[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

Nanny state, Political correctness, they're oppressive things, and human beings don't like being oppressed. I wouldn't even call them "the right" they're just normal people who mainly come from usual Labour heartlands.

How can you be oppressed by nonsense terms?....They don't mean anything, up to a few years ago those phrases didn't exist.
They were invented by right wing commentators to demean, ridicule and reduce the impact of what was being said in defence of any socioeconomic political progressive argument.
'Virtue signalling' can anybody tell me why being a good person and being seen to do good things or champion good things is wrong?..
'Political correctness'.. law and order, Justice.. what could be wrong with that? We brits love rules and regulations when did they become taboo? 'Snowflakes' ? What's that? It may have a definition now because the inventor managed to get the use of it global due to its viral appeal of being a generic insult to mostly young left leaning people who take an interest in social issues.

The traditional labour heartlands have been targeted by and bombarded with these negative labels. They mean nothing and I for one don't expect the use of these derogatory terms to survive one the conservatives have lost the next election.
It is on their best interest to keep the pressure on to subdue progressive groups and individuals by any means necessary.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'Virtue signalling' can anybody tell me why being a good person and being seen to do good things or champion good things is wrong?..

Because virtue signalling is not just being a good person. Its pretending to be that person because thats how you were told a good person should be/what they should think/etc.

Its the internet/modern day equvilant of..like..those people who would make a huge fuss about giving money to a beggar so that everyone knew they did it so everyone knew they were a good person. Like, IDK those who film themselves giving the homeless a hundred quid, and post it around, not actually caring about the homeless, caring about their public image more and hoping i will go viral or something. If you took issue with those ridiculous types of twats, would that be 'taking issue with those who give to the homeless'? Its more about pointing out they are clearly doing it for the wong reasons, for attention, rather than actually caring. Loads of people help the homeless each day without making a song and dance about it, because they do just want to help. Those who do it for attention, are technically doing a good thing I guess, but for self serving reasons which does..dim the goodness somewhat

Thats how I see virtue signalling. Being a good person..is very different.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Because virtue signalling is not just being a good person. Its pretending to be that person because thats how you were told a good person should be/what they should think/etc.

Its the internet/modern day equvilanant of..like..those people who would make a huge fuss about giving money to a beggar so that everyone knew they did it so everyone knew they were a good person. Like, IDK those who film themselves giving the homeless a hundred quid, and post it around, not actually caring about the homeless, caring about their public image more and hoping i will go viral or something. If you ook issue with those ridiculous types of twats, would that be 'taking issue with those who give to the homeless'? Its more about pointing out they are clearly doing it for the wong reasons, for attention, rather than actually caring. Loads of people help the homeless each day without making a song and dance about it, because they do just want to help. Those who do it for attention, are technically doing a good thing I guess, but for self serving reasons which does..dim the goodness somewhat

Thats how I see virtue signalling. Being a good person..is very different.

Sure, that's what its supposed to mean, but it seems used at every opportunity, and never for its intended purpose.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Because virtue signalling is not just being a good person. Its pretending to be that person because thats how you were told a good person should be/what they should think/etc.

Its the internet/modern day equvilant of..like..those people who would make a huge fuss about giving money to a beggar so that everyone knew they did it so everyone knew they were a good person. Like, IDK those who film themselves giving the homeless a hundred quid, and post it around, not actually caring about the homeless, caring about their public image more and hoping i will go viral or something. If you took issue with those ridiculous types of twats, would that be 'taking issue with those who give to the homeless'? Its more about pointing out they are clearly doing it for the wong reasons, for attention, rather than actually caring. Loads of people help the homeless each day without making a song and dance about it, because they do just want to help. Those who do it for attention, are technically doing a good thing I guess, but for self serving reasons which does..dim the goodness somewhat

Thats how I see virtue signalling. Being a good person..is very different.

Well that's one take on it and yes I see why this people are annoying but are they the only ones who get tarred with this brush?
Even voicing that you would like to say have a small increase in income tax for social care and that's virtue signalling, basically anything where the outcome is for the greater good, agreeing with rights, social justice or championing causes for marginalised groups.
Not everyone cares for selfish reasons, speaking about helping is not a crime either to be fair, it spreads the word and highlights how cuts have affected communities or deregulation has created a lack of accountability...
Anyone that asks questions that relate to those less fortunate than themselves are accused of virtue signalling as a way to shame them from caring... That's how I see it.

Why? Because the social construct preferred by conservatives is laissez-faire, sink or swim.. I'm alright jack.
Theres no such thing as society, individualism.
We're not meant to care about anyone else, so caring about others is derided and mocked to create a backlash against anyone who dare suggest anything that might be considered progressive.

[Beso]

Why is it taken more serious if the right gets more popular..as opposed to the left!


We are in a day and age that no way will another war be fought because of fascism...to think that, you might as well have a tin foiled hat over your head.

[Oliver_W]

I've heard both left and right wing people claim that the BBC is biased in favour of the other, which makes me think it's fairly balanced.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I've heard both left and right wing people claim that the BBC is biased in favour of the other, which makes me think it's fairly balanced.

And where is the evidence of left wing bias? I haven't heard any. Not recently.
The accusations of left wing bias was back in 2013.. since then there has been a restructuring of the BBC and as of 2018 the bias has effectively shifted right.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I've heard both left and right wing people claim that the BBC is biased in favour of the other, which makes me think it's fairly balanced.

Yeah I would agree with this actually. If both sides have an issue with it, then its about as centre ground as possible really

[Kizzy]

Again in say the last 3yrs what has the BBC reported that could be said to have a left leaning bias?..
Where is the evidence? I heard sombody say once is not proof of anything.

[Twosugars]

Kunsberg is pro tory all the time

[James]

It's one of the features of this online political-debate we have now (not saying this forum, more Twitter etc.) that people get a persecution complex about the media being unfair to their own politics.

It's what happens when people get dogmatic about their views. They think their own opinion is the obvious right opinion so anything that doesn't back that up completely must be biased to the other side.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by James

It's one of the features of this online political-debate we have now (not saying this forum, more Twitter etc.) that people get a persecution complex about the media being unfair to their own politics.

It's what happens when people get dogmatic about their views. They think their own opinion is the obvious right opinion so anything that doesn't back that up completely must be biased to the other side.

I don't have a persecution complex if that's what you are inferring here, its been well documented in many studies over say the last 3/4 years thst media bias is an issue in the UK, our standards are falling when it comes to openness and transparency. I'll find you some examples.
People have always been dogmatic, whether with a soapbox in 1919 or via Twitter in 2019, it's the nature of politics and opinion but when you have evidence of bias to back up your suspicions then thst changes the landscape doesn't it?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...381.html%3famp
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ope...-can-do-about/
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8320691.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the....huttoninquiry