Moral Grandstanding.

To engage in moral grandstanding, it’s the motivation behind the comments or statements that really matters: the individual is seeking to gain status, rather than simply to express their sincerely-held beliefs. Moral grandstanding can take many forms, the researchers write: “in a quest to impress peers, someone may trump up moral charges, pile on in cases of public shaming, announce that anyone who disagrees with them is obviously wrong, or exaggerate emotional displays in taking ideological positions.” They may also ramp up the situation, seeking to out-do others in their outrage. This concern with increasing one’s influence, rank or social status is, of course, a common characteristic of discourse on social media.


https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/11/14/psychological-study-of-moral-grandstanding-helps-explain-why-social-media-is-so-toxic/


Glad this doesn't happen around here.

It's not hard to single out the "moral grandstanders" in real life.

"Actions speak louder than words.."

They're the ones who don't act on those assertions, don't stand up for what they believe in, don't "put their money (and efforts) where their mouth is..".

"Political ideology had no relationship with moral grandstanding scores."

Maddog, I know exactly what you mean. I don’t think people who engage in this behaviour always know they’re doing it.

I’ll simplify this thread: I have always said “I simply don’t KNOW” to most topics, because really, I don’t.
People who say they know things for a fact, or won’t even tell you “Hmmm, you have a point there”, are just wanting to “win”. But there’s no winning, because nobody knows anything for a FACT...

UNLESS THEY WERE THERE.

I know I’ve simplified it, but this thread is interesting.  
Never heard of “Moral Grandstanding” before but to me, it reads “egotistical and pompous”.

Ps it also sounds like “I’m right because I sound like I’m a GOOD person, to myself, and anyone listening”

Of course, it's really easy to kill a debate by accusing someone who really does mean what he/she is saying of "moral grandstanding."

I'm sure people have done that to allow themselves to ignore many, many people who were doing their best to shout from the rooftops about a problem that nobody seemed to be trying to solve.

Accusing someone of moral grandstanding can often have the same effect as spuriously accusing someone of being a racist -- it diverts or shuts down the real debate, and the actual topic never ends up getting discussed.

I don’t think you’ll get many honest answers either, debate forums tend to bring out egos rather than heart.

I hope I never get like that.

Ben Reilly wrote:Of course, it's really easy to kill a debate by accusing someone who really does mean what he/she is saying of "moral grandstanding."

I'm sure people have done that to allow themselves to ignore many, many people who were doing their best to shout from the rooftops about a problem that nobody seemed to be trying to solve.

Accusing someone of moral grandstanding can often have the same effect as spuriously accusing someone of being a racist -- it diverts or shuts down the real debate, and the actual topic never ends up getting discussed.

Of course that happens sometimes, by stupid people who can’t debate!
But it’s a real thing, isn’t it, so what of the actual topic, the people who do this “Moral Grand Standing”?

What do you think of those people?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Of course, it's really easy to kill a debate by accusing someone who really does mean what he/she is saying of "moral grandstanding."

I'm sure people have done that to allow themselves to ignore many, many people who were doing their best to shout from the rooftops about a problem that nobody seemed to be trying to solve.

Accusing someone of moral grandstanding can often have the same effect as spuriously accusing someone of being a racist -- it diverts or shuts down the real debate, and the actual topic never ends up getting discussed.

Of course that happens sometimes, by stupid people who can’t debate!
But it’s a real thing, isn’t it, so what of the actual topic, the people who do this “Moral Grand Standing”?

What do you think of those people?

I just think they're silly, I don't really worry about them.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Of course, it's really easy to kill a debate by accusing someone who really does mean what he/she is saying of "moral grandstanding."

I'm sure people have done that to allow themselves to ignore many, many people who were doing their best to shout from the rooftops about a problem that nobody seemed to be trying to solve.

Accusing someone of moral grandstanding can often have the same effect as spuriously accusing someone of being a racist -- it diverts or shuts down the real debate, and the actual topic never ends up getting discussed.

Of course that happens sometimes, by stupid people who can’t debate!
But it’s a real thing, isn’t it, so what of the actual topic, the people who do this “Moral Grand Standing”?

What do you think of those people?

I just think they're silly, I don't really worry about them.

I make you right. They’re not worth debating with.

