equal, but some DW posters are more equal than others!

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2674
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:09 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:00 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:26 pm
L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:56 pm
Please provide canonical support for your proposition that one standard for Right Speech is that it is ok to call other people names (such as bullshitter) so long as one does not know it to be untrue.
I'm not making any such proposition.
Of course you are. You wrote:
Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:42 pm
The injunction
when one knows overt sharp speech to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, one should on no account utter it.
is not breached when one calls someone a virtue-signaller or a bullshitter, providing we do not know it to be untrue.
The proposition asserted is that so long as one does not know a pejorative name (such as "bullshitter") to be untrue, one may engage in such name-calling and doing so will not breach the Right Speech teaching that "when one knows overt sharp speech to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, one should on no account utter it." If you intended some other meaning, please be more clear.
There is no proposition asserted by me. You have attempted to derive or infer a proposition from what I have said, but your inference is not valid. A person bound by the Buddha's imperative that one should not utter sharp overt speech known by them to be untrue, incorrect and unbeneficial cannot engage in that speech because of the lesser condition that they "do not know it to be untrue". But they can utter such speech providing it fulfills the stronger condition that they know it to be true -(along with the other two conditions, of course.) There is a big difference between saying something just because you don't know it to be untrue (like, say, repeating unsubstantiated gossip or rumour) and saying it because you know it to be true. This is exactly what the Buddha says in the sutta you link to.
You, my friend, very often play the man (or person)
Does that count as "playing the person", or is it "playing the ball"? It seems to be saying something about me, something that I often do. No different from, say, saying that someone is very often confused.
Accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is playing the ball, as it addresses the viewpoints expressed (namely, the viewpoint that of the accuser that the accused has engaged in "virtue signaling").
That's great, as it means that any accusations of virtue signalling won't be criticised by you on those particular grounds. Although it does seem to be completely at odds with your initial post here. I'll check it out: You, L.N., engage in virtue signalling. Most of your posts refer to the very high standards of Buddhist virtue that you expect others to adhere to. Even though you don't noticeably adhere to them yourself. There! That's the ball played!

But in any case, I'm sure most people here will be happy for you to play only the ball, or to restrict yourself in whatever way you think fit, expressed in whatever metaphor you find pleasing. (It's a bit like voluntarily undertaking to refrain from using a particular letter of the alphabet in your posts: harmless, and even endearing.) Even if it's thought of as virtue-signalling, the worst that can happen is that those particular words might be applied to you. And that, as you have said above, is OK in "personballs" terms, even if unjustified in some cases. As for me, I'm not undertaking that particular restriction, and nor will I require others to do so, because (at the risk of repeating myself) there is nothing in the Buddha's formulation of Right Speech or the TOS which requires it.

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:25 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:09 pm
You, my friend, very often play the man (or person)
Does that count as "playing the person", or is it "playing the ball"? It seems to be saying something about me, something that I often do. No different from, say, saying that someone is very often confused.
It counts as "playing the ball" because it is discussion about your conduct/words, not discussion about your personal characteristics or state of mind. There is a difference between saying (i) "you often play the man" (addressing action); and (ii) "you very often are confused" (addressing the person's state of mind).
You, L.N., engage in virtue signalling. Most of your posts refer to the very high standards of Buddhist virtue that you expect others to adhere to. Even though you don't noticeably adhere to them yourself. There! That's the ball played!
I appreciate your comment, but you are playing the person. By addressed my purported "virtue signaling," you are asserting that I am a hypocrite, insofar as I do not practice what I preach. To the extent you assert that I am a hypocrite, this is "playing the person." To the extent you criticize my actions and/or words, this is "playing the ball," as by speaking words or expressing a viewpoint, I have placed a "ball" in play. In the spirit of friendliness and mutual respect, I have not placed my "person" in play, and I have never intended to question your personal characteristics or state of mind, Sam Vara. As stated, I agree with the vast majority of what you post here. My opinion is that you shoot yourself in the foot when you mix this together with personal commentary about others' characteristics or perceived state of mind, but of course you are not bound by my opinion, and you can do as you wish.

