Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[Lat-Literal]

Wasn't that a bible story - Pharisees publicly declaring their charity? It is popular as a putdown in the Grauniad BTL community in that sense and also, following on I suppose, in the sense that just because one does desirable action A does not bring entitlement to pronounce on contentious issue B. However it is used it more often than not seems to result in a slanging match rather than debate of the matter under consideration.

It is closely related to ad hominem which is another phrase popularised by social media. Slanging matches do occur. There is a semi-imposed etiquette - originally from California? - which probably makes sense given that it is writing and the informative ways of facial expression and intonation are not reachable. But such matters are inconsistent. To say verbally in conversation and perhaps even in the written form that someone is crazy should in theory be felt as personal and deeply offensive. Mostly it isn't because when it is generally used it is assumed by both parties that it isn't meant literally. Rather, it is silently agreed that it is merely exclamation. So even the ad hominem can be defined by its perceived angularity.

[french frank]

What I would be seeking to convey is "it looks good and you might well think it makes you look good but it won't work".

That's the bit of the phrase that causes me trouble. The implication that there is this ulterior motive to what someone is doing. As ood suggests: Pharisaical. But it still isn't actually Pharisaical. It's someone saying: "I think you're being Pharisaical".

[Lat-Literal]

That's the bit of the phrase that causes me trouble. The implication that there is this ulterior motive to what someone is doing. As ood suggests: Pharisaical. But it still isn't actually Pharisaical. It's someone saying: "I think you're being Pharisaical".

Erm…….not sure. This came with my own chosen topic of unenforced speed limits. The principal motive on the part of the Council is to reduce speeds. That is fact. The unenforced part is a lack of cash. The virtue signalling is a genuine wish to achieve as much of the motive that is possible. The perception by one party that is not the Council that it is just virtue signalling does not arise because he/she feels it is being excessively or hypocritically pious but somewhat dysfunctional in its approach. This does align with its perceived appearance of wanting to look good both for simply the sake of looking good and potentially for its own rewards. Should either of these be a problem? Only if there is no higher aim or only a lesser aim obscured. But here there is a higher aim and it is transparent. It is to reduce speeds, albeit largely on the basis of hope. It might do marginally. But if that aim were absent, what would be the nature of the hypocrisy for then there would be hypocrisy? It would not be the hypocrisy of piety, excessive or otherwise. It would be close to not having much in the way of piety at all.

We could move on to the phrase "you heathen". Mostly this is made in the form of a joke. It is not of itself likely to be censored or to be in any high profile case heading speedily towards a court. Such are the legislative mores. But a Godly person might well find it deeply offensive as a perceived or intended ad hominem. It would say to and about her that she is something she is not. Surely the main question here, though, concerns the person who is without religious belief. "You heathen". Does it signal in some way that he is lacking moral virtue? I would think not. Yet this might well change now there are increasing concerns about the phrase "virtue signalling" where virtue is perceived in a context as less than virtuous.

[Dave2002]

We could move on to the phrase "you heathen". Mostly this is made in the form of a joke. It is not of itself likely to be censored or to be in any high profile case heading speedily towards a court.

Curious how some phrases, when spoken and in context often don't have the sort of meaning which the words suggest.
Examples - trying to present them as politely as possible:

"You filthy b*****d"
"You dirty b****r"

The addressee is very probably not dirty, nor filthy nor has any of the other characteristics. These may be spoken by people who are actually friends to each other. If spoken by people who don't know each other, or in a slightly different tone of voice or context, these can be deeply offensive.

A word which became popular a few years ago was "wicked", which may have arisen similarly. Initially it expresses something akin to admiration,
and then comes into more common parlance as something good, to be wished for - and the meaning of the word - again in context - changes completely.

Apologies if the examples at the top are too contentious - I can take this down if people don't like them.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

So

somebody pointing out all the things that they do for charity in order to score points in an argument is "virtue signalling", and Bad Form;

but somebody else accusing them of "virtue signalling" - again purely in order to score points - is equally Bad Form.

[Lat-Literal]

Curious how some phrases, when spoken and in context often don't have the sort of meaning which the words suggest.
Examples - trying to present them as politely as possible:

"You filthy b*****d"
"You dirty b****r"

The addressee is very probably not dirty, nor filthy nor has any of the other characteristics. These may be spoken by people who are actually friends to each other. If spoken by people who don't know each other, or in a slightly different tone of voice or context, these can be deeply offensive.