Ben Reilly wrote:Of course, it's really easy to kill a debate by accusing someone who really does mean what he/she is saying of "moral grandstanding."

I'm sure people have done that to allow themselves to ignore many, many people who were doing their best to shout from the rooftops about a problem that nobody seemed to be trying to solve.

Accusing someone of moral grandstanding can often have the same effect as spuriously accusing someone of being a racist -- it diverts or shuts down the real debate, and the actual topic never ends up getting discussed.

You  can really believe what you say, while engaging in moral grandstanding.


In fact I think that's usually the case.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Of course, it's really easy to kill a debate by accusing someone who really does mean what he/she is saying of "moral grandstanding."

I'm sure people have done that to allow themselves to ignore many, many people who were doing their best to shout from the rooftops about a problem that nobody seemed to be trying to solve.

Accusing someone of moral grandstanding can often have the same effect as spuriously accusing someone of being a racist -- it diverts or shuts down the real debate, and the actual topic never ends up getting discussed.

You  can really believe what you say, while engaging in moral grandstanding.


In fact I think that's usually the case.  

So this is really just about a subjective evaluation of style points. It's not what you say but how you say it... in my subjective, biased opinion.

And, of course, my arrogant, self-serving, dare I say egotistical need to tell that "moral grandstander" what's in his /her mind (because I know better than they do).

Actually, some people exaggerate for effect, it's just their communication style.

Others may feel so desperate for others to understand their point of view that they become emotional - overly so, to those who have no experience with the issue at hand.

After all, I can only imagine that rape is horrible, I can't know how horrible it really is because I've never been raped.

So really, when we accuse someone who is expressing a sincere belief of moral grandstanding, what we're really doing is saying we don't want to listen to the meaning of what they say, for whatever reason.

The accusation only deflects from the topic, as I said before. It's a way of shooing away an uncomfortable idea.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You  can really believe what you say, while engaging in moral grandstanding.


In fact I think that's usually the case.  

So this is really just about a subjective evaluation of style points. It's not what you say but how you say it... in my subjective, biased opinion.

And, of course, my arrogant, self-serving, dare I say egotistical need to tell that "moral grandstander" what's in his /her mind (because I know better than they do).

Actually, some people exaggerate for effect, it's just their communication style.

Others may feel so desperate for others to understand their point of view that they become emotional - overly so, to those who have no experience with the issue at hand.

After all, I can only imagine that rape is horrible, I can't know how horrible it really is because I've never been raped.

So really, when we accuse someone who is expressing a sincere belief of moral grandstanding, what we're really doing is saying we don't want to listen to the meaning of what they say, for whatever reason.

The accusation only deflects from the topic, as I said before. It's a way of shooing away an uncomfortable idea.

Deserves more than just +1

Damn, that was an excellent reply

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You  can really believe what you say, while engaging in moral grandstanding.


In fact I think that's usually the case.  

So this is really just about a subjective evaluation of style points. It's not what you say but how you say it... in my subjective, biased opinion.

And, of course, my arrogant, self-serving, dare I say egotistical need to tell that "moral grandstander" what's in his /her mind (because I know better than they do).

Actually, some people exaggerate for effect, it's just their communication style.

Others may feel so desperate for others to understand their point of view that they become emotional - overly so, to those who have no experience with the issue at hand.

After all, I can only imagine that rape is horrible, I can't know how horrible it really is because I've never been raped.

So really, when we accuse someone who is expressing a sincere belief of moral grandstanding, what we're really doing is saying we don't want to listen to the meaning of what they say, for whatever reason.

The accusation only deflects from the topic, as I said before. It's a way of shooing away an uncomfortable idea.

I think rape is one of those crimes that most civilized people can agree is wrong.

The moral grandstanding would occur if you tried to attack someone as a rapist without there being enough evidence of a rape.

Racism is another problem that still exists to a degree. However, Shuan King is a moral grandstander as he blows it out of proportion with emotional outbursts, that are often found to be lacking in facts.

