Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

[Dhammanando]

To which I think the best response is MRDA.

MRDA is a response that could use a bit of clarification when addressed to someone who doesn't know what "All animals are equal..." means. I mean it could easily be mistaken as referring to the heteronymous Serbian footballer, Dragan Mrđa. And if it was, it would be all your fault!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang)


.

[Sam Vara]

To which I think the best response is MRDA.

MRDA is a response that could use a bit of clarification when addressed to someone who doesn't know what "All animals are equal..." means. I mean it could easily be mistaken as referring to the heteronymous Serbian footballer, Dragan Mrđa. And if it was, it would be all your fault!

Indeed, and I might also be accused (by those unfamiliar with the language, or used to txtspk) of advocating murder. That would also be my fault.

[L.N.]

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.

None of these examples constitute "virtue signaling" as I understand the term. Wikipedia definition ("... usage of the term has been criticized for misusing the concept of signalling and encouraging lazy thinking").

... Such people are known as 'gulfstream liberals'.

Maybe they are, but this is just more name-calling.

[L.N.]

MRDA is a response that could use a bit of clarification when addressed to someone who doesn't know what "All animals are equal..." means. I mean it could easily be mistaken as referring to the heteronymous Serbian footballer, Dragan Mrđa. And if it was, it would be all your fault!

Bhante,

I believe your reference is to the following comment made in the "Activism supporting Rohingya" topic:

The OP in that Topic stated as follows:

Alright in case anyone isn’t noticing, Rohingyan genocide is bad. What are people doing, activism wise? Does anyone have any ideas about how to influence international policy via either the UN or the US, or via international NGO’s?

Several people commented in that Topic that the graphic seemed insensitive to the plight of the Rohingya. The graphic contributes to the (mis)perception that DW includes Members who are pro-Rohingya genocide. It is not clear how the graphic was on-topic in that Topic, other than to assert that there should be no such activism re supporting Rohingya. Thus the criticism of the graphic.

Contrary to your assertions, Bhante, such criticism of the off-Topic graphic does not mean that any person who criticized the graphic "doesn't know what 'All animals are equal...' means," as you allege. In so asserting, you are commenting abut the capacity of individuals to know what "all animals are equal" means. Perhaps you can see how such a comment may be taken personally by those who, in good faith and in friendliness, criticized the graphic. I suspect we all have read "Animal Farm" and understand the reference. However, the underlying implication is that certain members of protected classes are animals.

If someone thinks the reference to "animals" in the graphic could be perceived as a display of insensitivity to the plight of the Rohingya, especially in the context of a Topic about supporting Rohingya, then the "fault," as you put it, lies both with retrofuturist for making the ambiguous comment as well as for those of us who (perhaps erroneously) think we can see how the comment could be taken the wrong way, especially on a Buddhist discussion forum devoted to discussion of Dhamma.

I believe it would be appreciated if you would refrain from making negative personalized comments (i.e. playing the person not the ball) when you disagree with someone, Bhante. However, you may of course do as you wish, and respect for you is unconditional.

[L.N.]

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:

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.

Accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is playing the person, not the ball.

You'll have to explain what you mean by this metaphor. Is accusing someone of "playing the person" playing the person, not the ball?

No, it is not. I would have thought the meaning of the expression "play the ball not the person" is perfectly clear. Perhaps you are more familiar with the gender-specific version, "play the ball not the man." A good clarification of the term is as follows: "We can be bold enough to make a stand and do battle for our views and beliefs. But we must strive to be mature enough not to resort to unnecessary personal attacks upon people with opposing views. The "ball" is our personal view and the "man" is someone with the opposing view." Source.

In other words, the viewpoints expressed are the "ball." The "someone" or person who expresses the view is the "man" or "person." Commenting about accusing someone of "virtue signaling" is playing the ball, as such a comment about the accusation of "virtue signaling" addresses the viewpoints expressed (namely, the viewpoint that of the accuser that the accused has engaged in "virtue signaling"). You, my friend, very often play the man (or person) by making personalized comments about the state of mind or other characteristics of the person rather than addressing the viewpoint expressed. Criticism of viewpoints substantively differs from criticism of persons.

(Edits in bold to correct imprecise wording.)

[binocular]

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

[Sam Vara]

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:

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.

[L.N.]

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:

"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.

[L.N.]

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

Correct! I am on the side of the less equal.

[Mr Man]

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?

[Spiny Norman]

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.

[Sam Vara]

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.

[Mkoll]

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.

[L.N.]

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.

[L.N.]

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:

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.