A word which became popular a few years ago was "wicked", which may have arisen similarly. Initially it expresses something akin to admiration,
and then comes into more common parlance as something good, to be wished for - and the meaning of the word - again in context - changes completely.

Apologies if the examples at the top are too contentious - I can take this down if people don't like them.

I have a picture in my mind in regard to the second word with "asterisks". It is of a couple of aging reprobates, sitting on a bench that is possibly outside a rural pub. Each is chomping on straw. That picture isn't exactly cosy. The figures are probably a bit of a nuisance to some locals. They do, though, have good days as well as bad days. Mostly what they are saying and how they say it entirely lacks clout because in the wider scheme of things they have little relevance. More widely, that word was often selected back in the day for its perceived mildness in contrast to certain other words. Much the same could be said about s*d. They were the choices of those who wished to be a bit punchy or colourful on occasions without really wishing to cause offence. That they have largely gone out of fashion is based upon a peculiar combination of factors. On the one hand, they are generally not felt to be punchy enough and on the other their level of offensiveness might have been seen to have increased in certain circles. Such is the way of life. Contradictory. No room for people to be right.

This is the age when in Britain the use of language that in the longer term was deemed more offensive has been politicised. Placards are regularly waved which say "f--k this" and "b------s to that". Aggressively anti-establishment in tone, they could in theory be somewhat airily brushed aside by any powers that be simply with a sense of their own moral superiority. But deep down the latter have some difficulties with superciliousness. While they try, they are aware that the very same language is used to self-promotional effect in committee rooms and boardrooms. It is now thought in the main to convey strength and even character while others in comparison have a grey, ineffectual, sort of weakness in their talk. Given that double standards are involved, any true perception of authority can only be maintained by a kneejerk need to consider legal redress. Thump someone. Quickly run to the teacher.

I say "in Britain". My sense is that the placard wavers at least were indulging in the ways I have outlined in the United States as long ago as the 1960s. Whatever the context in the here and now, I am reminded perhaps oddly of the Vietnam War. Somewhere along the line - we can probably thank the fictional character from the 1980s Gordon Gecko for this - it entered authoritative business and finance. Ten or so years later it was in elements of governance and we were then in "The Thick of It". Here, the introduction of special advisers was the motor to such shifts. A Civil Service style executive inside the actual Civil Service, separate and often at odds with it. On the occasions I was aware of them, they were the ones with rooms that were so unkempt and disorganised they looked like an adolescent's bedroom at its worst. Those rooms were the ones that were always found to be unpopulated if not quite vacant.

I consider myself rather fortunate in having had minimal contact there. My experience, such as it was, was far closer to "Yes Minister" and the Humphrey Appelbys of this world. They could be covert, manipulative and behind the appearance of charm axe wielding to the point of being almost sinister. However, there was rarely a display of vulgarity for that would to them have equated to losing rather than winning and the very opposite to competitive display. Indeed, why would the high and mighty then have needed to feel that they were in any competition? Consequently, it is easy to think that in any cultural presentation these things are overdone. They may still be but not so much. Influential people love to copy drama.

[french frank]

So

somebody pointing out all the things that they do for charity in order to score points in an argument is "virtue signalling", and Bad Form;

but somebody else accusing them of "virtue signalling" - again purely in order to score points - is equally Bad Form.

Well, exactly my feeling. Even in the case of both being absolutely true, using the actual phrase 'virtual signalling' will surely be BAD FORM?

"Here, I'd just like to signal my virtue by pointing out my several regular donations to charities." Unlikely usage? Post-modern irony?

[Lat-Literal]

From 4626:

Well, as we are now almost one fifth through the 21st Century, yes, they are overdone and they are not so. Not for the first time, any questions relating to such matters are being played out in what some might call culture and it is the cultural sphere which tends ultimately to hold sway. I am somewhat intrigued by what I would see as the double yellow lines syndrome. This is where complaints about street parking are supposedly addressed by the introduction of double yellow lines. What happens is that the problem is solved but only on the street which led to complaints. The parking problem simply moves to the adjoining street and suddenly it all becomes Groundhog Day. To try to explain what I mean by this, I would go back to the first use of the f word on British television. Common lore suggests that this was uttered by Kenneth Tynan. And then on to the film makers' battles with the censors towards the end of that decade after which they were dramatically escalated. Michael Winner and so on. Such moments set the cultural course. They were hardly initiated by those outside the establishment and yet along with protestations about freedom of speech they were designed to provoke a less artistic establishment in terms of its ways. To upset sensibilities - and sensitivities - there as Winner and his ilk would have openly said. They did say - and they were resolute on this point throughout their lives. And yet look at today's perceptions. The criticism ironically is not that the powerful in that age were overly sensitive but that they were insufficiently sensitive where it mattered. In areas, for example, of identity and diversity.