I’m not that sure why this Moral Grandstanding is being denied as a thing? I mean, is it just a catchphrase like “triggered”? Because that’s a thing, right? But people who get triggered may say it isn’t a thing

I’m a tad confused.

eddie wrote:I’m not that sure why this Moral Grandstanding is being denied as a thing? I mean, is it just a catchphrase like “triggered”? Because that’s a thing, right? But people who get triggered may say it isn’t a thing

I agree, but it’s a part of the alt.truth/alt.right arsenal.  If one wants to both minimize another poster’s point, and accuse him or her of having false motives, it’s a great retort.  It’s very much like: s/he’s just being a drama queen.

Moral grandstanding is always what the other guys do.  It’s just another modifying phrase, always pointed away from oneself.

Maddog wrote:To engage in moral grandstanding, it’s the motivation behind the comments or statements that really matters: the individual is seeking to gain status, rather than simply to express their sincerely-held beliefs. Moral grandstanding can take many forms, the researchers write: “in a quest to impress peers, someone may trump up moral charges, pile on in cases of public shaming, announce that anyone who disagrees with them is obviously wrong, or exaggerate emotional displays in taking ideological positions.” They may also ramp up the situation, seeking to out-do others in their outrage. This concern with increasing one’s influence, rank or social status is, of course, a common characteristic of discourse on social media.


https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/11/14/psychological-study-of-moral-grandstanding-helps-explain-why-social-media-is-so-toxic/
Glad this doesn't happen around here.  

Ah this is the conundrum about forums.
It is because of these very qualities [moral grandstanding, egotism, narcism etc] that forums work.
If some members did not have these qualities, discussion threads would be short and forums would be too quiet.
They may not be nice traits as such, but they are the very ones that make the wheels of forums turn & turn.
As people without these traits are usually content to just browse quietly and contribute next to nothing.

Like it or not, forums attract a type.

The reason I am on forums is to make a difference - and do my own small bit to improve to the world that my offspring will grow up in.

Occasionally I might play 'the devils advocate' in order to spark more life into a discussion thread. But I will never do blatant fake grandstanding cos my time is precious to me and I try to use it efficiently.

Jules wrote:

Maddog wrote:To engage in moral grandstanding, it’s the motivation behind the comments or statements that really matters: the individual is seeking to gain status, rather than simply to express their sincerely-held beliefs. Moral grandstanding can take many forms, the researchers write: “in a quest to impress peers, someone may trump up moral charges, pile on in cases of public shaming, announce that anyone who disagrees with them is obviously wrong, or exaggerate emotional displays in taking ideological positions.” They may also ramp up the situation, seeking to out-do others in their outrage. This concern with increasing one’s influence, rank or social status is, of course, a common characteristic of discourse on social media.


https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/11/14/psychological-study-of-moral-grandstanding-helps-explain-why-social-media-is-so-toxic/
Glad this doesn't happen around here.  

Ah this is the conundrum about forums.
It is because of these very qualities [moral grandstanding, egotism, narcism etc] that forums work.
If some members did not have these qualities, discussion threads would be short and forums would be too quiet.
They may not be nice traits as such,  but they are the very ones that make the wheels of forums turn & turn.
As people without these traits are usually content to just browse quietly and contribute next to nothing.

Like it or not, forums attract a type.

OK Boomer.

Gasp!!!
I'm mortally insulted.

'Wolfie wrote:

It's not hard to single out the "moral grandstanders" in real life.

"Actions speak louder than words.."

They're the ones who don't act on those assertions, don't stand up for what they believe in, don't "put their money (and efforts) where their mouth is..".

lily allen being the perfect example

j k rowling being another

actually there's loads


moral grandstanding is the same phrase as virtue signalling imo

gelico wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

It's not hard to single out the "moral grandstanders" in real life.

"Actions speak louder than words.."

They're the ones who don't act on those assertions, don't stand up for what they believe in, don't "put their money (and efforts) where their mouth is..".

lily allen being the perfect example

j k rowling being another

actually there's loads


moral grandstanding is the same phrase as virtue signalling imo

Why jK Rowling?

gelico wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

It's not hard to single out the "moral grandstanders" in real life.

"Actions speak louder than words.."

They're the ones who don't act on those assertions, don't stand up for what they believe in, don't "put their money (and efforts) where their mouth is..".

lily allen being the perfect example

j k rowling being another

actually there's loads


moral grandstanding is the same phrase as virtue signalling imo

Interesting. Wonder if you can name anyone on the Right who goes in for 'moral grandstanding' - or is it something you only see from the Left?