In my defense, I am not virtue signaling when I post about Right Speech. I acknowledge that I may not always practice Right Speech, and I ask forgiveness and understanding when this occurs. Sam Vara, if I have offended you (which I do not presume to think that I have), I certainly apologize. However, I have been entirely sincere in the viewpoints stated. My understanding is that sincerity is inconsistent with "virtue signaling," and therefore, to the extent you still believe I am "virtue signaling," you are making a judgment about my state of mind (i.e., whether I am sincere or not). This is your right. When you express such personalized statements to others (such as me), you may expect them to ask you politely not to do so. This is not necessarily an effort to control or censor you, but an effort to adhere to common standards of friendliness and mutual respect. It may be that "common standards of friendliness and mutual respect" do not exist.
... the worst that can happen is that those particular words might be applied to you.
That is not the worst that can happen. I don't care if the words are applied to me. I believe I have a better sense of my state of mind and personal characteristics than you have, or than others have, unless they have psychic powers of which I am not aware. So it is easy for me to accept what is true (e.g., I sometimes come across as arrogant, and this may appear to be prissiness) and reject was is not true (e.g., I know it to be untrue when people question my sincerity or accuse me of intentional hypocrisy).
And that, as you have said above, is OK in "personballs" terms, even if unjustified in some cases.
I don't know what "personballs" means and I'm too lazy right now to google the term and find out.
As for me, I'm not undertaking that particular restriction,
That is entirely your decision and your kamma
and nor will I require others to do so
Nor do I require you to do so or anyone else, but I do wish we could converse in mutual friendliness and mutual respect, without the below-the-belt personal attacks
, because (at the risk of repeating myself) there is nothing in the Buddha's formulation of Right Speech or the TOS which requires it.
Well, there is the following:
mikenz66 wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:18 am
"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it.

"Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.
But your are correct, it is not required. And application of TOS is entirely up to the Team, not you or me.

I agree to disagree with you, both about your views re Right Speech and also about your judgments of me as a person.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:25 am

binocular wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:58 pm
All DW posters are equal, but some DW posters are more equal than others!
Correct! I am on the side of the less equal. :clap:
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3130
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Mr Man » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:32 am

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:08 pm
Let me make things simple and clear by giving some examples of virtue signalling -

Leonardo Di Caprio made a documentary with Al Gore about concern for the environment and explained about carbon footprints yet neither one of them would have any problem in flying in their private jets from one continent to another. Its like when J K Rowling (author of Harry Potter) was tweeting about how the UK should accommodate refugees yet she remained silent when she was asked as to how many refugees she herself would accommodate in any of her mansions. Its like when John Lennon sang a song where he imagines a world without money whiles selling records and storing millions of pounds in his bank account.

These are all examples of virtue signalling where they would want you to ride your foot bike to work whiles they take their private jets all around the world. It is where they would expect refugees to settle in your neighbourhood but they themselves live away from all of that in their mansions.

Such people are known as 'gulfstream liberals'. They would expect you to lower your standard of living while they continue to live their lives in their privileged positions. Urban Dictionary definition of gulfstream liberal

But note that not all ‘virtue signallers’ are gulfstream liberals. You find plenty on social media. They are called 'social justice warriors' also known as neoprogressives. Urban Dictionary definition of social justice warrior. Gulfstream liberals share an overlap with SJWs even though they are not completely mutually inclusive.

The Brain of a Social Justice Warrior/Progressive

As for me I dont occupy any part of the political spectrum. For the record I have never voted in any general election (to elect ministers or prime ministers) or any presidential elections and have no plans to do so in the future. I am just saying this in case someone was about to call me names which I dont identify myself with. Because whatever name a person will call me as a political epithet - I dont share those views. I prefer to distance myself from politics as much as possible.

