Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[oddoneout]

Six Lude Pieces might work. :)

Might be a trip up point for announcers if pronounced as in prelude? Or raise false expectations.....

[vinteuil]

.

... quoi? ludes??

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33428487

.

[french frank]

I've decided that the phrase 'virtue signalling' is unlikeable. It's a way of covering up its implication: "I'm sneering at what you've said, and your motive in saying it." A covert way of putting people down. It's worse than the reality of what's being sneered at. Don't. Just don't.

[cloughie]

I've decided that the phrase [[B]virtue signalling'[B]is unlikeable. It's a way of covering up its implication: "I'm sneering at what you've said, and your motive in saying it." A covert way of putting people down. It's worse than the reality of what's being sneered at. Don't. Just don't.

Not one I’ve heard!

[MrGongGong]

I've decided that the phrase 'virtue signalling' is unlikeable. It's a way of covering up its implication: "I'm sneering at what you've said, and your motive in saying it." A covert way of putting people down. It's worse than the reality of what's being sneered at. Don't. Just don't.

It's a very popular phrase with certain "under bridge dwellers"

[gradus]

It's a very popular phrase with certain "under bridge dwellers"

...fol de rol.

[Lat-Literal]

I've decided that the phrase 'virtue signalling' is unlikeable. It's a way of covering up its implication: "I'm sneering at what you've said, and your motive in saying it." A covert way of putting people down. It's worse than the reality of what's being sneered at. Don't. Just don't.

Do you mean in the sense that, wherever it is used, it seeks to deny any sense of redemption? That it could have undermined or devalued any claims by, say, Fred and Rose West or Fred the Shred that they may have also donated to charitable causes? To have views on angular contexts in which a phrase is arguably most often used is one thing. I'm not so sure that (these) words are worse than every conceivable reality. But I don't like the phrase because I see it as jargon made in social media. The key principle here is in how clamping down on, say, the calling by some of another a Nazi can feel all good and worthy but only until true Nazis parading under another moniker win in the courts on exactly the same grounds.

[french frank]

Not one I’ve heard!

It has appeared here now and again.

It's a very popular phrase with certain "under bridge dwellers"

I suspect that it's a newly acquired phrase (it has apparently in recent times been popularised on social media) which people find reasons to use. But, essentially, it indicates a moral/value judgement by those who use it. It implies that someone has deliberately done or said something in order to convey their 'virtue'. People may very well be 'virtuous' but it's the word 'signalling' that's the problem. "You're doing that as a public gesture to show off your virtue" - with an underlying accusation of hypocrisy. That's how I'd explain it, anyway

[french frank]

Do you mean in the sense that, wherever it is used, it seeks to deny any sense of redemption? That it could have undermined or devalued any claims by, say, Fred and Rose West or Fred the Shred that they may have also donated to charitable causes? To have views on angular contexts in which a phrase is arguably most often used is one thing. I'm not so sure that (these) words are worse than every conceivable reality. But I also don't like the phrase because I see it as jargon made in social media. The key principle here is in how clamping down on, say, the calling by some of another a Nazi can feel all good and worthy but only until true Nazis parading under another moniker win in the courts on exactly the same grounds)

Wot I said before The use of 'signalling' to suggest that people's actions or words have merely been to tell the world what a good person they are. If you have evidence of this, supply it. If you don't have evidence, don't make the accusation.

[Lat-Literal]

Wot I said before The use of 'signalling' to suggest that people's actions or words have merely been to tell the world what a good person they are. If you have evidence of this, supply it. If you don't have evidence, don't make the accusation.

I'm not sure what you mean by accusation. The one about angular contexts? It is widely seen as an update on the phrase "champagne socialist". That has a political dimension and in those circumstances its use would be contextually angular. What I was asking you was something broader. About other contexts where there might be a consideration of redemption. Perjurer when in jail writes about turning to the church. Redemption about which one can look positively as virtue signalling or merely just virtue signalling with nothing good at all?

