Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. »

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: 7289
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Sam Vara »

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. »

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: 7289
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Sam Vara »

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: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Dharmasherab »

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: 3718
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Mr Man »

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: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Dharmasherab »

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: 23196
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by retrofuturist »

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

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. »

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. »

I really like this comment from a different Topic:
DNS wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:23 amThis 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。
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Cittasanto »

binocular wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:58 pm It's the virtue-signaller who plays the person and not the ball, and then resents to be called out on it.
This is my understanding of the phrases use.
It may not be correctly used at all times, for example, in hypothetical examples using first persons (you and myself in a situation ☓). However, this is not how it is usually applied.

Dy firrinagh focklagh
In Truth
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 7289
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Sam Vara »

L.N. wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:08 am I have not been talking about rules, nor have I been exempting myself from experiencing the benefits of Right Speech.
Of course not! :rofl:
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3718
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by Mr Man »

Dharmasherab wrote: 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.

Hi Dharmasherab
Thanks for your reply. Personally I don't think modern day liberals are posing a particular threat to freedom of expression and speech but I guess that is another topic.
All the best.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by binocular »

All this talk of playing persons and balls reminds me that a picture is worth more than a thousand words:

Image

Image

And this one, which is too big to post directly.

Always a person in that ball ...
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Right Speech: Virtue Signaling

Post by L.N. »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:35 am
L.N. wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:08 am I have not been talking about rules, nor have I been exempting myself from experiencing the benefits of Right Speech.
Of course not!
Thank you for recognizing that I have not been doing these things.
:anjali:
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