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:



lily allen being the perfect example

j k rowling being another

actually there's loads


moral grandstanding is the same phrase as virtue signalling imo

Why jK Rowling?

i'm not sure jk rowling was the person i was trying to bring to mind

but definitely lily allen

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:



lily allen being the perfect example

j k rowling being another

actually there's loads


moral grandstanding is the same phrase as virtue signalling imo

Interesting. Wonder if you can name anyone on the Right who goes in for 'moral grandstanding' - or is it something you only see from the Left?

strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding

you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue

interesting,,,,,

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:



lily allen being the perfect example

j k rowling being another

actually there's loads


moral grandstanding is the same phrase as virtue signalling imo

Interesting. Wonder if you can name anyone on the Right who goes in for 'moral grandstanding' - or is it something you only see from the Left?

strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding

you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue

interesting,,,,,

Yeah, see, that’s something that I NEVER do when I see someone mention a celebrity...wonder whether they’re left or right.
I don’t see people as left or right, I just look at their statements.

Somehow, seeing people as left or right seems as ignorant as seeing someone as black or white before passing judgement...

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:



lily allen being the perfect example

j k rowling being another

actually there's loads


moral grandstanding is the same phrase as virtue signalling imo

Interesting. Wonder if you can name anyone on the Right who goes in for 'moral grandstanding' - or is it something you only see from the Left?

strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding

you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue

interesting,,,,,

If I had my head in the sand, it would be less obvious. We were not long ago discussing 'dangerous' clapping bans though, and you are one of the frequent critics of political correctness and who rarely condemns anything said or done by opposing political figures like Farage or Trump. Moral grandstanding/virtue signalling is one of those things often thrown at left leaning commentators by those who have few complaints at all about real issues like income inequality and climate change.

You claim to only see moral grandstanding in people who speak on progressive issues (we'll leave the wings behind shall we, since some apparently don't understand them as terms of convenience) yet never see similar in those who espouse less progressive views.

Unless you have, in which case prove me wrong.

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:



lily allen being the perfect example

j k rowling being another

actually there's loads


moral grandstanding is the same phrase as virtue signalling imo

Interesting. Wonder if you can name anyone on the Right who goes in for 'moral grandstanding' - or is it something you only see from the Left?

strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding

you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue

interesting,,,,,

Yeah, see, that’s something that I NEVER do when I see someone mention a celebrity...wonder whether they’re left or right.
I don’t see people as left or right, I just look at their statements.

Somehow, seeing people as left or right seems as ignorant as seeing someone as black or white before passing judgement...

You mean you can't tell? Like when someone posts about gay rights or global warming or racism, you can't tell whether they're right or left?

I can always tell, I thought most people could!

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:


strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding

you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue

interesting,,,,,

If I had my head in the sand, it would be less obvious. We were not long ago discussing 'dangerous' clapping bans though, and you are one of the frequent critics of political correctness and who rarely condemns anything said or done by opposing political figures like Farage or Trump. Moral grandstanding/virtue signalling is one of those things often thrown at left leaning commentators by those who have few complaints at all about real issues like income inequality and climate change.

well just on those two topics alone i can say moral grandstanding would be imo

those well knowns who bang on about income equality and publicly wring their hands over how unfair it is and how workers are exploited blah blah while at the same time swanning around in a pair of Nikes that were more than likely produced in some Vietnamese sweatshop

those well knowns who publicly wring their hands about climate change and feel the need to jet around the world causing ten times the carbon footprint of the average Joe in order to preach to the average Joe about what changes they (the average Joes) should be making

and it goes on, those who publicly preach about building walls is wrong while living in highly secure gated mansions with security. etc etc etc ad nauseum

I think it just comes down to certain individuals who have a need for attention and a need for other people to see them as good. that in itself isn't a bad thing as such but it's the hypocrisy of the ''listen to my fabulous words and tell me how good I am but please ignore what I'm actually doing'' attitude that grinds my gears


You claim to only see moral grandstanding in people who speak on progressive issues (we'll leave the wings behind shall we, since some apparently don't understand them as terms of convenience) yet never see similar in those who espouse less progressive views.