The bottom line is considering something as virtue signalling is correct when used in the correct context which I have shown above with examples. Therefore it is right speech when used correctly. It only becomes wrong speech when used incorrectly beyond its intended meaning.
Hi Dharmasherab
Are you "Virtue Signaling" (bold text)? You are clearly part of the political spectrum and if you do prefer to distance yourself from politics you haven't shown it since joining this forum.

Right speech or wrong speech?

Dinsdale
Posts: 5301
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:58 am

L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:33 am
The assertion is that the "virtue signaler" has not spoken a sincere position or been truthful about his or her opinion, but rather is deceptively parroting some perceived admirable position for the ulterior purpose of appearing to be virtuous.
What about when it's an accurate perception? Talking the talk, but not walking the walk. You do see it on Buddhist forums.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2674
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:23 am

L.N. wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:25 am
I appreciate your comment, but you are playing the person. By addressed my purported "virtue signaling," you are asserting that I am a hypocrite, insofar as I do not practice what I preach. To the extent you assert that I am a hypocrite, this is "playing the person."
Above, you said that
Accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is playing the ball, as it addresses the viewpoints expressed (namely, the viewpoint that of the accuser that the accused has engaged in "virtue signaling").
I've accused someone (you) of virtue signalling, but you say this is playing the person. Why is it that accusing "someone" of virtue signalling is playing the ball, but accusing you of virtue signalling is playing the person? You appear to be making this up as you go along, in order to criticise other people while exempting yourself from the same standards. Making up rules that other people don't adhere to might be emotionally stimulating for you, but you can expect criticism on the grounds that they are inconsistent as well as unbinding on others.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Mkoll » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:26 am

I usually try to avoid name-calling, but in certain cases it is warranted. LN, you are plainly acting like a troll. Whether it's more an act or more a genuine expression, who can say? Regardless, you're getting the attention you want, provided by others. Hopefully something good comes of it.

Carry on then.

:popcorn:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:37 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:58 am
What about when it's an accurate perception? Talking the talk, but not walking the walk. You do see it on Buddhist forums.
I agree you see it on Buddhist forums a lot. I disagree that this gives us license to judge and publicly comment about a person's characteristics and/or state of mind. The words spoken are the "ball." The ball is in play. I believe it is within the spirit of TOS to call out the words spoken in a polite way. I believe it is not within the spirit of TOS to call out the perceived personal characteristics/state of mind. Because we are expected to self-regulate and engage with friendliness and mutual respect, the "person" (i.e. personal characteristics and/or state of mind) should not be in play.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:48 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:23 am
L.N. wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:25 am
I appreciate your comment, but you are playing the person. By addressed my purported "virtue signaling," you are asserting that I am a hypocrite, insofar as I do not practice what I preach. To the extent you assert that I am a hypocrite, this is "playing the person."
Above, you said that
Accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is playing the ball, as it addresses the viewpoints expressed (namely, the viewpoint that of the accuser that the accused has engaged in "virtue signaling").
I see that I have created confusion by inadvertently writing in an inconsistent manner. In the OP I stated as follows:
L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:56 pm
Accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is playing the person, not the ball.
But in the post you quote, I inadvertently typed the wrong words. I will edit accordingly. Apologies for the imprecise wording which was unintentionally inconsistent with the OP.
I've accused someone (you) of virtue signalling, but you say this is playing the person. Why is it that accusing "someone" of virtue signalling is playing the ball, but accusing you of virtue signalling is playing the person?
It is not. Again, my error in creating confusion.
You appear to be making this up as you go along, in order to criticise other people while exempting yourself from the same standards.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:50 pm

Mkoll wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:26 am
I usually try to avoid name-calling, but in certain cases it is warranted. LN, you are plainly acting like a troll. Whether it's more an act or more a genuine expression, who can say? Regardless, you're getting the attention you want, provided by others. Hopefully something good comes of it.

Carry on then.

:popcorn:
If I have acted like a troll, I take responsibility. I have not tried to act like a troll. I have tried to be friendly and respectful.

This Topic is not supposed to be about me.