So, what are we to make of this in 2019? It looks for all of the world like a challenging desire to offend was the wrong challenge or a challenge about the wrong thing or even nothing. Perhaps in some ways this might explain how that language is now such a part of life, whether one is in the City or at the Guardian, in Parliament or at Wembley, on the television or on the internet. Its roots were in a concept that was not cutting edge but philosophically lame. Its narrowing down of language merely adds to the very weak nature of its claims and so too does the ongoing inconsistent dancing in and around it. Today, radio in the main is a bastion against it because the legislation almost exclusively requires it to be so. No one knows why. Perhaps it is that there are no pictures involved which conceivably may dilute any of its remaining force. If so, the same is mainly true of the internet which is where most of the hoo-ha takes place. And yet in the case of the latter, there is up until now not quite the same heat as there is about tags which are the subject of specific laws. The laws specifically to address discrimination wherever it might exist. It is this area instead which occupies the minds of the instinctively offended while in power and what the mere public are forever being informed is the biggest issue. That isn't wrong but it is in its ratcheting up of sensitivities a case of double yellow lines occurring on an adjoining street. In other words, it is not that the promotion of vulgarity is at all separate as it is largely assumed but rather that there is little discursive traffic on that street now so most of the vehicles can now be stuck on the next one along.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well, exactly my feeling. Even in the case of both being absolutely true, using the actual phrase 'virtual signalling' will surely be BAD FORM?

Depending on the context, of course It's actually a form of "virtue signalling" to point out "virtue signalling" - "You think that you're winning points by mentioning your works for charity, but I'm cleverer than that and I can see that you're really virtue signalling, and I'm going to let everyone who's listening know that I can see that you're doing this".

"Here, I'd just like to signal my virtue by pointing out my several regular donations to charities." Unlikely usage? Post-modern irony?

- I'm going to use that myself at the next possible opportunity.

(I suppose I'd better start donating to some charities, then.)

[french frank]

- I'm going to use that myself at the next possible opportunity.

(I suppose I'd better start donating to some charities, then.)

Inverted virtue signaller!!!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

[Serial_Apologist]

The first time I remember being accused of virtue signalling was when, in front of my parents as a young boy, I told a boy to stop his bullying, adding "After all, you wouldn't want anybody to do that to you, would you!"; whereupon my dad took me aside and sternly told me, "Don't be such a prig". You can tell from my memory of the incident that it had a powerful effect - after all, I was drawing the consequences of his action to the bully's attention in terms of what it is like to be on the receiving end, assuming he was otherwise unaware of these and needed sensitising to his affects on other people. So accusations of virtue signalling have been around in recent terms, even if not thus described. In this case the implication seems to have been that it would have better not to have addressed the bully from such a perspective, but either demonstrated my moral superiority by giving him a wallop, remaining aloof from the situation (on the grounds that it was up to the bullied one to learn to look after himself and not be dependent on others to come to his rescue), or secretly to go to Teacher and report him. From my father's incorrigeably right wing perspective the first or the second options would have been equally justified, the third not so, because one never sneaked, it was bad form from a social bonding pov. In all probability Dad's opinion on this would chime as consensual with current thinking on such situations, which has changed in the rightward shift in general opinion, albeit with one change from the past, when teachers were regarded with respect by society in general and their authority upheld. However, I am probably drifting off-topic.

[french frank]

The first time I remember being accused of virtue signalling was when, in front of my parents as a young boy, I told a boy to stop his bullying, adding "After all, you wouldn't want anybody to do that to you, would you!"; whereupon my dad took me aside and sternly told me, "Don't be such a prig".

Whatever you might, or should, have done, or not done, it does illustrate the fact that your proto-virtue signalling was not approved of. But if your father had announced publicly that you were "a virtue-signalling prig" that would have been a fault - hence he 'took you aside'. Social media doesn't really offer the alternative of taking people aside so it's said in public. BAD FORM.

[cloughie]

Whatever you might, or should, have done, or not done, it does illustrate the fact that your proto-virtue signalling was not approved of. But if your father had announced publicly that you were "a virtue-signalling prig" that would have been a fault - hence he 'took you aside'. Social media doesn't really offer the alternative of taking people aside so it's said in public. BAD FORM.

Had he done back then he would have been way ahead of his time.

[MrGongGong]

...fol de rol.