well, now you mentioned above the ban on clapping,,,,,are you putting that in the category of progressive?

if this is an example of a progressive issue then damn right but it goes more than moral grandstanding in that instance

also, if that's the case, then we are completely at odds with what progressive actually means before we even start because i see a ban on clapping as REgressive, retarded and downright fuckwitted.


also what do you mean by espousing ''less progressive views''? do you mean those who support clapping?

you would have to give me some examples on that one. It could be that I have just completely misunderstood what you were saying.

as for Farage, most people think he's an arse who just says whatever the hell he wants to, and doesn't seem to give a shit who is insulted by it. Trump too for that matter.

but that doesn't have anything to do with moral grandstanding.

again, if you could give me some actual examples of what you mean it would help

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yeah, see, that’s something that I NEVER do when I see someone mention a celebrity...wonder whether they’re left or right.
I don’t see people as left or right, I just look at their statements.

Somehow, seeing people as left or right seems as ignorant as seeing someone as black or white before passing judgement...

You mean you can't tell? Like when someone posts about gay rights or global warming or racism, you can't tell whether they're right or left?

I can always tell, I thought most people could!

not really, ben. it depends what the topic is and what you choose to post and what you focus on

for example, I am a big supporter of the socialist policies of the NHS, free education, and all. It's a fabulous thing. I also support gay rights. If I chose to only post on those issues I would come across probably as left wing.

I also support the rights of religious people to refuse service over something that offends them. I support the rights of women to refuse to wax male genetalia, even if the owner of said genetalis identifies as a woman. I support law and order. I'm a big fan of more personal responsibility less state responsibility. I can be quite a traditionalist in some ways. That all makes me sound right wing

in truth, most people are a mixture

gelico wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yeah, see, that’s something that I NEVER do when I see someone mention a celebrity...wonder whether they’re left or right.
I don’t see people as left or right, I just look at their statements.

Somehow, seeing people as left or right seems as ignorant as seeing someone as black or white before passing judgement...

You mean you can't tell? Like when someone posts about gay rights or global warming or racism, you can't tell whether they're right or left?

I can always tell, I thought most people could!

not really, ben.  it depends what the topic is and what you choose to post and what you focus on

for example, I am a big supporter of the socialist policies of the NHS, free education, and all.  It's a fabulous thing.  I also support gay rights.  If I chose to only post on those issues I would come across probably as left wing.

I also support the rights of religious people to refuse service over something that offends them.  I support the rights of women to refuse to wax male genetalia, even if the owner of said genetalis identifies as a woman.  I support law and order.  I'm a big fan of more personal responsibility less state responsibility.  I can be quite a traditionalist in some ways.  That all makes me sound right wing

in truth, most people are a mixture

You sound like you don't think there is a majority on the left who would also say they support the right of a woman not to wax male genitalia, say that they support law and order (who doesn't?), and say they support personal responsibility.

Now, I would say that if your business is "open to the public," that means you don't get to refuse service to a law-abiding member of the public -- and I would imagine there are plenty on the right who'd agree with that.

So it's not just that most people are a mixture. It's that the left and the right have most of their values in common with one another.

Outside of a handful of divisive issues that everyone likes to focus on, the left and the right are mostly the same.

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:


strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding

you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue

interesting,,,,,

If I had my head in the sand, it would be less obvious. We were not long ago discussing 'dangerous' clapping bans though, and you are one of the frequent critics of political correctness and who rarely condemns anything said or done by opposing political figures like Farage or Trump. Moral grandstanding/virtue signalling is one of those things often thrown at left leaning commentators by those who have few complaints at all about real issues like income inequality and climate change.

You claim to only see moral grandstanding in people who speak on progressive issues (we'll leave the wings behind shall we, since some apparently don't understand them as terms of convenience) yet never see similar in those who espouse less progressive views.

Unless you have, in which case prove me wrong.

The right is more than equally capable of engaging in moral grandstanding.

"Political ideology had no relationship with moral grandstanding scores. But higher scores on both sub-scales did correlate with greater reported conflict with people holding different political and moral views (and this wasn’t simply because of differences in participants’ personality traits)."