But that aside, you have suggested it seeks to convey two things. One, a suggestion of hypocrisy. Two, someone telling the world how good they are. The latter does not necessarily imply hypocrisy. So it is a tone you are picking up on. One which is an amalgam. And actually of the three things where it might not be viewed about being about redemption, including the political, it is the comparatively straightforward telling the world how good they are that rings the most true. For what this phrase is actually is simply a new form of holier than thou.

So we are - in whichever context - in the realm of ideas about comparative virtue. The virtue of one person versus the virtue of another or, in the case of redemption, one person's virtue against whatever else they are that is not virtuous. That sort of crux may lead to uneasiness. Less obviously, a greater unease is in how it questions the nature of virtue itself.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not sure what you mean by accusation. The one about angular contexts? It is widely seen as an update on the phrase "champagne socialist". That has a political dimension and in those circumstances its use would be contextually angular. What I was asking you was something broader. About other contexts where there might be a consideration of redemption. Perjurer when in jail writes about turning to the church. Redemption about which one can look positively as virtue signalling or merely just virtue signalling with nothing good at all?

But that aside, you have suggested it seeks to convey two things. One, a suggestion of hypocrisy. Two, someone telling the world how good they are. The latter does not necessarily imply hypocrisy. So it is a tone you are picking up on. One which is an amalgam. And actually of the three things where it might not be viewed about being about redemption, including the political, it is the comparatively straightforward telling the world how good they are that rings the most true. For what this phrase is actually is simply a new form of holier than thou.

...Which could apply equally to both parties: the accuser, and the one accused of "virtue signalling". It takes one to know one. Pot and kettle. (Other clichés are probably available).

[Lat-Literal]

...Which could apply equally to both parties: the accuser, and the one accused of "virtue signalling". It takes one to know one. Pot and kettle. (Other clichés are probably available).

Yes - I agree.

As I indicated in my first post, such things are boomerangs by their very nature.

And that is where one can locate the (almost scientific) principle.

[french frank]

I'm not sure what you mean by accusation. The one about angular contexts?

I didn't mean your accusation, if that's what you understood. I meant that someone who uses the phrase 'virtue signalling' was making a veiled accusation about the person it referred to. If that person had evidence that the 'virtue signalling' was just done to 'look good' in some way then they should back that up with evidence as to why they thought that ( e.g. "I think you're/he is just virtue signalling because in private I've heard you/him say quite the opposite"). If they had no evidence, they shouldn't use the phrase against anyone.

I agree with you that it's social media jargon.

[Lat-Literal]

I didn't mean your accusation, if that's what you understood. I meant that someone who uses the phrase 'virtue signalling' was making a veiled accusation about the person it referred to. If that person had evidence that the 'virtue signalling' was just done to 'look good' in some way then they should back that up with evidence as to why they thought that ( e.g. "I think you're/he is just virtue signalling because in private I've heard you/him say quite the opposite". If they had no evidence, they shouldn't use the phrase against anyone.

I agree with you that it's social media jargon.

I didn't understand the accusation point so thank you for the clarification. Biologically, signalling is an honest denoting. Pejoratively, it may mean just done to "look good". That, though, can often apply to empty gesture. I would humbly suggest that this of itself does not necessarily mean hypocrisy, at least in an overtly knowing sense. The imposition of 20mph speed limits without adequate measures of enforcement is window dressing on one level. But it can also be genuinely well meaning, albeit based more upon honest hope than, say, big logic.

I could say to the Council "you are just virtue signalling". I wouldn't wish to be implying with that phrase that in all honesty they want every driver to be going along at 40mph or that they would be choosing simultaneously to do that themselves. 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".

[oddoneout]

It has appeared here now and again.



I suspect that it's a newly acquired phrase (it has apparently in recent times been popularised on social media) which people find reasons to use. But, essentially, it indicates a moral/value judgement by those who use it. It implies that someone has deliberately done or said something in order to convey their 'virtue'. People may very well be 'virtuous' but it's the word 'signalling' that's the problem. "You're doing that as a public gesture to show off your virtue" - with an underlying accusation of hypocrisy. That's how I'd explain it, anyway

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.