:focus:
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2674
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:59 pm

L.N. wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:48 pm
I see that I have created confusion by inadvertently writing in an inconsistent manner.... my error in creating confusion.
What confusion have you created? Who is confused? (I think you can see which way this is going, can't you.... :jumping: )

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:34 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:59 pm
L.N. wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:48 pm
I see that I have created confusion by inadvertently writing in an inconsistent manner.... my error in creating confusion.
What confusion have you created? Who is confused? (I think you can see which way this is going, can't you.... :jumping: )
Of course I can. You will now make further comments regarding "your confusion" as you repeatedly have done in the past. You will thereby go off-Topic, and you will instead address the improper topic my personal state of mind and personal characteristics. I have asked you please not to do this, but my request only emboldens you to engage in further personalized commentary regarding your views of my state of mind and my personal characteristics.

Once this occurs, if I say anything at all, this will result in further off-topic personalized comments against me and the possible hijacking of this Topic by the DW admin team for the purpose of further discussing my personal characteristics and/or state of mind, as occurred in this Topic.

You are correct that the wording in the post I made was imprecise and the post comes across as confused. I thank you for pointing this out.

For the purposes of clarity:

Playing the ball = discussing a topic presented (e.g., the topic of "an accusation of virtue signaling").

Playing the person = discussing the personal characteristics and/or state of mind rather than discussing the topic (e.g., accusing someone of "virtue signaling" whereby one puts the person's state of mind into play by ignoring the topic and instead focusing on whether the person is a hypocrite).

Following is playing the ball: You very often pay the person, not the ball.

Following is playing the person: You are virtue signaling.

You and others regularly try to discredit the speaker rather than address the actual topic when confronted with a view with which you disagree. This may be why you continue to make personalized comments. You are simply avoiding the discussion.

:focus:
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2674
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:55 pm

L.N. wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:34 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:59 pm
L.N. wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:48 pm
I see that I have created confusion by inadvertently writing in an inconsistent manner.... my error in creating confusion.
What confusion have you created? Who is confused? (I think you can see which way this is going, can't you.... :jumping: )
Of course I can. You will now make further comments regarding "your confusion" as you repeatedly have done in the past. You will thereby go off-Topic
No, not at all. I was referring to the fact that if you created confusion, then the confusion is mine. But according to your "rules", this enables me to claim that you are referring to my "state of mind" and launch into incantatory denunciations. Or does it? There's surely another rule that I have overlooked that you will use to exempt yourself from your own standards.

You needn't bother to present that rule, though, as I waive my right to proceed to the incantatory denunciation part of the game. And hopefully that explains why this is not off-topic: you claim virtues that you don't practice, which is to do with virtue signalling. Eventually, inconsistency is the price we pay for lack of authenticity.

User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Dharmasherab » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:16 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:32 am
Hi Dharmasherab
Are you "Virtue Signaling" (bold text)? You are clearly part of the political spectrum and if you do prefer to distance yourself from politics you haven't shown it since joining this forum.

Right speech or wrong speech?
No its because people start reading too far into what I wrote and then they call names like 'fascist' and 'neo-conservative' which I myself am not a part of. So people who are about to say those words can spare those words to whoever they think suits those words but me. Not voting and not occupying a part of the political spectrum does not imply a type of virtue - its just preference. Also being critical of positions in the spectrum does not imply that one deliberately occupies part of the spectrum.

How you view the term 'political spectrum' and your understanding maybe different from mine. People may call me 'libertarian' - the idea that my freedom to stretch my arm is limited to the distance by other people's faces and vice versa. Just live and let live as long as it doesn’t bother me or others with free speech and free expression. I just consider that a simple basic philosophy even though there may be people who might take that to a political level.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3130
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Mr Man » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:56 pm

Dharmasherab wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:16 pm
Mr Man wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:32 am
Hi Dharmasherab
Are you "Virtue Signaling" (bold text)? You are clearly part of the political spectrum and if you do prefer to distance yourself from politics you haven't shown it since joining this forum.