From the article. Once again, people have reverted to their left-right stance and have missed the point. Both sides are equally to blame, while each side points at the other and blames them.

Maddog wrote:"Political ideology had no relationship with moral grandstanding scores. But higher scores on both sub-scales did correlate with greater reported conflict with people holding different political and moral views (and this wasn’t simply because of differences in participants’ personality traits)."


From the article.  Once again, people have reverted to their left-right stance and have missed the point.  Both sides are equally to blame, while each side points at the other and blames them.  

I only brought left/right into this because "moral grandstanding" is often used as a synonym of "virtue signaling," and both terms are abused by the right to the point that you'd think anybody speaking out about any progressive issue doesn't believe what they're saying and only wants people to think of them as a good person.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:"Political ideology had no relationship with moral grandstanding scores. But higher scores on both sub-scales did correlate with greater reported conflict with people holding different political and moral views (and this wasn’t simply because of differences in participants’ personality traits)."


From the article.  Once again, people have reverted to their left-right stance and have missed the point.  Both sides are equally to blame, while each side points at the other and blames them.  

I only brought left/right into this because "moral grandstanding" is often used as a synonym of "virtue signaling," and both terms are abused by the right to the point that you'd think anybody speaking out about any progressive issue doesn't believe what they're saying and only wants people to think of them as a good person.

I know why you did it.

But progress would be more likely if people stopped doing it.

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Interesting. Wonder if you can name anyone on the Right who goes in for 'moral grandstanding' - or is it something you only see from the Left?

strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding



you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue  interesting,,,,,  

Only because the examples you gave FOCUSED on two well known LW'ers.

No one tweets more prolifically than nutjob Trump, and his supporters, and Alex Jones and co. Yet none of those RW'ers came to your mind, even after you've had all this time to think up more names.  You could only think of Lilly & JKR.

You say you were not deliberately trying to attach grandstanding to LW'ers but your brain was SUBCONSCIOUSLY  doing so, nevertheless.

See, if opinions chime in with our own opinions, we do not see them as exceptional or remarkable in any way, hence our brains automatically tune them out.

Whereas if we disagree with someone's opinions, then we see their opinions as remarkable ...... and hence we attach tags like ''grandstander, virtue signaller, SJW, doogooder, socialist" etc to that person.

We do not attach such tags to people whom we agree with.

JKR is a good soul and does not deserve to be rubbished, just because she does not folow the selfish, self serving RW narrative.

That’s unfair actually. You’re assuming that Gelico was consciously thinking of these two women’s political leanings.

Not all of us think about politics if we mention something about someone.

eddie wrote:That’s unfair actually. You’re assuming that Gelico was consciously thinking of these two women’s political leanings.
Not all of us think about politics if we mention something about someone.

I wasn't assuming, it was obvious.

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:


strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding

you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue

interesting,,,,,

Yeah, see, that’s something that I NEVER do when I see someone mention a celebrity...wonder whether they’re left or right.
I don’t see people as left or right, I just look at their statements.

Somehow, seeing people as left or right seems as ignorant as seeing someone as black or white before passing judgement...

Well, peoples' statements are based on whether they are LW or RW.
I mean, how else do we know if people are LW or RW, if not by the statements they make?

Jules wrote:

gelico wrote:


strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding



you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue  interesting,,,,,  

Only because the examples you gave FOCUSED on two well known LW'ers.

No one tweets more prolifically than nutjob Trump, and his supporters, and Alex Jones and co. Yet none of those RW'ers came to your mind, even after you've had all this time to think up more names.  You could only think of Lilly & JKR.

You say you were not deliberately trying to attach grandstanding to LW'ers but your brain was SUBCONSCIOUSLY  doing so, nevertheless.

yeah, but jules i don't follow trump, nor alex jones, nor does anyone i follow so i don't see any of their nutjob tweets

lily allen was on twitter crying over labour manifesto, not sure if she's spoofing or not which is a bit of a concern

but i see more tweets from LWers than right.

who knows maybe SUBCONCIOUSLY I'm more connected with the left

Jules wrote:

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:


strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding

you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue

interesting,,,,,

Yeah, see, that’s something that I NEVER do when I see someone mention a celebrity...wonder whether they’re left or right.
I don’t see people as left or right, I just look at their statements.

Somehow, seeing people as left or right seems as ignorant as seeing someone as black or white before passing judgement...

Well, peoples' statements are based on whether they are LW or RW.
I mean, how else do we know if people are LW or RW, if not by the statements they make?

I just don’t assume and i also take a comment for what it is without wondering about which team they are with.

lily allen is using some kind of app i think to give the impression she's crying

i have no idea why

She's a bit of a drama queen and she does have some issues but her heart is in the right place. She just needs to shed some of her overly idealistic notions that's all.

gelico wrote:

Jules wrote:

gelico wrote:


strange though it may seem, les it was focusing only on individual behaviour/comments/tweets that i've seen and lily allen sprang to mind straight away

i don't care whether she is left or right, i see her as someone who indulges in moral grandstanding



you are the one who seems to be focused on the ''left'' /''right'' issue  interesting,,,,,  

Only because the examples you gave FOCUSED on two well known LW'ers.

No one tweets more prolifically than nutjob Trump, and his supporters, and Alex Jones and co. Yet none of those RW'ers came to your mind, even after you've had all this time to think up more names.  You could only think of Lilly & JKR.

You say you were not deliberately trying to attach grandstanding to LW'ers but your brain was SUBCONSCIOUSLY  doing so, nevertheless.

yeah, but jules i don't follow trump, nor alex jones, nor does anyone i follow so i don't see any of their nutjob tweets

lily allen was on twitter crying over labour manifesto, not sure if she's spoofing or not which is a bit of a concern

but i see more tweets from LWers than right.

who knows maybe SUBCONCIOUSLY I'm more connected with the left

Nah, actors, singers, writers, scientists, directors and TV personalities all tend to be left leaning. Of the famous only mega rich business people tend to lean right. Wonder why that is?

Jules wrote:See, if opinions chime in with our own opinions,  we do not see them as exceptional or remarkable in any way, hence our brains automatically tune them out.

Whereas if we disagree with someone's opinions, then we see their opinions as remarkable ...... and hence we attach tags like ''grandstander, virtue signaller, SJW, doogooder, socialist" etc to that person.

We do not attach such tags to people whom we agree with.

JKR is a good soul and does not deserve to be rubbished, just because she does not folow the selfish, self serving RW narrative.

yeah, i don't think JKR was who i was trying to bring to mind
here's another example of what i'm trying to say - climate/environment

we have Greta Thunberg being invited here, there and God knows where just in order to shout at people and get angry. she has only come to prominence over the last year or so cos she bunked off school and encouraged others to do the same. only she knows why? only she knows what good she thinks she's doing but it doesn't matter because as far as the media is concerned it's a case of all hail Greta, isn't she marvellous? is she? Personally, I don't think so

on the other hand you have Boyan Slat who is also very concerned about the environment. worked his butt of at school and came up with a project he worked on in order to collect plastics from our oceans. no media, no highlights, no public acclaim. no one seems to have ever even heard of him


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ocean_Cleanup

he is doing a lot of good, slowly but surely, he is working for the greater good without any kind of acknowledgement or thanks or fireworks or invites to special delegations, worshipped, fawned upon and generally seen as some kind of icon.

on the other hand you have Greta who does get the acknowledgements, the thanks, the fireworks, the acclaim, the invites the hero worship and generally seen as some kind of icon, and yet she does fuck all of any real consequence. she hasn't worked to make any changes all she has done is moan, preach and shout at people




that's the difference

Jules wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yeah, see, that’s something that I NEVER do when I see someone mention a celebrity...wonder whether they’re left or right.
I don’t see people as left or right, I just look at their statements.

Somehow, seeing people as left or right seems as ignorant as seeing someone as black or white before passing judgement...

Well, peoples' statements are based on whether they are LW or RW.
I mean, how else do we know if people are LW or RW, if not by the statements they make?

Huh?

The world isn't binary.

Maddog wrote:

Jules wrote:

Well, peoples' statements are based on whether they are LW or RW.
I mean, how else do we know if people are LW or RW, if not by the statements they make?

Huh?

The world isn't binary.

Increasingly, it is.

I prefer to focus on the message, rather than playing psychologist to the messenger.