Right speech or wrong speech?
No its because people start reading too far into what I wrote and then they call names like 'fascist' and 'neo-conservative' which I myself am not a part of. So people who are about to say those words can spare those words to whoever they think suits those words but me. Not voting and not occupying a part of the political spectrum does not imply a type of virtue - its just preference. Also being critical of positions in the spectrum does not imply that one deliberately occupies part of the spectrum.

How you view the term 'political spectrum' and your understanding maybe different from mine. People may call me 'libertarian' - the idea that my freedom to stretch my arm is limited to the distance by other people's faces and vice versa. Just live and let live as long as it doesn’t bother me or others with free speech and free expression. I just consider that a simple basic philosophy even though there may be people who might take that to a political level.
Okay so your happy to be called a libertarian but see that more as a basic philosophy rather than a political position. You are concerned that you may be taken for a fascist or neo-conservative though. Fair enough.

Why do you use pejorative terms like "social Justice warrior" and what was the point of your you tube link "The Brain of a Social Justice Warrior/Progressive". Were you expressing your right to "free expression"?

Seems to me that you don't really like to distance yourself from politics that much.

So be it.

User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Dharmasherab » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:58 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:56 pm
Why do you use pejorative terms like "social Justice warrior" and what was the point of your you tube link "The Brain of a Social Justice Warrior/Progressive". Were you expressing your right to "free expression"?
I was thinking of using the word 'progressive' but once again people won’t be able to distinguish the difference between a dictionary/encyclopaedia definition of the term and its narrative in our modern day. As in according to definitions even I can be considered a progressive as I think some aspects of culture should change for the benefit of the human population (even though I don’t have a strong magnetic position on that). It’s just that the term 'SJW' refers to a specific type of 'progressives'. It just turns into a debate of semantics. I wish there was a more acceptable term without pejorative connotations.
Mr Man wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:56 pm
Seems to me that you don't really like to distance yourself from politics that much.
I went through a phase where I was interested in global politics but now I make effort to unlearn that. But modern day liberals are posing a threat to our freedom of expression and speech so something has to be done about that. It’s just that freedom of expression and speech are things that I value very much. But this was laid out of a silver platter to people in my generation of millennials so I feel that people of today don’t have what it takes to realise the hard work done by people from previous generations to make available these freedoms to our generation. But overall I wish I could just unlearn whatever the politics that I learnt.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:39 am

Greetings,

An off-topic post has been removed. So, here's a reminder just placed in another topic, which is equally apt here...
Terms of Service wrote: 2f. Ad-hominem attacks, including the vilification of individuals based on any attributes - whether related to their personal attributes (e.g. gender, nationality, sexuality, race, age) or their approach to the Dhamma (e.g. their practices, level of experience, or chosen tradition)
Dharmasherab is welcome here, and his parallel interest in Tibetan Buddhism does not negate that.

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:08 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:55 pm
L.N. wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:34 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:59 pm


What confusion have you created? Who is confused? (I think you can see which way this is going, can't you.... :jumping: )
Of course I can. You will now make further comments regarding "your confusion" as you repeatedly have done in the past. You will thereby go off-Topic
No, not at all. I was referring to the fact that if you created confusion, then the confusion is mine. But according to your "rules", this enables me to claim that you are referring to my "state of mind" and launch into incantatory denunciations. Or does it?
No, it does not. I took personal responsibility for writing a confusing post. The fault is mine. How can that possibly be construed as a comment about your purported confusion? Even if you were confused (which you probably weren't, I don't know), my comment in no way was directed at you or your state of mind. How could you construe it that way?
There's surely another rule that I have overlooked that you will use to exempt yourself from your own standards.
No, I don't think so. I have not been talking about rules, nor have I been exempting myself from experiencing the benefits of Right Speech. If I have engaged in speech which is not Right Speech, that afflicts me as much as anyone else. I know you will continue to argue, but really, I have tried very hard to be friendly and respectful. Why are we even discussion me? This is all off-topic.
You needn't bother to present that rule, though, as I waive my right to proceed to the incantatory denunciation part of the game.
Well, that's good. The incantatory denunciations which you have offered usually seem to be off-topic personalized comments.
And hopefully that explains why this is not off-topic: you claim virtues that you don't practice, which is to do with virtue signaling.
No, I have not done so. Your comments are off topic, because you are playing the person (me) rather than paying any attention to the topic (Right Speech).
Eventually, inconsistency is the price we pay for lack of authenticity.
Your accusation of lack of authenticity similarly is off-topic. If I tried to get away with these kinds of posts, I know it would not be tolerated.

At one point some time ago, I called out a DW administrator for calling someone "pig-headed." I just don't think public name-calling should be acceptable, no matter how annoying someone is. This apparently has resulted in the onslaught of personalized comments and name-calling. As such, I acknowledge that my public statement some time ago regarding the words of the DW administrator have contributed to this result. Even so, I have never tried to "play the person, not the ball." Commenting on words or actions (playing the ball, addressing the topic) is substantively different from commenting on a person's personal characteristics or state of mind (playing the person). So, having addressed the choice of words used by a DW administrator, I have some responsibility for the over-reaction which has resulted. Similarly, having at one point addressed your choice of words, and having politely asked you not to direct negative personalized comments toward me, I have some responsibility for this outcome in which you feel highly motivated to continue doing the opposite of what I requested.

But none of this is justification for you and others to now follow me from Topic to Topic and talk trash about me. I understand you and many others here have a very different view of what it means to speak with one another with mutual respect and friendliness. Apparently it means nobody can say anything about your actions/words, and if they do, then they are subject to being psychoanalyzed and called names.

:focus:

No "rules." Rather, Right Speech, which is beneficial for oneself and others. A few things to bear in mind, in my opinion:

1) Personalized comments, while not inherently "bad" or "good," are best used with caution, as they can lead to unintended misunderstanding.

2) Personalized comments are comments which address a person's characteristics or state of mind, not comments which address a person's actions or words. E.g., "troll," "your confusion," "bullshitter," "virtue signaling." Some comments are more likely to be taken personally than others.

3) While we are not responsible for another person's reactions to our words, we are responsible for the words we speak. If the words we speak cause unintended misunderstanding or some other disharmony, we can at a minimum acknowledge the truth that "these words I spoke have contributed to this result."

4) As retrofuturist has stated, a guiding principal is to play the ball, not the person (or "play the ball, not the man" as more commonly stated). This means addressing the topic of conversation rather than hiding the ball by disparaging the person. I have always thought that addressing the words spoken by another person is not the same as playing the person. Clearly, you and others disagree, and I have no problem with disagreement. You don't have to agree (of course).

5) I erroneously thought we all shared the common outlook of speaking with one another in the spirit of friendship and mutual respect, as stated in TOS, and that is genuinely and authentically what I have tried to do. We can disagree with one another's actions and words in a polite, respectful way.

That's it. If commenting about your choice of words or anyone else's choice of words makes me a "troll" and a "hypocrite," then that is your mental construction of me. One's mental constructions are part of one's kamma. If you decide to create a negative mental construction regarding me and/or others with whom you disagree, that is entirely your choice and your responsibility.

When you or I or anyone else uses the term "virtue signaling" as part of public debate, we are playing the person, not the ball, and I think we should be cautious when using such terms. I realize this is an exceedingly controversial position to take in this particular forum.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:14 am

I really like this comment from a different Topic:
DNS wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:23 am
This is a great community and could only exist with all the great participants we have here and the wide range of views we have here too. I know some subjects get very contentious, but in the end it demonstrates the plethora of views and diversity we have. We don't need to like or even participate in all topics, one can choose to ignore certain subjects or topics that one does not like. And another thing; don't take it too seriously! It's not like we're going to be heard by the UN or the U.S. Congress and they are going to change course in their decisions based on what we post here. And not everyone who posts here is Buddhist, so we don't represent some Buddhist Council either.
For those of us who might tend to take Dhamma discussion a little too seriously, this is a good reminder to lighten up.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests